Interdiction strikes not against onerous or rational Deeds.
Dingwall v. Monro
Date: 12 July 1749 Case No. No 27.
Interdiction strikes not a gainst ordinary acts of administration.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A voluntary interdiction, so far as it goes, has the same effect with a judicial interdiction; but it goes no farther than it expresses; and therefore, where by the letters of publication, which is the act that gives effect to the bond of interdiction, the will was, “That the lieges be inhibited to take any right to the pursuer's lands, &c, or to lend him sums of money,” that was not thought to restrain the person's ordinary acts of administration, as contracting debts for furnishing to his family, &c. and even though such furnishings should be extravagant, it was thought hard to clip the merchant's account, as it is not for him to judge to what extent furnishings were proper or necessary. It was, therefore, in this case, thought not to be a good exception to Roderick M'Kenzie's account of wine, furnished to the late Gustavus Monro of Culrain, a person interdicted from borrowing money, that above hogsheads of wine and spirits had been furnished to him in the space of eight or nine months.
But then, all that was produced, for instructing the furnishing in this case, was a bill accepted by the late Culrain, the person interdicted, of the same date with the discharged account, found in the hands of his doer; which, though a strong circumstance, was yet thought not sufficient to support the bill, without further instruction, by proof, of the furnishing; wherefore, a proof, before answer, was allowed to either party, of all facts and circumstances which might support or invalidate the truth of the account.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 336. Kilkerran, (Interdiction.) No. 1. p. 206.
