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 >>
Primrose Young v Charles Campbell. [1790] Mor 400 (27 January 1790)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1790/Mor0100400-029.html Cite as:
[1790] Mor 400
Subject_1 ALIMENT. Subject_2 Of the act 1491, cap. 25. anent alimenting of Heirs. Subject_3 Import of the Act:
It is ordained, that where any lands happen to fall in ward to the King, or any baron of the realm, spiritual or temporal, or lands given in conjunct fee or liferent, as well as to burgh as to land, that the sheriff of the shire or bailies shall take surety of the person or persons, that gets or has such wards, that they shall not waste or destroy their biggings, orchards, woods, stanks, parks, meadows, or dovecots, but that they hold them in such kind as they are in the time that they receive the same; they taking their reasonable sustentation, or using, in needful things, without destruction or wasting thereof. “And an reasonable living to be given to the sustentation of the air, after the quantitie of the heritage, gif the said air has na blanche ferme, nor feu ferme land, to susteine him on, alsweil of the ward lands, that fallis to our Soveraine Lordis hands, as onie uther barronne, spiritual or temporal.”
Scots Acts, v. 1. p. 158.
Primrose Young v. Charles Campbell
Date: 27 January 1790 Case No. No 29.
Aliment found due to a widow by the representatives of her husband, her legal provisions being insufficient.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The husband of Primrose Young died in possession of effects, both heritable and moveable. But, in consequence of his engagements as a partner of Douglas, Heron, and Company, which were found to be a burden on his moveable estate, she could derive little or no benefit from her jus relictæ, while the subjects liable to her claim of terce, were too inconsiderable to afford her a sufficient maintenance.
She therefore instituted an action against Charles Campbell, the nephew and general representative of her husband, for a suitable aliment out of her husband's whole effects. See 6th March 1776, Macculloch*; 15th December 1786, Maclean†.
It was considered as a fixed point, that an aliment was due, nor indeed was this disputed by the defender.
The Lords found the pursuer entitled to an aliment; which, by a subsequent interlocutor, of date 10th March 1790, they fixed at L. 50; this being considered as equal to a fourth of the free produce of the effects belonging to the deceased, both heritable and moveable.
Reporter, Lord Dreghorn.Act. M. Ross.Alt. Maconochie.Clerk, Sinclair.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 22. Fac. Col. No 104. p. 198.
* No such case is yet reported.—The case probably meant is, Thomson against M'Culloch, 6th March 1778; Fac. Col. No 19. p. 34, which will be found in the next division of this Title, viz. Aliment due ex debito naturali.
† The case meant here is Lowther against M'Laine; Fac. Col. No 297. p. 456. See next division of this Dictionary.
