Found, that a brother not giving consent to his sister's marriage, which consent, by her father's appointment, she was bound to obtain, under an irritancy of losing part of her portion, did not infer the irritancy, unless he gave a reason for his dissent.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Elizabeth Pringle, and Rutherford her husband, pursuing Pringle of Symington, her brother, for her portion, he repeated a reduction upon these grounds; 1mo, That some of the bonds assigned to her were heritable, and the assignation by her father was in lecto, at which time he could not prejudge his heir; 2do, That she was obliged to marry with his consent, else 2000 merks was to return to him.—Answered to the first, He was her tutor, and granted discharges of the annuals of these sums tutorio nomine, and so had homologated, and could not now quarrel it; 2do, He had accepted a disposition from his father, narrating this portion; 3tio, As to her marriage, the quality was not known nor intimated to her.—Replied, His acting as tutor did not preclude him, as is clear from § 4. Institut. de inofficios. testament.——The Lords repelled the reason founded upon death-bed, the charger proving that the suspender had accepted a disposition, which narrates the cause and occasion of the same to be the bonds assigned; and find, that the suspender not giving his consent to the charger, his sister's marriage, does not infer the irritancy contained in the assignation, of applying 2000 merks of the said bonds to the suspender; unless the suspender could give a reason of dissent; for they would not allow him, upon the prospect of his own benefit, to deny his consent to every proposition of marriage made to his sister, because he hoped 2000 merks would fall in to him.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 190. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 512.
