Rights conquest, but taken in favour of younger children. - Lands conquest, and again sold. - Liferent of conquest over and above the liferent of a certain sum. - Sums conquest, but applied for purging incumbrances. - Who heir of conquest?
Oliphant v. Finnie
Date: 10 February 1629 Case No. No 19.
An obligation to provide the wife in liferent of all sums conquest, was not extended to certain sums, which the husband had taken the debtors obliged to pay to some of his younger children, but only to those which he had acquired to himself and his heirs.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The husband being obliged to provide his wife to a liferent of all sums to be conquest by him during their marriage; whereupon she having pursued the heir, to provide her to her liferent of some particular sums, contained in certain bonds, which the husband had taken the debtor obliged to pay to some others of his bairns, to whom the payment by the bond was appointed to be made, and which sums he had provided to the said bairns;—it was found, That that clause, and the like clauses contained in such contracts, could not oblige the heir to provide the relict to the liferent of sums, which, in the bonds and securities made thereupon, were provided to the defunct's other bairns: For such a general clause, in contracts made by the husband in favours of his wife, ought to be understood only of such sums as the husband acquires to himself and his heirs, and whereunto his heirs may succeed to him after his own decease; and whereof the fee remained in his person while he lived: For, if it should receive any larger interpretation, it would tend to take away all power from the husband, to provide any thing to his other bairns; but to acquire all which he had or might purchase to his eldest son only; yet to this it is answered, That the bairns provision is not affected with the wife's liferent.
Act. Oliphant.Alt. Nicolson.Clerk, Hay.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 199. Durie, p. 423.
