Latent deeds are presumed to be fraudulent in order to protect against Creditors.
Paul v. Davidson
Date: 29 February 1694 Case No. No 35.
An assignation by a father to his children, in implement of a contract of marriage, and while he was in good circumstances, found effectual; altho' not intimated, and challenged as in defraud of posterior creditors.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The debate between Sir John Paul and Sir William Davidson's daughters is reported by Redford; and the Lords preferred the daughters upon the transport or assignation they had from their father to the town of Edinburgh's bond, though he was a creditor, and it was not intimated; because the transport depended on the onerous cause of implementing to them their mother's contract of marriage; and Paul's debt was contracted long after that marriage, and after the transport; and he was in an opulent and flourishing condition when he made that assignation, and so made it not in defraud of creditors, especially of future creditors, such as Paul was; and thus there was no place here for the actio pauliana revocatoria; and Street and Mason's case in 1673, No 32. p. 4911. did not meet this; for though Mason disponed his lands to his son before contraction of the debts, yet it was reduced, because there was a current tract of correspondence between them prior to his son's fee, and his design appeared evidently to be fraudulent.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 335. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 277.
