Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 MUTUAL CONTRACT.

Rankine
v.
Rankine

1736, Feb. 17, June 25.
Case No. No. 4.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Lords found that “heirs and bairns” made all the bairns heirs of provision in he ritables as well as moveables, this not being a Gentleman's contract of a land estate; and found that the taking the heritable bond to heirs and assignees in general did not alter their right, though they thought the father had the power of division, and might by an explicit deed have given these bonds to the eldest son. They also found the disposition on death bed by the father Patrick to his younger children could not prejudge his eldest son's heirs of his share of the provision, and that the son could not on death-bed discharge that provision; and found that the holograph discbarge non probat datam, but found that the subjects given the son Walter at his marriage settlement behoved to be collated, (though if it had not been given at his marriage settlement, the President thought it would not collate, and I believe rightly,) but 17th February 1736 remitted to the Ordinary to allow the defender to astruct the date And the last point anent imputing the subjects given Walter, being reclaimed against, was unanimously adhered to, 25th June 1736.

*** On the 24th in the case Clerks against Robertson, the Lords found there was suf-cient presumptive evidence that in Bessie Clerk's contract of marriage, to which her father Andrew was a party contractor,1200 merks of tocher was provided to be paid by the said Andrew; and found that the 1200 merks must be imputed in satisfaction pro tanto of her share of the provisions in the said Andrew's contract of marriage.—21st July, The Lords audhered.