BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Cockburn v Burn. [1679] Mor 5794 (21 February 1679) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1679/Mor1405794-032.html Cite as: [1679] Mor 5794 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1679] Mor 5794
Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE.
Subject_2 DIVISION I. What subjects fall sub communione bonorum et debitorum.
Subject_3 SECT. V. Effect of rendering the Wife's Heritable Subjects Moveable.
Date: Cockburn
v.
Burn
21 February 1679
Case No.No 32.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A husband pursued for exhibition and delivery of a bond lent out by his umquhile spouse, which therefore must be presumed to be out of his means Against delivery it was pleaded by an assignee from the wife, That the bond came in place of an heritable bond due to the wife before her marriage, which
she had uplifted.——The Lords found it relevant that the wife had an heritable bond before her marriage; and found, that her uplifting thereof being again re-employed heritably, did not make it fall to the husband as moveable. *** Fountainhall reports the same case: The Lords found, where wives uplift sums heritable quoad maritum, and reemploy them again upon another heritable security, the husband had no interest therein, though he got no tocher; as also they found, (which was never decided before,) that in the wife's deeds of administration of her own proper goods, not falling under communion, she needed not her husband's consent, without prejudice of his right to the annualrents jure mariti. This last was not debated.
*** See Stairs report of this case, No 29. p. 5993.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting