Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 ALIMENT.

Apparent Heir of Napier of Kilmahow,
v.
The Widows of the Two Last Fiars

Date: 2 February 1751
Case No. No. 12.

Aliment of an heir-apparent.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Lords thought, that where the estate is so far bankrupt, that the apparent heir cannot safely represent his predecessor, no aliment is due by liferenters to the apparent heir on the act of Parliament anent wardatars, for if the lands were sold, the heir of the purchaser could not claim aliment; and if there were no liferent, the apparent heir could not claim aliment from the creditors. 2do, They thought that where the liferent itself is but a scrimp aliment to a person of the liferenter's rank, no aliment could be claimed on that account. 3tio, The President thought, that we could not by way of modification give the apparent heir any part of the liferent lands, but could only modify an annual sum to be paid by the liferentrix; and therefore, when her own possession was precarious, depending on the pleasure of other creditors preferable to her, we could modify no aliment to be paid by her; and therefore, in a process of aliment at the instance of the apparent heir of Napier of Kilmahow, against her granduncle's widow, who liferented lands of about L.40, or L.42 sterling of free rent, and wherein some other creditors had securities preferable to her, and against Lady Jean Bruce, the widow of young Kilmahow, who liferented about L.53 sterling free rent, (though provided originally to L.100, having quitted the rest in a sale for payment of creditors;) we found that no aliment was due in this case.