Virtual Interdiction. - Solemnities in publication. - Effect after publication. - Effect as to moveables or personal execution.
Bernard Davidson and Sisters v. The Town of Edinburgh
Date: 22 January 1684 Case No. No 16.
A sum being only moveable, the Lords found, that an interdicted person needed not the consent of his interdictors to uplift it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The case of Bernard Davidson and his three Sisters, children to Sir William Davidson, Conservator, against the Town of Edinburgh, mentioned 14th March, 1682, voce Foreign, No 9. p. 4444. was reported by Redford. This affair having been submitted, there was a decreet-arbitral, ordaining the Town to pay them L. 20,000 Scots, in full of their claim. When the discharges came to be drawn, they refused to discharge their elder brother Sir Peter's part of it, which had fallen in amongst them by his death, and alleged the L. 20,000 was decerned to them for their own parts only, seeing, by their summons, (which was the ground of their submission and decreet-arbitral,) they did not pursue for his part, not having as yet made up a title to it, by confirming executors to him, or otherwise. Answered, By the oaths of the arbiters and communers, it will be found, that the sum decerned was in satisfaction of the whole debt quomodocunque due to them. “The lords found, they behoved to accept and discharge in satisfaction of all, and, for that effect, make up a title to their brother's part, the Town of Edinburgh always relieving them of any debt of Sir Peter's, or incumbrance that may reach or affect them, by their confirming themselves executors to him.”
1684. February 8.—In Sir Bernard Davidson's cause with the Town of Edinburgh, (mentioned 22d January, 1684,) the Lords, having caused some of their number try him; by converse and discourse, if he was an idiot, or furious, they found him neither fatuous nor mad, but that he is only sometimes epileptic; and found, though he was interdicted as a simple youth, yet this being a moveable sum, and no heritage, that he needed not the consent of his interdicters to the uplifting thereof.—See Proof.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 479. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 263. & 269.
