William Denholm Wigmaker in Edinburgh v. Anna Watt Relict of Robert Drysdale Merchant there
Date: 21 July 1724 Case No. No 4.
A wife was provided to the half of her husband's household furniture, and half of his shop goods, according to an inventory, in which the goods were valued, but the furniture was not. At the husband's death the shop goods were of less value than at the date of the inventory; but it was found, that she could claim no more than the half of her husband's effects at the time of his death.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Denholm, as creditor to Robert Drysdale by two bonds of 200 merks each, payable the first term after Drysdale's decease, insisted against Anna Watt his relict, as executrix or vitious intromitter, for payment of the sums in the bonds.
It was alleged for her, That the testament was exhausted, she being creditrix by her contract of marriage for more than the value of all the effects left by her husband at his death, in regard, that, by the contract, he had disponed to her the half of his houshold furniture, and likewise the half of his merchant-goods, both by inventory, with this difference, that in the inventory of the merchant goods, every particular was valued, and the total sum extended; but the other contained only the particulars of the furniture, without any value put upon them; from which it was contended, that as she was creditrix in the ipsa corpora of the houshold furniture, so she was in the value of the merchant-goods as at that time, because it could not be said with any propriety, that she was creditrix in the ipsa corpora of the merchant-goods, which, from the nature of the thing might next day have become the property of a purchaser.
It was answered, That the design and meaning of valuing the contents of the inventory of goods was no other, than to direct them to a prudent and accurate management in the sale; but it could not be thought, that the husband intended that she should be creditrix in the extent of the sum to which they were valued; for had he so designed, it was easier for him to have provided her to a sum equal to it in her contract; and therefore, as the property, as well as the administration of the merchant-goods remained with the husband during his life; so the wife, by her contract of marriage, was only creditrix for the half of the merchant-goods that should be in the husband's possession at the time of his death.
“The Lords found, that the defender, by her contract of marriage, was only creditor for the half of the value of the goods and gear at the time of the husband's decease.”
Reporter, Lord Pancaitland.Act. Ja. Fergus son, senior.Alt. Hugh Dalrymple, senior.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 307. Edgar, p. 98.
