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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Sir Alexander Purves of Purveshall, and His Son, v The Lady Kincarden. [1696] 4 Brn 307 (6 February 1696) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1696/Brn040307-0666.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Date: Sir Alexander Purves of Purveshall, and His Son,
v.
The Lady Kincarden
6 February 1696 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Arniston reported the reduction pursued by Sir Alexander Purves of Purveshall, and his Son, against the Lady Kincarden, of a decreet obtained against them for £18,000 Scots, as the intromission which Sir William, his father, had with sundry ward, marriages, and other casualties, whereof the Earl of Kincarden had a gift.
The Lords would not go upon that ground which was urged, That minors were restored contra rem judicatam, though there be a title in Justinian's Code, adversus rem judicatam, to that purpose; for they had found, in the Marquis of Montrose's case against Cochran of Kilmaronock, that minority did not repone against a sentence in foro, especially when the point was injure: But the Lords found several grounds here to open the Lady's decreet to this effect, that the minor might be heard upon the articles of his lesion; seeing his tutors and curators were not called, nor the passive titles proven; and several other grounds. Many lawyers lay down this as a conclusion, Minorera restituendum contra probationes omissas; but this carries its own difficulties with it, as it was argued betwixt Sir John Hay of Muiry and Gray of Begerno and Poury.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting