Interdiction is reducible where destitute of a rational foundation.
Hary Hunter of Kirkton v. John Hunter of Forrester-saltcoats
Date: 10 February 1698 Case No. No 38.
In judging of an interdiction, the court ordered a proof hinc inde, and appointed the interdicted person to appear before them.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mersington reported Hary Hunter of Kirkton against John Hunter of Forrester-saltcoats his brother, for the reduction of an interdiction, whereby he had bound himself up to act solely by his advice, in respect of his lavish prodigality. The reason of reduction was, he had been wheedled to it by surprise, and when in drink, without any previous cognition or trial of his deeds of levity; and the narrative of the interdiction bearing an acknowledgement thereof, is not sufficient, as was found 20th December 1622, Campbell contra Glenurchie, No 35. p. 7158.; and the 4th December 1623, Gichen contra Hay, No 36. 7160.; where the narrative was not found probative, unless it had proceeded cum causæ cognitione, in regard they offered to prove they were rei sui satis providi. Answered, He had given a gratuitous discharge of his tocher, and disponed away the seat of the church, and was unwilling to descend to other particulars that would convince the Lords there was too much ground for the interdiction.——The Lords considered, as the narrative of his levity was not to be wholly trusted, so neither was it to be totally discredited; but ordained the defender, before answer, to condescend and prove such acts of levity as he could, either prior to the interdiction, or subsequent; and the pursuer to elide the same, and prove his frugality and provident administration of his own affairs; and declared, at the advising, they would cause sist the young man before them and try his behaviour; though prodigals may discourse as pertinently as other men.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 481. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 822.
