What a Minor cannot do even with consent of his Curators.
Sir John Seaton v. Sir John Hepburn
1633.
December. Case No. No 71.
Although a minor cannot discharge a debt gratuitously, yet a promise to grant such a discharge was sustained.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By contract of marriage between Sir Robert Hepburn's son and Sir John Seaton's daughter, Sir Robert was bound to possess his son with 20 chalders of victual for his maintenance. Sir John having charged Sir Robert for fulfilling of this part of the contract, he suspended, upon this reason, that his son had discharged him of four chalders of the twenty, and had obliged him to content himself with sixteen. Answered, This bond being but a private deed and paction, contra publicam tabularum nuptialium fidem, was null, and ought not to be respected, as being contra bonos mores, especially it being given upon the day of the contract, which the youth was induced to do amoris ardore, and least the contract should have been dissolved.—The Lords found this allegeance against the reason of suspension relevant.
1634. January 15.—Afterwards the suspender offered to prove, that his son long after the marriage, came to him willingly, and promised to abide by the former condition he had tied himself to. Answered, He was yet minor, and revoked presently any such promise made in prejudice of the contract of marriage, especially there having nothing followed thereupon, but being nudum pactum. Next, his promise could not prejudge his father-in-law Sir John to seek implement of the condition, he being a contractor. Replied, He was majoritati proximus, and could not revoke a promise made in favour of his own father. Next, he prejudged none but himself during his own time; for, if he died before his wife, his promise could not bind her, but her father might seek implement of the whole in her behalf.—The Lords found this part of the reason of suspension relevant to be proven by his oath.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 577. Spottiswood, (Marriage.) p. 205.
