Subject_1 PROVISION to HEIRS and CHILDREN. Subject_2 SECT. XIII.
What understood to be sufficient implement.
Gray of Haystoun v. Forbes and Lindsay
Date: 20 June 1672 Case No. No 104.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Gray of Haystoun having granted bond to Lindsay, and the said Lindsay having assigned the same to his daughter, the said William Gray suspended upon a double-poinding, against the said assignee and a creditor who had arrested. It was alleged for the creditor, That the assignation was made by a father to a daughter, to defraud creditors. It was answered, That the father by contract of marriage was obliged, in case there should be no heirs male betwixt him and the assignee's mother, to pay to the heir or bairn female, at her age of 14 years, 4000 merks, and until then to entertain her; and that the assignee being the sole bairn of the marriage, her father had given the assignation foresaid for implement of the said obligement.
The Lords having considered, that the provision by the contract of marriage in favour of the daughters is only in case there should be no heirs male of the marriage, and that the father should have other heirs male of his body, so that the daughter should not succeed to the estate, and that both the father and mother are yet living, and of that age that it was not to be expected that the father would have other heirs male of his body by another marriage, and his daughter was his apparent heir whatsomever; therefore they found, that the case of the provisions in favours of the heirs female did not exist, and preferred the creditor.
For Lindsay, Lockhart and Bannerman.For Forbes, Bernie, &c.Clerk, Gibson.
Dirleton, No 169. p. 68.
*** Stair's report of this case (Bannerman against Creditors of Seton and Gray) is No 18. p. 4889. voce Fraud.
