Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Earl of Caithness
v.
The Countess of Caithness

1747, Nov. 11, 21.
Case No. No. 27.

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

The question was, Whether a husband can ad libitum inhibit his wife? Tinwald thought he could not. Arniston thought that he could not without settling a reasonable maintenance for the family whereof she had the management, or in case of living separate, without settling a reasonable aliment to her. I thought if they lived together, the husband was not bound to entrust her with the management of his family, and might employ another, nor could we determine at what expense every man was bound to maintain his family. But in case of being separate, as the husband is bound to aliment his wife, I was in that case of Arniston's opinion. The question was put, adhere or alter the Ordinary's interlocutor, who had granted certification for not production, and it carried adhere. I thought the most voted only on the point of form. Against the interlocutor were inter alios President, Kilkerran, and I.—(11th June 1745.)

The question was upon the Earl's inhibition against his Lady, mentioned 11th June 1745, where the only question determined was the competency of the Lady's action of reduction which was given in her favours, but now the question was of the relevancy, and we found (Tinwald and Milton renit) that a husband may ad libitum inhibit his wife, but ought not to be allowed false and injurious expressions. Our interlocutor is, that we repel the reasons of reduction, but remit to the Ordinary on the bills to consider the inhibition, and if he finds any of the expressions injurious to delete them, and order it to be so marked on the record. 21st November The Lords adhered, and refused a bill that I thought a littlewithout answers.