Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 ALIMENT.

Napier
v.
Napiers

1751, Feb. 2.
Case No. No. 12.

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

This apparent-heir, an infant, pursues these two liferenters for an aliment on the act of Parliament anent wardatars alimenting the fiars,* alleged this action is founded on an unwarrantable extension introduced by practice, noways founded on the words of statute, and ought not to be further extended; that the pursuer has no claim super jure naturæ, being only grand-niece to old Kilmahow; that the estate is so far bankrupt, that the pursuer neither does nor dare represent the defuncts; that the father's widow enjoys her liferent only by the bounty of some adjudgers who are preferable to her, and can remove her at pleasure, and it amounts only to L.40 sterling, or L.42 of locality; and that the young Lady [1ady Jean Bruce) was provided to above L.100 sterling, and for relief of the family quitted the half of it, and has now only L.33 free; that if the fee had been sold, the heir of the purchaser could not have claimed an aliment, and no more can the heir of the bankrupt, who will not represent and take the fee; and, 2do, These are no more than scrimp aliments for the widows themselves. Answered: An apparent-heir has this action without entering, and though their liferents are small, they must spare some, that the far may not starve, and they ask not of the old Lady a decreet personally, but a part of the liferent lands. The Lords thought, that where the estate was in these circumstances, the heir could not claim aliment; 2do, That where the liferent itself was but a mean aliment for persons of that rank, that no aliment was due from them; 3tio, The President thought we could not give lands by way of aliment, but an annual sum, which, in these circumstances, could not be decerned against the old Lady; and therefore we found that no aliment could be given in this case.

* Act 1491. Cap 25.