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 >> Bessie Muir v Jean Stirling. [1663] Mor 6107 (19 February 1663)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1663/Mor1506107-318.html
Cite as: [1663] Mor 6107

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


[1663] Mor 6107      

Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE.
Subject_2 DIVISION X.

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

Whether deeds betwixt Husband and Wife, where there are clauses favour of third parties are revocable, although gratuitous.

Bessie Muir
v.
Jean Stirling

Date: 19 February 1663
Case No. No 318.

A donation by a wife, directly in favour of her husband's children, et e contra, is not revocable.


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

The said Bessie Muir pursues her mother, as executrix to her father, for payment of a legacy of 8000 merks left in his testament, subscribed by the defender, and confirmed by her after her husband's death.—The defender alleged absolvitor, because she, by the contract of marriage, was provided to the liferent of all sums to be conquest; and albeit she consented to the legacy, it was donatio inter virum et uxorem; and for her confirmation, it cannot import a passing from her own right, but only her purpose to execute the defunct's will according to law, especially she being an illiterate person.—The pursuer answered, That this donation was not by the wife, to, or in favour of the husband, but of their children, which is not revocable; and also the confirmation homologates the same, seeing the wife might have confirmed, and protested to be without prejudice of her own right.

The Lords repelled the defence, in respect of the reply.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 409. Stair, v. 1. p. 183.

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/1663/Mor1506107-318.html