Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ramsay v. Ramsay [1867] ScotLR 3_214_2 (12 February 1867)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0214_2.html
Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_214_2, [1867] SLR 3_214_2
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 214↓
Court of Session Outer House First Division.
v.
Facts:
In an action by a wife against her husband, whom she had divorced, for her share of the goods in communion and for delivery of her paraphernalia, Held that she had failed to prove that there were goods in communion at the dissolution of the marriage, or that the defender had carried off any of her paraphernalia.
This was an action at the instance of Margaret Anderson Dewar or Ramsay, Cupar-Fife, against Peter Ramsay, jun., Woodhaven, for £500, or such other sum as shall be found to have been the pursuer's share of the goods in communion at the dissolution of the marriage betwixt her and the defender by divorce on 9th March 1860, and also for delivery of her gold watch and other paraphernalia. The defence was that when the marriage was dissolved there were no goods in communion in existence, and that if there were any paraphernal goods they were not in the defender's possession. The Lord Ordinary (Kinloch), after a proof, assoilzied the defender, observing in his note:—“The question for proof was not what amount of funds the pursuer possessed when she married the defender in June 1851, but what funds were extant and formed goods in communion at the dissolution of the marriage by the decree of divorce of 9th March 1860. The pursuer has failed to establish any specific amount of funds then existing. The evidence, which is very contradictory, raises a
Page: 215↓
strong surmise that the defender's father received by way of loan a portion of the pursuer's money, particularly the £200 received from Mr Black in November 1851, and if that money had been fixed on the father as a loan, the amount might have been held a valid asset of communion goods, the father not being said to be insolvent or unable to repay the advance. But the Lord Ordinary cannot hold the conflicting evidence judicially to establish the fact. The pursuer has also failed to prove by sufficiently conclusive evidence that at the dissolution of the marriage the defender carried off, and has never returned, the gold watch belonging to her. The Lord Ordinary has found no expenses due, because the circumstances disclosed in the proof are such as raised a justifiable belief on the pursuer's part that money was due to her; and, in the Lord Ordinary's apprehension, the defender by no means goes out of process with his hands entirely clean. The pursuer reclaimed.
Campbell Smith was heard for her on the import of the proof.
Rhind, for the defender, was not called on.
The Court unanimously adhered, but without expenses.
Agents for Pursuer— Ferguson & Junner, W.S.
Agents for Defender— Jardine, Stodart, & Frasers, W.S.