A wife's promise to pay her husband's debt, due by bond, found relevant to be proved prout de jure, it being under L. 100.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Christian Craw obtains a decreet before the Bailies of Edinburgh against Bessie Culbertson, relict to John Denholm, baxter, decerning her to pay 100 merks principal, with some annualrents and penalties, contained in a bond made by her said defunct husband, upon her promise to pay the same proved by witnesses. This decreet is craved to be reduced upon this reason, that a promise of this nature is only probable scripto vel juramento, as was found in the case betwixt Lillie and Innerleith, (supra) seeing such promises falling only under the sense of hearing, the hearer may be mistaken of the words of the promise; likeas, pollicitations of that nature, which are sine causa, and not being pacta vestita, are not in law obligatory; but so it is, that this relict was noways obliged of herself in any such debt, but her husband only, to whom she was neither heir nor executrix. It was answered, That the promise was opponed, which was made intuitu of an obligation lying upon her husband, to which she did interpose herself by promise, as expromissor, which paction, though nudum, yet being vestitum with her deceased husband's obligation, is obligatory against her, just as if the apparent heir should promise to pay the father's debts; and this promise being for a debt within L. 100, it is probable by witnesses.
