Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 IDIOTRY AND FURIOSITY.

Morison, &c
v.
Earl of Sutherland

1749, June 21.
Case No. No. 2.

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

An inquisition of lunacy being found in London against George Morison, son to the late Prestongrange, the Chancellor appointed Walter Bain and Penelope Morison the lunatic's sister Committees of his estate, and Sir Nicholas Baillie of his person; and John Hamilton on a factory from Bain and his wife sued Earl of Sutherland for L.2100 ster ling, due by the Earl to George by an English double bond granted in London for. L.4200. Excepted, The inquisition in England is no legal evidence in Scotland; 2dly, If it were, the Chancellor has no power to direct the management of any estate of his in Scotland, because extra territorium. Answered, The statuta personalia loci domicilii must bind, every where a lunatic or fatuous person, or minor, or married person, who held so there must be held so every where;—moveable sequuntur personam, and are regulated by the law of the place of domicile. Replied, Statuta even personalia have no force extra territorium, if it is not ex comitate. A man is major in Naples at 18, but if he had an estate in Scotland he could not dispose of it. To the second, Even the succession of moveables in Scotland is ruled by the law of Scotland wherever the owner dies, witness the case of Duncan's executors; and debts must be regulated by the law of the place where they must be sued. The pursuers apprehensive of the decision, applied to the Chancellor, and got a warrant to Sir Nicholas Baillie to give then access to the lunatic, to get from him a letter of attorney to Mr Hamilton to sue in his own name, which warrant he granted, and they got the letter of attorney, and insisted on both titles. Excepted, a lunatic could give no attorney, which the pursuers maintained he was; and if he was not lunatic, yet by the petition and warrant it appeared he was used as such and not his own master. I reported the case, and the Lords unanimously found, that neither the Chancellor's commission nor the letter of attorney gave a sufficient title to carry on this sale. But this was reversed by the House of Lords, and the title sustained to maintain action in the appellant Morison's name, 13th February 1750, which was founded on the letter of attorney as I was told.