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 >>
Laing v Kay. [1729] Mor 396 (24 January 1729)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1729/Mor0100396-024.html Cite as:
[1729] Mor 396
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.
Laing v. Kay
Date: 24 January 1729 Case No. No 24.
A man dispones to his wife in liferent, and to his nephew in fee. The nephew's child, in particular circumstances, not entitled to be alimented by the liferenter.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One having disponed his lands in favour of his wife, her heirs and assignees, with this proviso, That after her death, a certain portion thereof should accresce and belong to his nephew; the nephew's daughter and only child, after her father's decease, intented action against the wife for aliment, as apparent heir to her father and grand uncle. The defence was, That there was no relation betwixt the pursuer and defender, and therefore no aliment due super jure naturæ. 2do, The defender liferents no lands, to which the pursuer can succeed as fiar. 3tio, The pursuer's father was denuded of this claim, in his own lifetime, having disponed the same to his creditors, for their security and payment, and to his wife whatever should remain.——The pursuer was not found entitled to any aliment.
