Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE. Subject_2 DIVISION III.
Mutual Duties betwixt Husband and Wife.
Subject_3 SECT. I.
Husband bound to aliment and provide for his Wife.
Neilson v. Guthrie and Gairn
Date: 10 July 1672 Case No. No 94.
A husband found liable for clothes bought by his wife after proclamation of banns.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander Neilson pursues Barbara Guthrie and Mr William Gairn, her husband, and Captain Guthrie, her father, for an account of L. 500 for her wedding-clothes, taken off in his shop. It was alleged for the said Barbara, That she was minor, and the furniture was taken off, not only without her father's consent, but contrary thereto, for he did prohibit it, and so being done without consent of her father as curator, or lawful administrator, her obligement was null. It was alleged for the father absolvitor, because he had expressly prohibited the merchant to give off this ware, and there was nothing to oblige him to furnish wedding-clothes to his daughter, but that he might appoint her to be married in the clothes she had, if he thought fit. It was alleged for the husband, That he could not be liable, neither having promised, nor yet been liable for the debt of his wife, which was contracted after proclamation. The pursuer answered, That he offered to prove that the said Barbara was major, and that he did not found upon the father's promise, but that the father having consented to the marriage, and subscribed the contract, was thereby obliged to solemnize the marriage, and to furnish his daughter clothes according to her quality, being a part of his natural obligation: Like as, the husband was obliged de in rem verso, because his wife beloved to have had other clothes, if she had not been furnished with these.——The Lords found the wife liable, if she was major; but found the father not liable, seeing he prohibited it; but found the husband liable however de in rem verso. See Recompence.
