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 >>
Muirhead's Relict v Her Father-in-law. [1706] Mor 5927 (19 February 1706)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1706/Mor1405927-130.html Cite as:
[1706] Mor 5927
Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE. Subject_2 DIVISION III.
Mutual Duties betwixt Husband and Wife.
Subject_3 SECT. VI.
Mournings. - Funeral Expenses. - Expense of a Posthumous Child.
Muirhead's Relict v. Her Father-in-law
Date: 19 February 1706 Case No. No 130.
Found in conformity with Hasty against Hasty No 124. p. 5922; that a relict is entitled, against her husband's representatives, to the expense incurred by the birth of a posthumous child.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Rose Fincham, relict of James Muirhead of Braidisholm younger, against her father-in-law, Braidisholm elder, for modifying an aliment to herself and her children, during the dependence of a declarator she has for a terce, in respect her husband was once infeft, though the sasine be now abstracted. The Lords refused to modify any aliment for the children, in regard the goodsire offered to take them home to his own house, and to aliment them as he does his other children; for though infants are not to be taken from their mother during her viduity and their infancy, if she offers to keep them gratis; yet if she seek aliment for them, the grandfather may stop it by accepting them into his own family. But the Lords found she ought to have an allowance for her expense of in-lying, and bringing forth the posthumous child, and for the nursing it; and referred the modification to the Ordinary.
On the 28th current the Lady Braidisholm entered an appeal against this interlocutor. See Appendix.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 396. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 328.
*** See Forbes's report of this case, voce Tutor and Pupil.
