Subject_1 COMPENSATION - RETENTION. Subject_2 SECT. V.
Compensation, its Effect Relative to Onerous Assignees
Relict of Inglis v. The Earl of Murray
1662.
February. Case No. No 52.
A relict, executrix of her husband, pursued a debtor of her husband. His plea of compensation founded on a debt due by the defunct, assigned, but not intimated, before the pursuit, was repelled.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Relict of umquhile Robert Inglis merchant, being creditrix by her contract of marriage, confirmed executrix to her husband; and, in the inventory, having given up a debt owing to him by the Earl of Murray, she gives power to ———Crawford to pursue the Earl for payment. It was excepted, That the defender ought to have compensation; because, before the intenting of this pursuit, the defunct was debtor to the defender in a sum of money assigned to him by Dr Leighton, now bishop in Dumblane. It was answered, 1mo, Non relevat, unless the assignation had been intimate, before the intenting of the cause, to the executors or nearest of kin to the said Robert Inglis. 2do, Though it had been intimate, yet it could give no ground of compensation; because the relict, by her contract, was a privileged creditrix before any other; and, in prejudice of her privilege, no assignation could be granted or received, to take away that preference from her which the law gave her.
