Subject_1 ALIMENT. Subject_2 Of the act 1491, cap. 25. anent alimenting of Heirs. Subject_3 An offer to aliment in family not relevant.
By the case, the Heir of Kirkland against his Grand-mother, No 32. supra, an offer to aliment in family was found not relevant to elide the claim.
The same law was recognized in the case, Finnie against Oliphant, from Auchinleck, No 17. supra. That case is reported likewise by Durie; reserved to be placed here to illustrate this principle, as follows:
Finnie v. Oliphant
Date: 22 February 1631 Case No. No 36.
A mother liable in aliment, and, having married a second husband, not permitted the custody of the minor.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A factor for a tutor-dative, pursuing the mother for a modification, to be given yearly to the minor, for his entertainment; wherein the Lords found, That albeit the defender bruiked no ward-lands of the minor, and that the minor had no ward-lands; yet, seeing she was liferentrix of all the minor's means, viz. Houses, and annualrents of money, that a modification ought to be taken thereof. And albeit the mother offered to keep and entertain the bairn herself, upon her own charges, yet that was not sustained, seeing she was married on a husband; and the tutor and his factor was found might nevertheless crave this modification; but consideration was had of the moveable heirship due to him, which proportionally bore a part of the modification.
Act. Nicolson.Alt. Oliphant.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 31. Durie, p. 573.
