Interdiction is reducible where destitute of a rational foundation.
Alexander Gordon v. Sir James Dick
Date: 23 June 1699 Case No. No 39.
A voluntary interdiction made sine causę cogniiione, was found reducible at the instance of the interdicted person, unless, in fortification of it, the interdictor could prove the narrative of facility, &c. on which it proceeded.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Whitelaw reported Alexander Gordon and Sir James Dick of Priestfield. The said Alexander being of a facile nature, did, a little after his majority, interdict himself to Sir James, his uncle, who had likewise been his curator, and which was duly published. Alexander being now married to Dirleton's sister, and they desiring he might have the administration of his fortune, by their advice, compears in a process of mails and duties against some of his tenants pursued by Sir James, and craves to be preferred as standing infeft in the lands. Answered, The rents must not be paid to you, because you stand interdicted to me. He replied on a reduction he had raised of the interdiction, That it should be declared null on this reason, that it proceeded sine causæ cognitione, and every one after minority was presumed to be rei suæ satis providus et frugalis, unless the contrary were proven. Sir James making little or no answer to this, but carrying himself passive, that the interdiction might be declared null, the Lords, as tutors and patrons to all weak persons, thought themselves the more concerned to advert thereto. Some moved, that being only a voluntary interdiction, Sir James might discharge his nephew thereof; but he judged it more secure to have the Lords' authority to rescind it. Others thought he ought to insist in his reduction via ordinaria, and not repeat it by way of reply. Others argued, That it was not relevant to say it was entered into sine causa cognita, unless it were farther offered to be proven, that he was now prudent and capable to manage and administrate his affairs; and for that effect it was overtured, that trial should be taken of his levity or deportment. Then the question arose, how that trial should be made, whether by a probation of deeds of lavishness, facility, or prodigality, or by examining and trying him in presence of the Lords. This last was not judged sufficient, for a man can answer very pertinently, and yet addicted to gaming and many acts of facility; and this uses to be in the trying of idiots, but will not serve as to prodigals; and on such expiscations the Lords have ex motu proprio interdicted some, as in the case of Robertson, and Gray of Shivez, 17th February 1681, No 13. p. 7134. At last the Lords found the reason of reduction, that it was sine causa cognita relevant to reduce the interdiction as groundless, unless Sir James in fortification of it, would offer to prove the narrative of his levity and facility on which it proceeded.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 481. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 54.
