Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER, LORD FOUNTAINHALL.
Jack v. Jack
Date: 20 July 1666
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In this case, found that all assignations granted by a father to his children, even though not aliunde provided, and albeit not known to be bankrupt, being made after debt contracted by him, are null by the act 1621: or if the assignation or bond was granted by a third party, by the father's means and moyen to his children, they being in familia, found it to be a donation, and in that same case as if it were made by the father, and subject to the payment of the father's debts. Also found, that a creditor having comprised the fee of that sum from the bairns was also null in consequentia; but this last was not reported; whereas the Lords inclined that if the children, who were fiars of the sum granted to them by their father, had for an onerous cause assigned or disponed that fee to their creditors before the reduction, that then the same would not fall in consequentia. For they found a great difference, by the act of Parliament, of dispositions made by a conjunct person to his creditors, and of comprisings led against them at the instance of creditors; and that though a right may be reduced, upon the act of Parliament so long as it stands in the person of the children, as being conjunct persons: and yet if it be disponed to creditors by the children, they found it not to fall under the compass of the act of Parliament, but found it more favourable in the creditor's person. But why a creditor compriser ought not to be as favourable, I see no reason: but the reason it seems is the express tenor of the act of Parliament.
Act. Lockhart.Alt. Wedderburne, Mackeinzie, and Dinmuire.
Advocates' MS. folio 56.
