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 >> George Douglass v William Johnstoun. [1669] 1 Brn 581 (13 February 1669) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1669/Brn010581-1473.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: George Douglass
v.
William Johnstoun
13 February 1669 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
George Douglass, being assigned by his sister, relict of the Laird of Wamphray, to her terce of the lands of Wamphray, did pursue William Johnstoun of Wamphray, who married her daughter, who was heretrix of the said lands, for the maills and duties of her terce, to which she was kend; not only for bygones since her husband's decease, but in time coming during her lifetime.
It being alleged, that the defender was not only bonæ fidei possessor as to all bygones before the citation, but ought to be assoilyied in time coming; because the said lady, after that the right of terce was due to her, did consent to the defender's contract of marriage, whereby she and her daughter did dispone to the defender and his heirs the heritable and irredeemable right of the said lands; with the reservation only of her liferent, wherein she stood infeft.
The Lords did sustain the allegeance, to free the defender both for bygones and in time coming; notwithstanding it was alleged, That, at the time of her consent to the contract of marriage, she was not kend to a terce; and that the defender having married her daughter, who was heir to her father, by whose decease the said lady had, by law, a right to terce, they could not quarrel the same, unless she had expressly disponed or consented for all right of terce that she could crave.
Page 42.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
