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 >>
Lyon v Stuart. [1633] Mor 10321 (20 March 1633)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1633/Mor2510321-005.html Cite as:
[1633] Mor 10321
Subject_1 PERSONAL and TRANSMISSIBLE. Subject_2 SECT. I.
What Rights go to Heirs.
Lyon v. Stuart
Date: 20 March 1633 Case No. No 5.
A liferentrix accepted a bond from her son in lieu of her liferent, declaring she was willing he (without mentioning heirs) should enjoy her liferent during her life. Found personal to the son.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Helen Lyon being liferenter of the lands of received a bond from George Lyon her umquhile son, whereby he obliges him and his heirs to pay to her yearly for the said lands 100 merks, seeing she was content that her said umquhile son should bruik the same during her lifetime. This was the tenor of the bond, personally conceived to her son, not making mention of his heirs, but only of himself, albeit the son had obliged himself and his heirs to her, for payment of the said yearly duty, by the same bond. Thereafter diverse years, the son being dead, the mother pursues removing against the relict of her son, who defending herself with that bond, and that she had tolerance of her son, who was heir to his father, granter of the bond, and who had the benefit thereof, and of the pursuer's liferent thereby. The Lords repelled the allegeance, and found, that this bond, albeit it was accepted of the pursuer, and produced out of her own hands, bearing, that she was content that her son should bruik during her lifetime; that the same was only a personal favour granted to her son personally, and not to his heirs; and that his heirs nor relict had no right to bruik thereby, but was expired by the son's decease, who granted the same: And albeit the bond bore, that the son and his heirs were bound to pay that duty yearly, during the mother's lifetime; whereby it might appear, that the mother might pursue the heir of her son therefor, and that he was obliged thereby to her; yet the Lords found, that she gave that benefit only personally to her son, and that she was not obliged by the tenor foresaid to continue the same, after her son's decease, to any others his heirs or relict, but at her own pleasure. Here I conceive not how the heirs can be obliged to her, and she not to them.
Act. Hope.Alt. —.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 73. Durie, p. 680.
