[1782] Hailes 904
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 MINOR.
Subject_3 A slight act of homologation, occasioned by the influence of a father, and only a few days posterior to minority, not sufficient to bar restitutio in integrum.
Date: Reverend Mr Robert Arnot
v.
Oliver Melville
4 July 1782 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 80; Dict. 8998.]
Braxfield. If a minor does bind himself after majority, he must pay; but we ought to be cautious not to enlarge the obligation. The original obligations were taken from him when he was several years under majority; and, just after his majority, he agreed in signing a state of sums due, but he did not renounce the power of revoking.
Monboddo. The ratification, in order to be good, must be formal; but this ratification is not.
Kaimes. I do not see that Oliver Melville, when he signed the state after majority, knew that he was at liberty to revoke what he had done during his minority, and so I will not foreclose him.
On the 4th July 1782, “The Lords sustained the reasons of reduction;” adhering to the interlocutor of Lord Westhall.
Act. Ch. Hay. Alt. Wm. Craig.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting