Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
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.
Thank you very much for your support!
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Horn v Pow. [1634] 1 Brn 83 (1 February 1634)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1634/Brn010083-0162.html
Cite as: [1634] 1 Brn 83
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1634] 1 Brn 83
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ALEXANDER GIBSON, OF DURIE.
Date: Horn
v.
Pow
1 February 1634 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Horn, notary, in his testament leaves his writs and registers to one Pow, and ordains the said Pow to pay to his son, George Horn, therefore, 100 merks; which Pow promised to do: in this testament umquhile John Horn gives up a debt of ——, owing by him to George Grieve, which George had paid as cautioner for the said John; and, after the said John Horn's decease, George Grieve arrests this 100 merks in Pow's hands for satisfying of that debt, and obtains decreet against him therefore; and by virtue thereof recovers payment. Thereafter John Horn's son convenes Pow for payment of the said sum; who, excepting, upon the said decreet and payment, the Lords repelled the exception, and found that the said sum was not arrestable for the debt owing by umquhile John Horn to his creditors, being promised to be paid to the son, and never being in bonis defuncti, whereby it could be subject to his debt; and it was not respected that the party alleged that the money was promised to be paid for a legacy of writs left by the defunct, who could never leave any legacy effectually, which could not be subject to his debts; specially seeing, in this same testament, which bore the writs to be left for this sum, the defunct acknowledged this debt, and so he could leave no legacy in prejudice thereof. Which was repelled, and the sum found due to the son, according to the promise made by the defender, and not to the creditor, who, as he could not arrest the writs left to Pow, no more could he arrest the money promised therefore.
Act. ——. Alt. Craig. Page 699.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting