In which circumstances intromission does or does not infer a Passive Title. - Action transmits against heirs in valorem only.
George Penman and Janet Brown v. James Penman
Date: 15 December 1775 Case No. No 158.
Action transmits against heirs in valorem only.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The present action was brought against James Penman for payment of a bond for 800 merks, granted by the deceased William Mitchell and Katharine Penman, to which the pursuers have right by assignation.
The defender admitted, that he represents Katharine Penman, in so far as, about five years ago, he made up a title to her, as heir to her at law, by a precept of clare constat, in a trifling heritable subject belonging to her.
In the course of this process, a proof was, before answer, allowed, that Katharine Penman represented her husband William Mitchell. A proof was accordingly led; and the Judges were generally of opinion, that it appeared from thence, she had had an universal intromission with her husband's effects, who was the debtor in the bond sued on; but this being in a question with her heir, who, it was urged, could not be made liable universally, on account of the predecessor's delict;
“The Lords found the defender liable in valorem of Katharine Penman's intromissions only.”
Alt: Geo. Fergusson.Act. Geo. Clerk,Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 48. Fac. Col. No 206. p. 152.
