In questions between parents and children, who understood to be fiar.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Whether it is expressed, that the Father is Liferenter only.
Lillie v. Riddell
Date: 24 February 1741 Case No. No 56.
Found as above.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Where one in his son's contract of marrriage had disponed his estate to his son in liferent, and to the children to be procreated of the marriage in fee, ‘The son was found to be fiar,’ though ex figura verborum, he had only the liferent.
This point was formerly so determined in the case of the children of Robert Frog against his Creditors, No 55. p. 4262., and only because the Court had given different judgments upon it in that case, is the present case taken notice of, in which it was so much considered as. an established point, that a bill reclaiming against the Ordinary's interlocutor ‘was refused without answers;’ many of the Court, at, the same time declaring, as likewise had been done in the said case of Frog, that but for the course of decisions, they should have been of opinion, that the son was not fiar, but fiduciary for his children.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 210. Kilkerran, (Fiar.) No 2. 190.
