Rights conquest, but taken in favour of younger children. - Lands conquest, and again sold. - Liferent of conquest over and above the liferent of a certain sum. - Sums conquest, but applied for purging incumbrances. - Who heir of conquest?
Lady Dumfermline v. Her Son
Date: 26 November 1629 Case No. No 20.
Lands conquest, and sold again, do not fall under the clause of conquest in the contract of marriage. A feu being acquired, and disponed again to the feuar for a greater feu-duty; the feu-duty only is reputed conquest.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In this action, whereof mention is made 12th March 1628, No 2. p. 3048. the clause of contract, whereby the husband is bound to infeft the wife in all lands to be conquest, during the marriage, will not astrict the heir to fulfil the same to the relict, for such lands as were conquest by the husband, and after the conquest were sold by him, before his decease; for that clause ought only to be effectual to her, for such lands and conquest as remained and continued in that estate, the time of the husband's decease, and the right whereof remained with him. And it was also found, that the lands being acquired by the husband, from the feuar of the lands, and thereafter disponed again in feu to the same feuar, for a greater feu-duty to be paid, than was contained in the feuar's prior rights, that augmentation of the feu-duty by the husband, could not be repute a conquest, whereof the relict might claim a liferent, as coming under the foresaid clause in the contract. See No 24. p. 3072.
