Subject_1 PROVISION to HEIRS and CHILDREN. Subject_2 SECT. XIII.
What understood to be sufficient implement.
Lamond v. Lamond
Date: 30 July 1776 Case No. No 120.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Lamond, a shoemaker, by his marriage-contract, bound himself to settle his whole heritage and moveables on himself and spouse in conjunct fee and liferent, and to the heirs and bairns of the marriage in fee, and to do no deed to prejudge the children of their said right. He left a son and four daughters; three of whom having married with his consent, he gave them tochers, and received their discharges of all due them under the contract. The fourth daughter having married without his consent, received nothing; but, at her father's death, she claimed her provision as a bairn of the marriage; and insisted, That two heritable subjects, of which her father had taken the rights of the one to himself and spouse in conjunct fee and liferent, and to his heirs in fee; and of the other to himself and spouse in liferent, and to his son in fee, should, along with the moveable succession, be subject to an equal division among all the children. Urged in defence, The father, notwithstanding the obligation in the contract, retained the power of division; and the destination of the heritage, in the title-deeds, was the most formal division possible with regard to it.—The Lords found, that the titles of the heritable subjects carry them exclusively to the son; but that the pursuer, as a bairn of the marriage, has a right to an equal share of the remainder of the estate.—fee Appendix.
