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 >> Elizabeth Borthwick, widow or Thomas Scot, v John Scot, son to the said Thomas. [1724] Mor 6149 (21 July 1724)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1724/Mor1506149-355.html
Cite as: [1724] Mor 6149

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


[1724] Mor 6149      

Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE.
Subject_2 DIVISION X.

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

Revocation how barred.

Elizabeth Borthwick, widow or Thomas Scot,
v.
John Scot, son to the said Thomas

Date: 21 July 1724
Case No. No 355.

A wife, with consent of her husband, disponed certain houses to her brother-in-law, who redisponed them to her husband. She afterwards raised a reduction of the disposition, on the ground,that it was donatio inter virum et uxorem. Answered, She had ratified it extra pręsentiam mariti, and had homologated it by letting tacks as liferentrix (the liferent being reserved to her.) The Lords repelled the defence.


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

The pursuer, with consent of Thomas Scot her husband, granted a disposition of certain tenements in Edinburgh which belonged to her, in favours of Pringle of Torsonce, brother-in-law to the husband, who thereupon disponed the same to the said Thomas Scot. She having survived her husband, raised reduction of these two dispositions, as being in the same case as if she had disponed the tenements directly to her husband, which she could have revoked, as a donation inter virum et uxorem.

The defences were, 1mo, That she had judicially ratified the disposition extra præsentiam mariti, and sworn, “that she should never quarrel, impugn, nor reduce the same, nor come in the contrary thereof, directly or indirectly, in judgment, nor without the same, any manner of way, in time coming;” and this, according to Sir James Stewart's opinion, in his Answers to Dirleton's Doubts, tit. Don. inter vir. et ux. excludes revocation. 2do, That she had homologated the disposition, in so far as, a liferent of the subjects being reserved to her, she had, after her husband's death, uplifted and discharged the rents, and set tacks, &c. as liferentrix.

Answered to the 1st, That the judicial ratification does only exclude a reduction ex capite vis et metus, but does not hinder a wife to revoke a donation made by her to her husband stante matrimonio, as was found February 15. 1678, Gordon against Maxwell, No 353. p. 6144.; which authority must be of greater weight than the opinion of any private lawyer. To the 2d, That her uplifting rents, to which she was entitled, could not be construed an homologation of the disposition; for, till that deed was reduced, she could do no more than levy the rents as liferentrix.

The Lords found, that the judicial ratification did not exclude the revocation; and that the setting tacks as liferentrix was not a sufficient homologation of the dispositions.

Reporter, Lord Grange. Act. Arch. Hamilton, sen. Alt. Ch. Binning. Clerk, Mackenzie. Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 288. Edgar, p. 97.

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/1724/Mor1506149-355.html