A Son cannot be his Father's Interdictor, nor a Wife her Husband's.
L Silvertonhill v. His Father
Date: 18 January 1622 Case No. No 1.
A son cannot be his father's interdictor.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The young Laird of Silvertonhill gave in this day a supplication to the Lords, craving inhibition against his father, upon this ground, viz. There was a contract of marriage made betwixt umquhile President Provand and his daughter Elizabeth Baillie, on the one part, and the old Laird of Silvertonhill, and his son, on the other part, for a marriage to have been made betwixt the two young folks; wherein it was appointed that young Silvertonhill, and Elizabeth Baillie, his spouse, should be infeft in conjunct-fee, and the bairns procreated betwixt them, heritably in the lands mentioned in the contract, and bearing a clause for interdicting of the foresaid young Laird to his father and good father; and now after the decease of the father-in-law, and of the old Laird Silvertonhill, who were contractors, this young Laird Silvertonhill, who is eldest son and apparent heir, begotten of that marriage, gave in his supplication, craving inhibition against his father, that he should not annailzie any of the lands contained in the contract, wherein he and his wife were appointed to be infeft in conjunct-fee, and the bairns heritably, as said is, alleging that clause to be expressly introduced in his favour, and so that he might competently seek inhibition thereupon; which was refused by the Lords to be granted, seeing the parties contractors, who might lawfully seek execution upon the contract, were all dead except the supplicant's own father, against whom it was sought, and that the supplicant could not seek it upon that clause.——See Provision to Heirs and Children.
