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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Patrick M'Dougall, Merchant in Edinburgh, v Mr John Marshall. [1705] Mor 8995 (14 July 1705)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1705/Mor218995-120.html Cite as:
[1705] Mor 8995
Patrick M'Dougall, Merchant in Edinburgh, v. Mr John Marshall
Date: 14 July 1705 Case No. No 120.
A minor, who was a master of arts, and in appearance adult, found liable for furnishings bespoke by himself, although not for himself, but for his brothers and sisters, whom he was not bound to aliment in consequence of any succession acquired by their father, whose estate had been over-burdened with debt.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr John having taken off mournings from the said Patrick for the funerals of his father, to the value of L. 96 Scots, he raises reduction thereof, on this head, That he was minor, and had debito tempore revoked, and was clearly lesed, they not being for himself, but for his brother and sister, whom he was not bound to furnish, he now discovering his father's estate to be overburdened with debts.—Answered, He sent for the merchant, and was the sole off-taker and engager for their payment; Mr.M'Dougall knew not for whom they were, nor bargained he with any but him; he saw him by the habit of his body to be of a man's growth, and if he was minor, he could not want much of twenty-one; neither did he signify to him his minority, and so dolose by his silence induced him to trust him, et non debet ex sua fraude lucrari. Likeas, he was a master of arts, and took off cloaths to his brother and sister, (which the merchant was not concerned to know) it was debitum naturale et officium pietatis in him, and he can retain it out of their patrimonies at counting.—The Lords repelled the reason of minority in this case, and found him liable; though the furnishings were not to himself, but to his brother and sisters, reserving his action for repayment against them as accords.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 580. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 284.
*** Forbes's report of this case is No 59. p. 421. voce Aliment.
