Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a claim of aliment made by the widow of Hosea Hoseason junior against her husband's nephew Robert Hoseason, on the ground that he represented his grandfather Hosea Hoseason senior, who, the pursuer maintained, would have been liable for her aliment if he had been alive. Hosea Hoseason senior died in 1824, leaving a settlement by which he conveyed a small heritable estate to his eldest son in liferent, and the heirs-male of his body in fee; whom failing, to his second son in liferent, and the heirs-male of his body in fee, &c.

The eldest son, the husband of the pursuer, died without male issue, and the estate has now devolved on the defender Robert Hoseason, son of the second son of the testator. The defender is absent from Scotland, and his brother Charles has been appointed judicial factor on his estate. It was admitted that the pursuer had no relations of her own able to support her.

The questions raised were, first, Whether Hosea Hoseason senior, if he had been alive, would have been liable to aliment his son's widow? and, second, Whether that obligation transmitted to his grandson, the son of a younger son, upon his coming to represent his grandfather?

The Lord Ordinary ( Gifford) decided the first question in the negative, and accordingly assoilzied the defender, it being unnecessary to decide the second point.

The pursuer reclaimed.

Speirs, for her, founded chiefly on the case of De Courcy v. Agnew, 3rd July 1806, Mor. App. voce, “Aliment,” No. 8.

Cheyne, for the defender, referred to Duncan v. Hill, 28th Feb. 1809., F.C.; Yule v. Marshall, 21st Dec. 1815, F.C.; and Pagan v. Pagan, Jan. 27, 1838, 16 S. 399.