Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Bogle v. Armour
Date: 7 December 1692
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Bogle against Armour. The first point was, whether the modification of the aliment, made against him, would go back for years preceding the same, or only from the date of the modification. The plurality of the Lords thought, it being due, that it drew back even before its liquidation; but the President declared he would hear them first in presence, before it should pass into a decision.
There is a case in Stair, 4th Dec. 1675, Watson, that compensation is only from the liquidation, see Dury, 1st Dec. 1626, Balbegno.
The next point reported was, whether the relict's third intromitted with by the tutor should not bear annualrent from his receiving it, at least half a year thereafter, as minor's money; the Lords found it had not the benefit of nummi pupillares, though it were all lent out in one bond; and that he was only accountable for annualrent, from the time he should depone that he either lent it out, or traded with it.
As to the third point, against Napier the cautioner, (he being also called,) the Lords decerned against him, seeing the tutor was discussed by a registrate horning, unless he condescended upon a farther estate belonging to the tutor.
