If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Baird (or Duff) and Forrest v. Mr William Chalmers.
Date: 15 January 1630 Case No. No. 112.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It was found between the children of Alexander Duff and Mr. William Chalmers, their tutor, That notwithstanding there had been sundry actions of the pupil's pursued in his name as tutor to them, with others, yet he might renounce his office re integra, having never meddled in their business.
Spottiswood, p. 347.*** Durie reports this case:
The relict, as tutrix to her bairns, pursuing two other tutors testamentary to accept the office, or renounce; and they compearing, and offering to renounce; and it being answered, that res non erant integræ, because there were sundry pursuits moved at their instance, as tutors to these minors, against their debtors, wherein sentence was given at their instance, whereby they had accepted the office; the Lords, notwithstanding of these sentences; found, that they might renounce the office, seeing they had never accepted the office, nor made faith, nor compeared in judgment, nor meddled with any of the minor's goods, nor knew of these pursuits, nor gave any warrant, either by word or writ, to any advocate to compear for them. And it was found, that the inserting of their names in these pursuits, being done without their knowledge, was not an acceptation of the office, but that notwithstanding thereof they might renounce.
