If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.

Thank you very much for your support!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Hackstoun v Rutherford. [1636] Mor 6118 (16 July 1636)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1636/Mor1506118-333.html
Cite as: [1636] Mor 6118

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1636] Mor 6118      

Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE.
Subject_2 DIVISION X.

Deeds betwixt Husband and Wife during marriage.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.

Mutual Contracts.

Hackstoun
v.
Rutherford

Date: 16 July 1636
Case No. No 333.

A cautioner for the adherence of husband and wife during life, not liberated by a temporary adherence.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Mr David Kinloch being cautioner for David Hackstoun, that he should adhere to Rutherford his spouse, and after that caution, they adhering together, and bairns thereafter procreated betwixt them, thereafter they diverted. The wife, after the death of the cautioner, desired the bond to be transferred in the cautioner's heirs, and he alleging that the bond of cautionry was expired, seeing thereafter they had cohabited, and children since gotten betwixt them, whereby the effect of the bond was fulfilled, and the cautioner and his heirs were freed of the bond; and it being opponed that the tenor of the bond bore, that they should adhere during their lifetime; and now seeing he had diverted, she had reason to seek the bond to be transferred, the Lords, in respect of the tenor of the bond, which bore, that the cautioner was bound that they should adhere during their lifetime, found, that the cautioner and his heirs were obliged for the husband's adherence during that time. And it being alleged, that he was content to adhere, and for that effect had a process before the Commissaries against her for adherence, and she answeriug, that the Commissaries had assoilzied her from that pursuit, because the husband Would not find caution for her indemnity and entertainment, so that except the caution already found should be obliged to that, she could not adhere; the Lords found, that the caution foresaid, found for the husband for his adherence, was only obliged that he should adhere, and was not obliged for her indemnity and entertainment, that clause not being expressed in the act of caution; and the husband being but a poor man, indigent of means, and a servant, who could not get such a particular cautioner for these particulars desired by the wife, they found, that they could not astrict the cautioner to such things as he had not bound himself to.

Durie, p. 816.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1636/Mor1506118-333.html