Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Paterson being convened as heir to his father John Paterson, by intromission with his heirship goods, for payment of a debt of 1000 merks owing by his father, and the defender purging his intromission by warrant of the Lords granted to the defender, and directed to the Bailies of Edinburgh, to make inventory of the goods being in his father's house; according whereunto inventory was made; the goods contained in the which inventory are extant to be made forthcoming; wherefore he alleged, That he could not thereby be convened as he; and the pursuer replying, That by and attour the goods contained in the inventory, the defender had intromitted with his father's bible, a musket, a sword, a stand of curtains, and two pillows, which were the best his father had, and which were heirship, which the defender had used, and were not contained in the inventory; these particulars, and this manner of intromission, albeit both the particulars were few and little worth, and also that the defender's intromission was only qualified in using of them, and not in disponing of them or making any advantageous use or benefit thereof, was sustained to make him heir and subject to pay the debt of 1000 merks.
Act. ——.Alt. Aiton.Clerk, Hay.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 28. Durie, p. 426.*** This case is also reported by Auchinleck:
Feb. 14. & March 13 —Andrew Steven pursues William Paterson as as heir to his father, at least successor titulo lucrativo, at least intromitter with certain heirship goods and gear for payment of 1000 merks; but by the defender it is answered to that part of the alternative concerning heirship goods and gear, that after his father's decease, he obtained a warrant of the Lords to a Bailie and a clerk to take up inventory of the gear within the house, which he is content to make forthcoming. It was replied by the pursuer, That he offers him to prove that he intromitted with other particulars condescended upon by and attour the gear contained in the inventory, viz. the best of each sort, and used the same as the other goods, which must infer that he behaved himself as heir. The Lords repelled the exception in respect of the reply, 14th February 1629. And the same being again disputed the 13th of March 1629, was sustained again, but agreed by submission.
