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 >> Oliver Melvil v Mr Robert Arnot, Minister at Ceres. [1782] Mor 8998 (5 July 1782)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1782/Mor218998-125.html
Cite as: [1782] Mor 8998

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


[1782] Mor 8998      

Subject_1 MINOR.
Subject_2 SECT. VII.

Lesion in extrajudicial proceedings.

Oliver Melvil
v.
Mr Robert Arnot, Minister at Ceres

Date: 5 July 1782
Case No. No 125.

A slight act of homologation, occasioned by the influence of a father, and only a few days posterior to minority, not sufficient to bar restitutionem in integrum.


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

While in the nineteenth year of his age, Oliver Melvil, jointly with his father David Melvil, granted certain bills to Mr Arnot. A state of accounts between the two last mentioned gentlemen, of which these bills were articles, having been drawn up, with a docquet certifying its justness and accuracy, this docquet, only fourteen days after his majority, was subscribed by Oliver, together with his father.

Oliver, on the head of minority and lesion, instituted, within the quadriennium utile, an action of reduction of these bills; against which action it was pleaded, That having, when arrived at full age, homologated them, by subscribing the docquet above-mentioned, he had precluded himself from all claim of restitution.

The Lords were of opinion, that the salutary privilege of restitutio in integrum, was not to be barred in a case like the present, in which the act alleged to infer homologation was of such a slight nature; especially as it occurred so very recently after nonage, and had proceeded from duty to a father.

They therefore adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, ‘finding no act of homologation on the part of the pursuer sufficient to bar reduction; and sustaining the reasons thereof.’

Lord Ordinary, Westhall. Act. Craig. Alt. Hay. Clerk, Home. Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 7. Fac. Col. No 51. p. 80.

The subject Minor is continued in Vol. XXII.

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/1782/Mor218998-125.html