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 >> Alison Pringle v Thomas Pringle. [1739] 2 Elchies 398 (14 December 1739) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Elchies020398-015.html Cite as: [1739] 2 Elchies 398 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1739] 2 Elchies 398
Subject_1 MUTUAL CONTRACT.
Date: Alison Pringle
v.
Thomas Pringle
14 December 1739
Case No.No. 15.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A husband in his contract of marriage obliged himself to provide certain sums of money to the children of the marriage according to their number, to be divided as he should think fit, in satisfaction of all they could crave of him, except his own good will, and except what shall accresce to them as heirs and nearest of kin to him in case he shall not have children of any other marriage. The father afterwards disponed his estate for love and favour and other onerous causes to his eldest son, reserving his liferent and ample powers to burden or sell. He also provided his two younger sons, and got their discharges of all they could claim. And after his death, his only daughter unprovided claiming the executry from the eldest son who had intromitted with it, he proponed compensation or retention for his share of the sums provided by the contract to the children
of the marriage; but the Lords found that the said son having succeeded to his father by disposition to his land estate, his share of the sums in the contract is satisfied and extinguished; and were of the same opinion though there had been no disposition, for they still looked upon it as a succession upon the children of the marriage ;—but I think this was reversed in Parliament. (See Notes.)(See Dict. No. 152. p. 11472.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
