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 >>
Scougall v Douglass. [1630] Mor 5953 (12 March 1630)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1630/Mor1405953-152.html Cite as:
[1630] Mor 5953
A married woman's deeds in what cases effectual against herself, the husband consenting or not consenting.
Subject_3 SECT. I.
Furnishings to a wife whom her husband is bound to aliment.
Scougall v. Douglass
Date: 12 March 1630 Case No. No 152.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander Scougall having recovered decreet against Alexander Douglass and Margaret Inglis his spouse, for the sum of L. 28, for the price of wares confessed to be received by her upon her oath, being referred thereto, and also her husband holden as confest thereon; and she being charged to pay after her husband's decease, and suspending, the Lords found, that that decreet, albeit given against herself, and for gear confest to be received by herself, and albeit the sum was so small, yet being recovered against her and her husband, and she having a husband at the receipt of the goods, ought to be executed against her husband's heirs and executors, and not against herself, and therefore suspended the charges against her.
Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 397. Durie, p. 506.*** Spottiswood reports the same case:
John Scougall having pursued Alexander Douglass macer, and his wife, Margaret Inglis, for L. 60 owing by them to Patrick Graig, to which he had right as donatar to Patrick's escheat, referred the truth of the debt to their oaths; Alexander was holden as confest, and his wife by her oath granted them to be owing L. 26 to Patrick. After her husband's decease, John Scougall's executors pursued her for payment of that L. 26 which she had granted. The Lords ‘would not sustain action against her for that debt, granted by her in her husband's time,’ seeing she could neither prejudge her husband nor herself by it.
