Subject_1 GENERAL DISCHARGES and RENUNCIATIONS. Subject_2 SECT. VIII.
If presumed to comprehend legal provisions and undelivered bonds of provision.
Gray v. The Creditors of Drum
1736.
February. Case No. No 34.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A woman being confirmed executrix as nearest of kin, after her decease, the next in blood made up titles by confirmation to some moveable debts, omitted out of the inventory of the former testament, and insisted against the debtor for payment. The defence was laid upon a general discharge granted by the husband of the executrix, of all he could ask or crave from the debtor in virtue of his wife's claim for executry, &c. which must be presumed to include the present claim; and though it should be supposed the husband could, not effectually discharge this claim, by reason titles were not made up in his wife's person, yet the same, bearing absolute warrandice, must bar the pursuer, who is the husband's representative, and liable to fulfil his deeds, Answered, No presumption that this claim fell under the general discharge, seeing the wife had no title to claim, nor power to discharge. Replied, She had the jus fundatum by the right of blood, was confirmed in a part, and had a licence to pursue for the remainder; so that in the utmost rigour of law, there was nothing wanting but ah eik to the testament, which might be done at any time. The Lords sustained the defence upon the general discharge. See Appendix.
