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 >> Relict of Inglis v The Earl of Murray. [1662] Mor 2602 (00 February 1662)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1662/Mor0602602-052.html
Cite as: [1662] Mor 2602

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


[1662] Mor 2602      

Subject_1 COMPENSATION - RETENTION.
Subject_2 SECT. V.

Compensation, its Effect Relative to Onerous Assignees

Relict of Inglis
v.
The Earl of Murray

1662. February.
Case No. No 52.

A relict, executrix of her husband, pursued a debtor of her husband. His plea of compensation founded on a debt due by the defunct, assigned, but not intimated, before the pursuit, was repelled.


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

The Relict of umquhile Robert Inglis merchant, being creditrix by her contract of marriage, confirmed executrix to her husband; and, in the inventory, having given up a debt owing to him by the Earl of Murray, she gives power to ———Crawford to pursue the Earl for payment. It was excepted, That the defender ought to have compensation; because, before the intenting of this pursuit, the defunct was debtor to the defender in a sum of money assigned to him by Dr Leighton, now bishop in Dumblane. It was answered, 1mo, Non relevat, unless the assignation had been intimate, before the intenting of the cause, to the executors or nearest of kin to the said Robert Inglis. 2do, Though it had been intimate, yet it could give no ground of compensation; because the relict, by her contract, was a privileged creditrix before any other; and, in prejudice of her privilege, no assignation could be granted or received, to take away that preference from her which the law gave her.

The Lords repelled the allegeance.

Gilmour, No 28. p. 22.

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/1662/Mor0602602-052.html