Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Beatrix and Mary Fletchers v. Fletcher
Date: 8 January 1696
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Beatrix and Mary Fletchers, daughters to Sir A. Fletcher of Aberlady, gave in a petition against their nephew, representing they had a decreet against his father for 200 merks of yearly aliment to each of them out of the estate in 1679, and in time coming; and he being heir served and retoured to him, craved he might be decerned to pay it, as was done formerly. Answered, 1mo. This ought to be done by a process via ordinaria, and not summarily on a bill. 2do. When that decreet was obtained, it was sisters against their brother. 3tio. They were then minors, and now they are majors. 4to. The estate was then in better condition than now, by supervenient burdens. Replied,—Aliments might be continued without processes, and their favour pleaded to receive it summarily.
The Lords found this case might be taken in by way of bill; but, as to the other defences, they found a nephew was not bound to aliment his aunts, who were now long past their minority, (though it was alleged they were infirm gentlewomen, and unfit for service;) especially seeing, by the condescendence given in of the rental of the estate, and debts affecting the same, it appears not to be very able to bear any farther burden; and if nephews might be obliged to aliment, why not cousins-german, and as far as consanguinity reaches. And, as for the time it ought to last, the Lords, in 1691, would not modify to Jacobina Inglis, a posthumous child of Cramond, longer than to the 12th year of her age; though I find, in a decision recorded by Stair, 10th November 1671, Hasty, the Lords continued the aliment during minority, at least till he got a calling, or other means to aliment himself.
