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 >> Turnbull v Husband. [1697] Mor 10726 (15 January 1697)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1697/Mor2510726-037.html
Cite as: [1697] Mor 10726

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


[1697] Mor 10726      

Subject_1 PRESCRIPTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION I.

Negative Prescription of Forty Years.
Subject_3 SECT. V.

Res merę facultatis.

Turnbull
v.
Husband

Date: 15 January 1697
Case No. No 37.

Donatio inter virum et uxorem may be revoked at any time, and suffers not the negative prescription.


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

Turnbull had granted a bond to Christian Grimman, his wife, her heirs and executors, for 1700 merks, stante matrimonio. She assigns this bond. The assignees charging, he suspends, on this reason, that it was donatio inter virum et uxorem, and revocable, and de facto by him revoked; 2do, The assignation was null, being granted by his wife viro vestita, without his consenting thereto; 3tio, Prior to the intimation she had discharged the bond. Answered to the 1st, The bond, bearing date in 1653, and he not revoking the same till 1653, after 42 years, his faculty of revocation was prescribed; 2do, The assignation needed not his consent, for it cannot be presumed he would consent to an assignation against himself; 3tio, She could not discharge, because it was provided to her heirs and executors, and not to herself. Replied, Such donations are never confirmed nisi morte concedentis, and therefore his revoking was actus meræ facultatis, which he might exercise any time; and if his faculty was prescribed, then the bond was also prescribed.—The Lords sustained the husband's revocation, and suspended the letters, and assoilzied him from the bond.

Reporter, Crocerig. Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 98. Fountainball, v. 1. p. 756

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/1697/Mor2510726-037.html