Inhibition has Effect only against Voluntary Rights.
Rigg v. Begg
Date: 10 February 1672 Case No. No 97.
Inhibition found not to reduce a posterior infeftment in liferent granted by a husband to his wife being in implement of a contract of marriage prior to the inhibition, tho' the husband was not bound to infeft his wife in these lands in particular.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a competition for the mails and duties of certain tenements in Edinburgh, Elizabeth Rigg being infeft in liferent for implement of her contract of marriage, and Thomas Begg having apprised the same tenements, and being infeft after the said Elizabeth, she craved preference, as being first infeft; whereunto it was answered, that albeit Begg's infeftment be posterior, yet the common author was inhibited before her infeftment at Begg's instance upon the same sum whereupon she apprised, and is infeft, and repeated his reduction upon the inhibition. It was replied, That albeit the relict's infeftment be posterior to the inhibition, yet it is for implement of a contract of marriage, which is prior to the inhibition, and bears an obligement to infeft her in lands or annualrents for such a sum. It was duplied, That the obligement was only general, and not to infeft her particularly in this land.
The Lords preferred the liferentrix.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 474. Stair, v. 2. p. 68.*** Gosford reports this case:
In a double poinding raised at the tenant's instance of a tenement of land in Edinburgh, it was alleged for Elizabeth Rigg, that she was inteft in liferent in the said tenement before all others, and so ought to be preferred. It was answered for John Begg, That her real right being after inhibition, at his instance, whereupon he had intented reduction, the same ought to be reduced, and could give, her nought. It was replied for the said Elizabeth, That her infeftment depended upon her contract of marriage, prior to the inhibition, bearing an obligement to employ upon land or annualrent the sum of L. 10,000 to her in liferent, and the bairns of the marriage in fee. It was duplied, That the obligement in the contract of marriage, not being special to infeft her in this tenement, it being only general, the inhibition being prior to her infeftment, did affect the same.
The Lords did prefer the said Elizabeth, and found that albeit the obligement was general, that the inhibition could not hinder the husband to infeft his wife in special lands, seeing they might be ascribed thereto, and that she was not provided otherwise to lands equivalent to the liferent contained in the contract of marriage.
