Latent deeds are presumed to be fraudulent in order to protect against Creditors.
The Creditors of William Robertson v. His Children
Date: 10 February 1688 Case No. No 36.
A bond of provision to, more favourable to them than stipulated by contract of marriage, reduced at the instance of posterior creditors.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The reduction pursued by the Creditors of William Robertson of his Children's bond of provision was reported by Harcarse, viz. that it was a latent deed, never known till he broke, and so presumed not to have been delivered. 2do, It is disconform to the contract of marriage, which is in favours of heirs, and only payable after his decease; whereas this is to bairns, and adds 10,000 merks more, and is payable at their age of twenty-one, and so wants an onerous cause. Answered, They offered to prove its delivery; and that the creditors debts are all long posterior to it. The Lords decerned in the reduction of the bond, and preferred the creditors to the children. They cited for the creditors, 10th January 1668, Bothwell of Glencorse, voce Writ; Pollock, No 31. p. 4909.; 11th July 1673, Street, No 32. p. 4911.; 4th December. 1673, Reid, No 33. p. 4923.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 135. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 497.
