Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE. Subject_2 DIVISION III.
Mutual Duties betwixt Husband and Wife.
Subject_3 SECT. I.
Husband bound to aliment and provide for his Wife.
John Henderson v. James Lafreis
Date: 24 June 1696 Case No. No 98.
A minor found liable for his wife's wedding cloaths, bought by himself.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Lauderdale reported John Henderson, merchant, against James Lafreis, writer, for payment of a sum contained in his bond. The reasons of suspension and reduction being coincident, were, that he was minor, and lesed, it being for merchant ware, not taken off for himself, (except a very few articles,) but for his wife's marriage cloaths, which Mr James Caithness, her father, ought to have paid. Answered, It was in rem versum to the minor, who was past twenty, and the count being no way exorbitant and the furnishing being to his wife, and the bond granted since his marriage, he can no ways pretend to be lesed; for though her father should have paid her wedding cloaths, yet the charger would not have trusted him for a sixpence, he being then in prison for debt; and such furnishing to minors has been sustained, as appears by Dury, 5th Feb. 1631, Inglis contra Sharp, voce Minor. The Lords repelled the reason, and found him liable, even for what was furnished to his wife, because being a moveable debt, jure mariti it became his, especially the bond being after the marriage. See the 10th of July 1672, Neilson contra Guthrie, No. 94. p. 5878.
1697. Nov. 11.—John Henderson having charged James Lafreis Writer, (as mentioned June 24. 1696), for payment of the sum of contained in his bond; his reason of suspension and reduction was, minority and lesion. Answered, In rem versum, being for your marriage cloaths. Replied, The account is likewise made up of sundry articles furnished to his wife before the marriage, and to Mr James Caithness, her father. The Lords found quoad what was given off to her father, he was lesed, and ought to be reponed against the same; but what was given to his wife, though prior to the marriage, yet would fall sub commmione bonorum mobilium, and make him liable jure mariti, unless they had followed her father's faith in the furnishing. See July 10. 1672, Neilson contra Guthrie, No. 94. p. 5878. Then the charger alleged, That Lafreis being a writer and attendant about the Session the time he gave, this bond, though then a minor, he cannot crave the benefit of reposition; and it has been so decided in the Parliament of Paris, and elsewhere. Answered, That if an advocate (which is more than a writer) should ex errore facti give bond, or enter into any other transaction to his prejudice, when minor, he will be restored; and this benefit is only denied him when he errs in, jure; and so Pirezius determines it ad tit. cad. Qui et adversus quos in integr. and in the decision 7th December 1666, between Fairholme and Sir George M'Kenzie, voce Minor, he, though then a student of law, was reponed against a bond wherein he had signed cautioner, in his minority, for his father; but the ground there was, that his father could not legally authorize him in rem suam. The Lords found Lafreis's being in a writer's chamber did not exclude his reason on minority and lesion; but the Lords ordained the charger to depone that the articles of the account were at the common usual rates, and not exorbitant.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 393. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 723. & 792.
