Behaviour not inferred if the intromission can be ascribed to a singular title.
Calderwood v. Porteous
Date: 30 January 1630 Case No. No 39.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Porteous being convened for payment of L. 100 addebted by his father, as behaving himself as heir to him, by intromission with his heirship goods; and he alleginghis intromission to have by been virtue of an anterior disposition made by his father of the same to him. The Lords sustained this disposition to liberate him; albeit the pursuer replied, upon the father's retention of the possesion, notwithstanding of the disposition, to the time of his decease; which was repelled, seeing the defender duplied, that his father becoming old and decayed in means, and wanting a wife, she being then deceased, and the son being married thereafter, remaining with him together in one family, that could not make the father to be esteemed possessor, seeing rather the son might be reputed to entertain his father, which was sustained. See Presumption.
