Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
The Husband's powers with regard to the management of the common stock, and of the Children.
Stracy Till, &c v. Robert Jamieson
Date: 16 June 1763 Case No. No 146.
An assignment of a debt by a woman to her father, for supporting him in old age, granted before her marriage, though not intimated till after, was preferred before the jus mariti.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A legacy of L. 200 Sterling being left to Margaret Jamieson by her uncle John Hamilton merchant in Glasgow, she being in good business as a mantua-maker, assigned the same to her father Robert Jamieson, in order to support him in his old age. The assignment bears date 7th June 1759: and, on the 17th of August the same year, she was enticed into a marriage with Robert Mason linen draper in Northallerton, who, in a month after the marriage, became bankrupt, and a commission of bankruptcy was issued out against him. The commissioners of bankruptcy executed, as usual, an assignment to the bankrupt's effects, 22d of October 1759; and the assignment by Margaret Jamieson to her father was not intimated till the 17th of May 1760.
The representatives of John Hamilton, in order to pay safely, brought a multiplepoinding against the assignees to the bankrupt husband's effects, and against Robert Jamieson assignee from the wife.’
And the Lords found, “That the assignment in favour of Robert Jamieson, having been granted and delivered before the marriage, though not intimated, is preferable to the legal assignment by the subsequent marriage.”
This Judgment rests upon two different grounds, both of which were under view of the Court, 1mo, That the legal assignment by marriage transfers nothing to the husband but what the wife had the free disposal of; and therefore, not any subject made over by her to another, of which she could not dispose, though the legal title remained with her. 2do, As Margaret Jamieson's assignment to her father bears warrandice from fact and deed, the husband, had the subject been even conveyed to him expressly, must have conveyed it to the assignee, as being liable for his wife's debts.
Sel. Dec. No 206. p. 273.
*** See this case as reported in the Faculty Collection, No 84. p. 2858.
