Interdiction strikes not against onerous or rational Deeds.
A v. B
Date: 27 February 1672 Case No. No 24.
A disposition by a person interdicted was not found to be ipso jure null, but reducible upon lesion, and so an averment that it was for an onerous cause was admitted to probation.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There being a reduction pursued of a disposition made after interdiction lawfully published, it was alleged for the defender, That the reason was not relevant, unless it were likewise libelled, that the party interdicted was hurt and leased. It was replied, that there was no necessity so to libel, seeing dispositions made by the parties interdicted without consent of those to whom they are interdicted, are ipso jure null, as in the case of a minor having curators, who granted a bond or disposition. It was duplied, That it was offered to be proved, that the sums of money for which the disposition was made, were profitably employed to the behoof of the disponer.
The Lords did sustain the duply, and admitted the same to probation, which is the first decision of that kind, the case of persons interdicted and minor being always before thought alike.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 479. Gosford MS. No 484. p. 254.
