Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a suspension raised at Smeaton's instance against the Executors-Creditors of James Dunlop, upon this reason, that the decreet was wrongously given against him for sums of money he had paid to the defunct's relict, who was a preferable creditor by her contract of marriage, as likewise decerned executor creditor by the Commissaries; it was answered, That the said relict being only decerned but never confirmed, had no title in her person, and therefore decreet was justly given at the charger's instance, who was not only decerned but confirmed executor.
The Lords did suspend the letters notwithstanding of the answer, in respect that the money was bona fide paid to the relict who was decerned, but died soon after, before she could be confirmed, and against whose preference in a double poinding, if she had been compearing, no reason could have been alleged.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 176. Gosford, MS. No 519. p. 275.
*** Similar decisions were pronounced, 20th January 1631, Creditors of Brown, No 4. p. 2428, voce Collusion; and 9th February 1662, Crawford against Earl of Murray, No 63. p. 2613, voce Compensation. See No 11. p. 1184.
