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 >>
Strachan v Creditors of Dalhaikie. [1754] Mor 13053 (2 July 1754)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1754/Mor3013053-160.html Cite as:
[1754] Mor 13053
Subject_1 PROVISION to HEIRS and CHILDREN. Subject_2 SECT. XXI.
Provisions in a postnuptial contract, whether effectual to competent with onerous creditors?
Strachan v. Creditors of Dalhaikie
Date: 2 July 1754 Case No. No 160.
The provision in a postnuptial contract of marriage, obliging the husband 'to satisfy and pay to his son already procreated, and to his other sons that shall exist, the sum of 18,000 merks, together with half of the conquest,' imports only a provision of succession.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Strachan of Dalhaikie, in a postnuptial contract of marriage, ‘bound and obliged him, his heirs, &c. to satisfy and pay to the children procreated, or to be procreated of the marriage, the following provisions, viz. to the son already procreated, and to him and the other sons, in case others shall exist of the marriage, the sum of 18,000 merks; together with the just and equal half of ail sums of money, goods and gear, whether heritable or moveable, which the said James Strachan should happen to conquest and acquire during the said marriage; and the said James Strachan became bound to satisfy and pay these provisions at the first term following his death, and that of Katharine Dunbar his spouse, with annualrent and penalty,’ &c.
James Strachan having died insolvent, his only son Ludovick Strachan adjudged the estate for security of the said sum of 18,000 merks; and, in a ranking and sale, it was objected by the other Creditors, that he could draw nothing till his father's debts were paid.
“The Lords found, that the clause imported only a provision of succession.”
It was observed, That the words ‘to satisfy and pay’ seemed to be improperly applied in this contract. With regard to the conquest to which they are applied, as well as to the liquid sum, they cannot be taken in their proper sense; but must mean only a provision of succession. And if the words must be confined to this sense with regard to one of the articles, a Judge cannot take upon him to give them a more extensive sense with regard to the other; especially where the consequence of such interpretation would be to put a gratuitous creditor upon an equal footing with one for a valuable consideration.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 188. Sel. Dec. No 64. p. 84.*** The Faculty report of this case is No 105. p. 996., voce Bankrupt.
