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 >> Din v Blair. [1744] Mor 3893 (18 December 1744)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1744/Mor0903893-084.html
Cite as: [1744] Mor 3893

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


[1744] Mor 3893      

Subject_1 EXECUTOR.
Subject_2 SECT. VIII.

If there be a Co-executor. - If the Executor die before obtaining Sentence. - Every creditor may take decree, and the defence of exhaustion will be reserved contra executionem.

Din
v.
Blair

Date: 18 December 1744
Case No. No 84.

Executors are liable to diligence for the subject of the inventory confirmed; but are not liable for their omission in not confirming.


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

Executors are liable to diligence for the subject of the inventory confirmed; but are not liable for their omission in not confirming, in respect every party having interest may confirm ad omissa.

And accordingly, in the process at the instance of John Din, in the right of Anne Blair his wife, as one of more nearest of kin of James Blair her father, against John Blair son and executor nominate of the said James, to account for his wife's share of her father's moveables, and that not only to the extent of the inventory confirmed by him, but to the full extent of the effects known to the executor to have belonged to the defunct, which it was insisted he was, by the trust-conferred on him, bound to have confirmed; especially in this case, where, by a special clause in the nomination, all other executors were debarred, the Lords ‘found the defender only liable for what he had confirmed or intromitted with;’ for even such debarring clause was not understood to preclude the nearest of kin from confirming ad omissa.

Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 192. Kilkerran, (Executor.) No 8. p. 174.

*** See This case by D. Falconer, No 36. p. 3501.

*** See Bell against Wilkie, voce Nearest of Kin.

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/1744/Mor0903893-084.html