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 >> Andrew Plummer v His Tutors and Nearest Relations by the Father's Side. [1757] Mor 16358 (8 March 1757) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1757/Mor3716358-287.html Cite as: [1757] Mor 16358 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1757] Mor 16358
Subject_1 TUTOR - CURATOR - PUPIL.
Date: Andrew Plummer
v.
His Tutors and Nearest Relations by the Father's Side
8 March 1757
Case No.No. 287.
Tutors authorised to sell an heritable subject for the utility of the pupil, though not necessary on account of debts.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Four physicians in Edinburgh had originally joined in erecting an elaboratory, for preparing and selling chemical preparations, and a theatre for the accommodations of students attending their lectures upon chemistry. All their shares came at length into the person of one of the four, Dr. Plummer; who continued the project alone, and died in very good circumstances.
The Magistrates of Edinburgh, desirous that the project should continue in the person of a physician, offered to the tutors of the Doctor's son an unexceptionable price for the elaboratory.
It was plain, that the work could not be continued in the person of the infant; that the buildings of the elaboratory could not profitably be turned to any other use; and that the bargain was highly beneficial for the infant; for which reason, he and his tutors applied, by summary petition, to the Court, to be authorised to make the sale; on this ground, That the egestas of a pupil was not the only ground for the interposition of the Court to authorise a sale, but that an utility, founded on a necessity like the present, was likewise a ground for it; for which the doctrine of the civil law was quoted, contained in Voet, Tit. De rebus eorum qui sub tutelæ, &c. § 8.
The Lords thought they could not authorise the sale in this summary form, but that an action should be raised for that purpose; which accordingly was done, by the pupil and tutors, against his nearest relations: And then
“The Lords found, That it was for the utility of the pupil to sell the elaboratory; and therefore authorised the tutors to sell it.”
Act. J. Dalrymple, And. Pringle.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting