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 >> George Stewart of Stewarthall v Charlotte Campbell. [1780] Hailes 861 (24 June 1780)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1780/Hailes020861-0540.html
Cite as: [1780] Hailes 861

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


[1780] Hailes 861      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 ALIMENT.
Subject_3 Not exigible by an Heir of Entail from an annuitant on the estate.

George Stewart of Stewarthall
v.
Charlotte Campbell

Date: 24 June 1780

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

[Faculty Collection, VIII. 209; Dictionary, 398.]

Braxfield. The whole argument of the pursuer proceeds on an error, that the defender is a liferentrix, whereas she is an annuitant. A liferenter may be bound to aliment the heir, but an annuitant is not: a liferenter's right is limited or extended, according to the nature of the estate possessed; but an annuitant's right of drawing out of the estate can never be either increased or diminished.

Monboddo. I cannot easily unlearn the law, which I learned 40 years ago, that a liferenter must aliment the heir. The reason given by Mr Erskine for this, seems the true one: it was meant to support old families, and preserve the heir from starving. It is no matter whether the liferent be total or partial. I cannot make a distinction between a liferent and an annuity, for the reason of the law is the same in both cases: there may be a difference as to a liferent or an annuity constituted for a price paid.

Justice- Clerk. It is impossible that this lady-annuitant can be bound to aliment the heir of entail.

Hailes. The argument of the pursuer, when carefully viewed, leads to this extraordinary conclusion, that the creditors of the defunct are bound to aliment the heir. Suppose that the widow has the first infeftment, to the extent of half of the estate, in security of her annuity, and that a creditor has a posterior infeftment in security of a debt to the extent of the other half of the estate, it is plain that the widow's right is preferable, and that she must draw before the creditor can draw any thing. In the case put, both will draw, but each in order. The heir appears and claims to be alimented. According to the pursuer's plea, the claim of the heir is good; but the justice of his claim will not render the widow less a creditor in competition with another creditor posterior to her in order: she must therefore make good her debt against that creditor, and thus, the subject not being sufficient to satisfy the heir, the widow, and the creditor, the creditor must suffer the abatement, or, in other words, the creditor must ultimately aliment the heir.

On the 24th June 1780, “The Lords sustained the defences.”

Act. D. Rae. Alt. Ilay Campbell.

[Memorials Inner-house.]

Diss. Monboddo.

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/1780/Hailes020861-0540.html