Subject_1 MINOR NON TENETUR, &c. Subject_2 SECT. I.
In what cases the privilege competent.
Lindsay v. Cheynes
Date: 22 March 1541 Case No. No 1.
The Lords found, that not only minor non tenetur when he brooks pro in diviso with a major, but in that case even the major is not obliged to answer.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Katharine N. and William Lindsay her spouse pro suo interesse, called Alexander, William, and James Cheynes, to hear their infeftment and sasine of a tenement within Edinburgh, made to them pro indiviso by resignation of one James Young notary public, in one of the Bailie's hands of Edinburgh, to be reduced for certain causes, as the summons contained. The said bairns' procurator, Mr James M'Gill, excepted, That two of them were intra minorem ætatem, and so de jure regni non tenebantur placitare super hæreditate; and, because they three were in the said tenement pro indiviso, no process should, nor might be led against them. Which allegeance the Lords, by interlocutor, found relevant, and so decerned to prove minorem ætatem.
