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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Francis Sinclair v Shaw and Other Creditors of Her Husband. [1739] 5 Brn 658 (17 January 1739) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Brn050658-0799.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, collected by JAMES BURNETT, LORD MONBODDO.
Date: Francis Sinclair
v.
Shaw and Other Creditors of Her Husband
17 January 1739 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Elch., No. 11, Arrestment; and No. 10, Husband and Wife; Kilk., No. 4, Arrestment.]
In this case there were three questions debated. 1mo, Whether, when a wife enters into a submission with respect to a claim which she has as heir to her father, and the arbiters decern in a sum payable to the wife and husband for his interest, that sum be arrestable or not by the husband's creditors?
The Lords found, That the wife in that case was fiar, and the husband had only a right to the annualrents, jure mariti; so that the principal sum was not arrestable by his creditors.
2do, When a wife makes a donation to her husband, and his creditors afterwards affect the subject gifted, with diligence,—whether, in case of a revocation by the wife, the diligence falls to the ground?
The Lords found, That the maxim, resoluto jure dantis, &c. obtained here; that, the husband's right being annulled by the revocation, the rights flowing from him, whether voluntarily or by legal diligence, behoved to fall in course, in the same manner as if the husband's right had been qualified by a back bond.
3tio, Whether the jus mariti was a subject arrestable; or whether, not only the bygone and current annualrents of the principal sum, mentioned in the first case, were arrestable, but likewise the future?
The Lords ordered memorials to be given in upon this third question; it was found only adjudgeable. As to this last point, and what subjects are arrestable, what adjudgeable,—see November 18, 1742, Creditors of the Robertsons in Glasgow.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
