Arrestment entitles to pursue a multiplepoinding, however untenible the arrester's claim may ex facie appear.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By the contract of marriage between James Douglas and Mary Cleland, it was provided, “That the sum of 1000 merks due by Watson of Muirhouse, which was assigned to the said Mary by Margaret Hamilton Lady Cleland, her mother, should not fall under the jus mariti, either as to principal or interest.”
Crooks, a creditor of Douglas, the husband, having arrested in the hands of Muirhouse the debtor, Mr Watson presented a bill of suspension of the bond on double distress from the arrestment and a horning at the instance of Mary Cleland, the wife, and her husband; which the Ordinary, before whom it came, “Refused,” in respect of the said clause in her contract of marriage, excluding the husband's jus mariti, and consequently his creditors.
But, upon a petition from Mr Watson, the Lords “remitted to the Ordinary to pass the bill.”
For though it might be true, that the husband's creditor could have no interest in the subject arrested, yet it is also true, that the arrester may have a reply, and the debtor is not obliged to undertake the litigation with the arrester.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 11. Kilkerran, (Arrestment.) No 19. p. 46.
