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 >> Barbara Fea, Spouse to Patrick Trail, younger of Elness, v John Trail of Elness, her Husband's Father. [1710] 5 Brn 61 (8 February 1710) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1710/Brn050061-0063.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by WILLIAM FORBES, ADVOCATE.
Date: Barbara Fea, Spouse to Patrick Trail, younger of Elness,
v.
John Trail of Elness, her Husband's Father
8 February 1710 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the action of aliment, at the instance of Barbara Fea, against John Trail, her father-in-law, wherein Patrick Trail, the pursuer's husband, who had deserted her and gone abroad, was also called;—
Alleged for the defender,—Albeit he might be liable jure naturæ to aliment his son, no law obligeth a father to aliment his son's wife, separately from her husband, but she ought to follow, and reside with him.
Answered for the pursuer,—Law obligeth parents to aliment their children, and grand-children, and much more a son's wife; who is una et eadem persona with her husband, and upon that score was subjected by the civil law to the power of the husband's father, and reckoned a member of his family. 2. As there is a legal tie upon the defender to maintain his son and his family, he is subsidiarie liable, in absence of his son, to aliment his wife, which is a less charge: especially considering that it was through the defender's instigation that the pursuer's husband unjustly deserted her, without any fault on her part; as appeared from a letter written by the defender, to his son at London, wherein he threatened to disown him, if he came in her company, or anywise owned her as his wife.
The Lords found, that, albeit a father is not bound to aliment his son's wife separately from her husband, yet it is relevant to make John Trail liable, by way of damage, to aliment the pursuer, that in a letter to his son, he threatened to disown him, if he owned her.
Page 395.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
