Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the charge at Mr. John Daes's instance against his brother, it being called and debated in the Inner-House, “the Lords assigned to Mr. James, the suspender, the 20th of February next to prove what moveables his father had at the time of the contract in 1669, and to give in a condescendence thereof betwixt and that day eight days; and to prove his condescendence betwixt and the said 20th of February; and assigned the same day to the charger to prove that the same goods were delivered to, or intromitted with by, the suspender himself; and ordained the charger to re-employ the half of the sums charged for, conform to the destination and substitution of the bond of provision charged upon, viz. in case of Mr. John's decease, without children, that then 3000 merks, being the half, shall return to his eldest brother, Mr. James, who is debtor in the bond; and found, that the goods so acquired by the defunct father, after the said contract 1669, might lawfully, by virtue of the power therein, be disposed of to his son Mr. John, as well as to any other, at his pleasure.” Quar. If this would hinder him to assign, or consume it on his aliment?
