A ward being taxed at a small sum, in favour of a man and his heirs, the privilege was extended to a conjunct liar, though there was no mention of her in the infeftment granted to her husband.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Violet gourlay, by reason of conjunct see, claimed and intented her action against Mr John Spence, for the wrongous occupation of certain lands. The said Mr John alleged, that he did no wrong; because he had the ward thereof, by assignation of the same, made to him by Mr Alexander Brown, Chanter of Murray, donator thereof to the King.——The other party replied: That the lands were given to her husband, and his heirs of see, but ward; and when the same happened, the wardatar should have but 40d.; and therefore he, by reason of the ward, ought to have no more to shew, where the lands were so holden of the King, as said is.——It was duplied: That she was neither the man principal, nor yet heir to him; and therefore, that the King's privilege could not help her.——He triplied: That she was in the heir's place, by reason of her conjunct see; and that therefore the privilege given to the heir, should be extended to her.——And therefore the Lords decerned, that the wardatar should have action; but, while allenarly to 40d, conform to the said woman's goodman's infeftment of the tenor foresaid.
