Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER, LORD FOUNTAINHALL.
Anent Quadriennium utile
Date: 16 January 1672
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It was questioned whether a man revoking a deed done by him in his minority intra quadriennium, utile, must also raise his reduction of that deed, and end it before the elapsing of the said space, or if he may reduce these deeds at any time thereafter, if so be they were revoked within the twenty-fifth year? By our law, it seems that at least the reduction should be raised and called before the expiring of the said profitable years, but that it may be insisted on after: so Dury, 2d February 1630, Hamilton against Sharp and others, who cites l. ult. C. Si major factus alienationem,&c. for it. That a revocation should precede the reduction, seems not of absolute necessity, seeing the reduction raised within the years sufficiently declares their intention. Vide Dury, 16th November 1630, Murray against Cochrane; 8th July 1642, Inglish against Aitkit, in fine.
Quæritur farther, a man dies before twenty-five without revoking some prejudicial deeds done by him in his minority, if his heir or any other who succeeds in his right may revoke these deeds done by his predecessor. Though restitution in integrum ex capite minoritatis seems to be beneficium personate, and so not competent to the heir where neglected by the minor then become major, though within the years allowed for revocation; yet our law following the road of the common law in l. 5. C. de temporibus in integrum restitutionum, if the heir who succeeds be major, it allows him what years remained of the quadriennium utile to his author, within which he may revoke and quarrel his deeds; and if the heir be minor, he not only has all the years of his own minority, but also the residue of that profitable time which remained to his predecessor. They found lately a revocation made intra quadriennium utile restores not, unless a reduction be also raised within that space, between Sir James Ramsay of Whythill and Maxwell. Vide infra No. 313, [1st February 1672.]
It deserves consideration, how far a minor's asserting himself to be major at the time he grants writs, will elide and remove him exceptione doli mali from craving restitution against these writs as done by him in his less age: and what it would operate, if he offer him to prove that the creditor knew him (at least as having been his tutor or relation should have known him) to be minor at that time, notwithstanding of his assertion, seeing he was not deceptus; at least uterque erat in dolo. Vide Tit. C. Si minor se majorem dixerit. See Dury ult. February 1637, Weimes of Lathoker. Vide infra, No. 328, [13th February 1672.]
