Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Murray of Skirling v. Mr Buchan, his Minister
Date: 1 January 1679
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Lords, upon occasion of a bill given in by Murray of Skirling against Mr Buchan his minister, in a process between them, made an act of sederunt anent the clerks their minuting of defences, viz. to pass over all dilatory defences, unless they be sustained, and to write all immediately upon the process, and not upon scrolls and books apart, out of which they afterwards extend them. This act was thought impracticable; and by this way it cannot be known what was competent and omitted, and what was repelled.
Vol. I. Page 30.
Anent Pactions contra fidem Tabularum Nuptialium.
Anent Pactions contra fidem tabularum nuptialium,—see June 1677, f.288, and Donald Folder's case, in Mack. Observ. on Act 21, Parliament 1621.
A bond granted by a wife after a contract of marriage, or proclamation of banns, is reputed stante matrimonio: as was found in Lady Bute's case; ergo, a bond granted by her future spouse to her at that time is in pari casu. See June 4, 1679, Ewart. 2do, Bonds granted inter sponsum et sponsam in cestro amoris, are more to be reputed donations, and more exorbitant than what are given after the marriage; there being a greater eclipse of the use of reason at that time then afterwards. 3tio, It is contra fidem tabularum nuptialium. Anent donations inter virum et uxorem, see Durie, 17th July 1632, L. Borthwick; et infra, 18th December 1679, de Pacto Proxenetico; and 8th January 1680, Raeth.
The Lords have found, at least inclined to find, deeds granted betwixt a contract and a marriage are not to be construed as revocable donations inter virum et uxorem, between Home and Home; and the reason of circumvention, super æstro amoris, was debated, but not decided, between Ranken and Reed, in 167-. And the Lords reduced bonds contra pacta nuptialia, not only in Donald Fouler's case, but likeways in the case of Lockhart of Wicketshaw against where they were entered into by parties that were under the power of their parents living, without their consent. But if both parties were sui juris, and their parents (bad, quid impedit but they may enter into new pactions? See Arbuthnot against Knox, 15th December 1660.
