Subject_1 PERSONAL and TRANSMISSIBLE. Subject_2 SECT. III.
What Rights go to Assignees.
Edmondstone v. Kirkcaldy
1622.
November. Case No. No 44.
A bond for aliment to a wife, granted by a third party, does not fall under the husband's jus mariti, she not being otherways alimented by him. See No 54. p. 10372. See No 50. p. 10368.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Edmondstone raised a double poinding against Christian Kirkcaldy, on the one part, and Alexander Barclay on the other, as double charged for the sum of 200 merks, which he was obliged to pay to the said Christian, for aliment of her and her bairns, for the terms of Lammas, and Halloweven last by past. Alexander Barclay alleged, That he having arrested the sum by virtue of a bond of L. 400 made to him by Walter Adamson, spouse to Christian Kirkcaldy, who was domiuus bonorum belonging to her, he behoved to be answered and obeyed. She alleged, That she should be preferred, because the bond was given for aliment of her and her bairns, and of her husband remaining with them within this country, and that he being absent the terms controverted, and some years before, the whole sum belonged to her and her bairns for their aliment.—The Lords considering the meanness of the sum, the quality of the woman, and number of her sevon bairns, found the sum mean enough for their aliment, and that no part of it could be subject to her husband's debt. The bond was of 400 merks yearly, to be paid at four terms, and was given by Smeiton, and Sir Robert Hepburn his brother, to James Aikenhead, to the behoof of the woman and her bairns, for their aliment, and was now in the person of Charles, Edmondstone to their behoof for their aliment.
