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 £5, 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 >>
Fraser v - [1583] Mor 3607 (00 May 1583)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1583/Mor0903607-004.html Cite as:
[1583] Mor 3607
Process of ejection was sustained at the instance of a tacks man's relict, who had no title in her own person to produce, the tack having been only during life; and this because she had continued in possession three months after her husband's decease and before the ejection.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There was a woman callit Fraser, that persewit certain persons for the ejection of her furth of certain lands, and the spoliation of certain corns. She libellit, that the said land appertained to her husband in tack and assedation, and she continued in possession after his deceis be the space of three months before the said ejection, and had intromission with the said corns and guids as necessaria intromissatrix. It was allegit, That she could have no action to persew the said ejection and spoliation, because she qualified no title into her aine person; for the tack and assedation was set unto her husband only, and so it expyrit with him at the time of his deceis. To this was ansrit, That, in respect of her summons, that she continued into possession be the space of three months after her husband's deceis, and before the ejection, and was necessary intromissatrix with the guids and gear, she had sufficient action, whilk was so fand be the Lords.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 252. Colvil, MS. p. 361.*** Spottiswood reports the same case.
A wife called Frazer pursued certain persons for ejecting her forth of certain lands, and spuilzieing of certain corns from her. Alleged, She could not pursue for ejection and spoliation, because she qualified no title in her own possession, for there was only tack and assedation of that land to her husband during his own lifetime, and so expired with him. Replied, That she having continued in possession three months after her husband's decease and before the ejection, and having intromitted necessarily (as necessaria intromissatrix with the corns and goods) she had good action. The which was found by the Lords.
