Æstus amoris no relevant ground of reduction, in so far as third parties are concerned.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Crocerig reported William Currier against Rutherford and Hyslop, being a reduction of a decreet of spuilzie on sundry nullities; as that it was put up of a wrong date in the minute-book, the date of the signature of process and warrant being four days different from the date as it stands in the minute-book; and that the spuilzie was inferred, because they continued to poind after a sist of execution on a bill of suspension was presented; which was not proved by a written intimation, (as it ought to have been,) but only by witnesses present, who might readily mistake such a punctilio.—Alleged against Hyslop, That he could never quarrel the decreet, because he had accepted of a discharge, and given a ratification of the decreet.—Answered, Being in a communing about his marriage, the woman's friends refused, unless he got a discharge of that decreet, which made him enter into that transaction, being in æstu amoris, at which time he would refuse nothing.——The Lords repelled the nullities; and found the ætus amoris might be pretended as a ground to reduce things granted to a wife or her friends, but not what was done to third parties not concerned in the treaty of marriage.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 421. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 728.
