Parents liable for Furnishings to their Children. - In what cases the Children liable. - Qui in funus impendit.
Hopekirk v. Daes
Date: 14 January 1698 Case No. No 34.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A wife and her husband and her father, being all convened by a merchant for an account of clothes, taken off by her while unmarried, a minor, and in familia with her father, the Lords found as follows, viz. 1mo, If she had been sui juris et mater familias, at the time of taking on the account, and had wanted a father, then it would have affected herself, and consequently her husband jure mariti; but being in familia with her father, neither she nor her husband could be made liable for the same; 2do, That it behoved the merchant to prove that the things were necessary, and suitable to one of her rank and station, and nowise exorbitant; in which case, they found there was no need of the father's special warrant for furnishing the same; 3tio, They found it relevant to assoilzie the father, that he proved the furnishing of his daughter sufficiently aliunde by paying accounts for her elsewhere to merchants for clothes near the time of contracting this debt; 4to, They rejected two articles of the account, for a watch and borrowed money, as not necessary nor suitable, (though she was a gentlewoman) unless the merchant would prove the watch yet extant, or that they were in rem minoris versa.
