Legal Subject: Marriage

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Geddes and Allan Clark v. Jean Bull 1796 Marriage, Adjudication, Legitimacy, Reduction, Succession, Disposition Alexander Geddes and Allan Clarke petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor in their action against Jean Bull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Irvine 1794 Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor
Crawfurd's Trustees v. Hart's Relict 1801 Aliment, Succession, Trustees, Marriage, Adjudication, Trust This case determined whether Janet Hart could claim the legal entitlements available to a widow. Hart cohabited with the decedent, William Crawford, for thirty years and produced children with him. However, the couple declared their marriage just 10 months before Crawford’s death. Under Scots law, this raised the question whether Hart was entitled to the jus relictae—a widow’s right in the movable estate of her deceased spouse.
Crichton v. Mackay 1788 Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her.
Donaldson v. Taylor 1764 Divorce, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Adultery Poor May Donaldson submitted a memorial against Taylor arguing that her mother Jean Lindsay was lawfully married to William Donaldson and that she was entitled to succession as a legitimate heir. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Isabella Clerk, and her Tutor ad litem v. Sir George Clerk, and his Tutor-at-law 1799 Aliment, Succession, Mala Fides, Marriage, Representation, Obligations Isabella Clerk sued for financial support from her brothers John and Sir George on the grounds that they were obligated to provide for her. Sir George claimed that natural law did not compel him to support siblings, but only his parents and children.
J. and P. Duguid and Others v. W. Duguid and Others 1823 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Trustees, Proof, Marriage The children of John Duguid claimed a share in William Duguid’s estate against the trustees, who had sought exoneration after distributing legacies while residuary beneficiaries remained unidentified, filing a condescendence that opposed the executors’ objections to their evidence. The claimants’ entitlement required proof of John Duguid’s life, death, and family in America, leading to the granting of commissions for taking evidence abroad, which the respondents moved to recall or restrict to major American cities while seeking permission to participate. Proof was subsequently taken abroad regarding John Duguid’s circumstances and the claimants’ right to the estate.
Janet Rennie v. Thomas Rennie and William Walker 1798 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Deed, Marriage, Teinds Janet Rennie, widow of the deceased James Brown, pursued Thomas Rennie and William Walker, arguing that she was entitled to the household plenishing outright and insight, heirship moveables, and the £500 tocher and other claims under her marriage contract. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jean Colville v. William Lauder 1799 Conflict of Laws, Succession, Marriage, Jus Relictæ, Debt, Aliment Shortly after marrying Pursuer Jean Colville, David Lauder left Scotland under indenture to work on the island of St. Vincent. He subsequently traveled to New York and then to Canada, where he drowned while bathing in the Saint Lawrence River. Before his death, David sent a bill for £200 to his father, Defender William Lauder, with instructions to secure the money in case of David’s return to Scotland. David wrote that if he was not heard from again, “the money is either at [William’s] or my dear mother’s disposal.” William Lauder kept the money after David’s death, and Jean Colville brought suit to secure a share of it. The legal dispute turned on a choice of law issue: whether the Pursuer’s claim was governed by the law of Scotland or the law of England, which regulated British territories. Under Scots law, Jean Colville would be entitled to half of David Lauder’s moveable estate as her jus relictae—a widow’s right in the movable estate of her deceased spouse. Under English law, a valid will could exclude the widow from any share of the movable estate. The parties agreed that succession was governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile but disputed where David Lauder was domiciled at the time of his death. The pursuer argued that David was domiciled in Scotland, where he intended to return, while the defender argued that David had established a domicile abroad.
John Pendrich v. Andrew Pendrich 1794 Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Witness, Adjudication, Interlocutor John Pendrich, son of the deceased John Pendrich, baker at Rosewell, and represented by his tutor ad litem, pursued Andrew and Marion Pendrich to prove a clandestine marriage of his father. He sought admission of the Haigs as witnesses ob penuriam testium, while the defenders answered that these witnesses were inadmissible due to their familial ties and involvement in the alleged scheme. John presented a bill of advocation asking the Court to remit to the Commissaries with instruction to recall two prior interlocutors, which Andrew and Marion opposed in their answer.
Lydia Douglas, and her Husband v. The Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas 1791 Succession, Aliment, Marriage, Trust, Disposition, Mala Fides Lydia Mariana Douglas and her husband pursued the Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas, arguing that a condition in her father's will was void as capricious and unjust. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macgregor, and Campbell v. Campbell 1793 Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Proof This case was an action for declarator of marriage and legitimacy. Pursuer Katharine Macgregor lived with Lieutenant Duncan Campbell for a number of years prior to his death, and the two had a son. Macgregor initially served as Campbell’s housekeeper, but she alleged that during the year before his death, they traveled to Kinghorn and were married. Macgregor produced depositions from a number of witnesses who testified that people in the couple’s neighborhood commonly believed that they were married. However, the defenders, who were relatives of Lieutenant Campbell, argued that his statements to that effect were unserious, and that Macgregor had not required others—especially Campbell’s servants—to address her as the lady of the house.
Margaret Scruton v. John Gray 1772 Marriage, Jurisdiction, Alimony, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration Gray, defender, was a native of Cork, Ireland who attended university in Scotland. Scruton, pursuer, claimed that she and Gray married in Glasgow while he was attending college there. Scruton sought a "decree of declarator" from the Commissary Court of Edinburgh to find them to be husband and wife. (Commissary Courts were established in Scotland in the 1560s and had exclusive jurisdiction in marriage and divorce cases.) Scruton also sought alimony from Gray. Gray denied that any marriage took place. There was no public solemnization of the marriage, nor any cohabitation as husband and wife. According to Gray, there was only a "private interview" between the two. Gray also denied that the Commissary Court of Edinburgh has jurisdiction over him since he was a foreigner.
Morison v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1787 Aliment, Witness, Marriage, Succession, Interlocutor, Evidence Thomas Morison, a mariner in Charlestown, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor pronounced in a multiple poinding process initiated by naval officers and trustees. Mrs. Bethune Morison and others had reclaimed against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in that proceeding, and Thomas Morison sought alteration of the interlocutor the Inner House had issued upon their reclaiming note.
Mrs Anne Nielson, &c v. Austins 1766 Aliment, Debt, Succession, Creditor, Trustee, Marriage This case involved a dispute over how much money a husband owed his wife's family in aliment so that the wife could live with her family and the marriage could remain secret. William Sloan (deceased) and Anne Nielson (the Pursuer) married in secret in 1752 when Nielson was only seventeen. At the time, Sloan was in divinity school and felt that the relationship would be perceived as inappropriate for a man of his upbringing and occupation. Once married, Sloan claimed that revealing his part in a secret or clandestine marriage would be equally fatal to his career. In 1754, he granted bond to Neilson's trustees, her brother and uncle, to pay an annual stipend to Nielson's family to cover her living expenses. During their marriage and until Sloan's death in 1765, Anne Nielson and William Sloan never lived together as husband and wife. Sloan lived and worked as a minister in Dunscore, while Nielson lived with her mother in Edinburgh. When the case came before the Court of Session in 1765, the Court ruled that Sloan, who had died in debt, could only have been expected to pay Anne Nielson what he could reasonably afford, and the Court reduced the yearly payment due to Anne Nielson from the amount claimed by her trustees. The Nielson family appealed this decision. Sloan's executors also argued that due to Nielson's silence about her marriage when Sloan was alive, Sloan's creditors had no knowledge of Sloan's financial obligations to his wife at the time they lent him money, and that her latent claims to aliment were now unjustly delaying repayment of debts due to Sloan's creditors.
Mrs Margaret Dick v. George Heriot 1791 Aliment, Succession, Debt, Marriage, Creditor, Witness Mrs Margaret Dick Maitland-Makgill and James Heriot pursued reduction of George Heriot's service as heir to the estate of Ramornie, challenging his legitimacy as the son of the deceased Ensign George Heriot and his consequent right to the entail. George Heriot defended his claim by petitioning to lead proof of his parents' marriage through witnesses in Ireland and producing evidence of habit and repute, while the pursuers countered with testimony from Dublin and Edinburgh asserting his illegitimacy. The litigation proceeded through repeated petitions and answers regarding the sufficiency of marital proof, culminating in the court sustaining the reduction of George Heriot's service and declining to alter its interlocutors against him despite his submissions of additional evidence.
Mrs. Jane Lowrey or Maxwell v. Colin Dunlop Donald and Dr King 1830 Trustee, Marriage, Succession, Debt, Aliment, Trust Mrs. Jane Lowrey or Maxwell sued Colin Dunlop Donald and Dr Benjamin Watts King, as trustees and executors of the late John Maxwell Esq., for a declarator that she was his lawful wife and relict, concluding for aliment. The defenders denied the marriage and asserted that the aliment conclusions were incompetent, while Mrs. Lowrey also objected to a petition seeking a curator bonis for her children, insisting upon their legitimacy. She subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor, asking the Court to alter it and repel the defences of Donald and King.
Mrs. Julian (Steel) Porterfield v. Boyd Porterfield 1770 Marriage, Contract, Obligations, Liferent, Aliment, Deed Defender Julian Steel was married to William Porterfield, the uncle of pursuer Boyd Porterfield. William Porterfield died without children, leaving Boyd Porterfield as his only heir. The marriage contract between Steel and Porterfield stipulated that, should Steel survive her husband, Steel would receive an annuity of 2,000 merks and a dwelling house (or the financial equivalent) from the Porterfield estate. Following the death of William Porterfield, Steel and Boyd Porterfield entered into a contract regarding rents from the lands of the estate. Steel alleged that she should have received more from the rents from the lands.
Nisbet v. Edgar 1794 Witness, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Marriage, Onus Probandi Nisbet petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor allowing Mrs Hamilton of Pencaithland to be examined as a witness in the action to bastardize him. Edgar responded, arguing that Mrs Hamilton of Belhaven was admissible as a witness notwithstanding her daughter's patrimonial interest in the cause.
Philip Miller, Oculist in Edinburgh v. Francis Angelo Tremamondo, Master of the Academy, Edinburgh 1771 Obligations under contract of marriage, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Parole Evidence, Marriage Philip Miller performed a surgery on Francis Angelo-Tremamondo, which saved his sight. They became good friends. Francis Angelo-Tremamondo convinced Miller to marry his only daughter, Mary Tremamondo-Angelo. After the marriage, Mr. Millar brought an action against Francis Angelo-Tremamondo because he breached the marriage contract. He had agreed to give to the pursuer a diamond ring, to furnish a house for the new couple, among another things. The agreement and the promises were not in writing. The pursuer tried to enforce Mr. Angelo-Tremamondo's promises. The defender maintained that since the promises alleged were given verbally they could not be substantiated by other witnesses.
Ralston v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1797 Divorce, Terce, Aliment, Marriage, Debt, Arrestment William Henry Ralston petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Swinton. Mrs Ann Leitch, formerly Ralston's spouse and now wife of Robert Barclay, answered the petition. Ralston subsequently presented a further petition asking the Court to alter its own recent interlocutor in the cause.
Robertson v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1797 Aliment, Divorce, Terce, Marriage, Infeftment, Inhibition William Henry Ralston, defender in the action brought by Robertson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sir Andrew Lauder v. Helen Adam-Lauder 1765 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Reduction, Creditor Defender Helen Adam-Lauder submitted an Information arguing that, as the widow of suspender Sir Andrew Lauder's son, she was entitled to aliment from him under natural law and precedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sommervell, Porterfield, and Paterson v. Lord Justice-Clerk's Interlocutor 1798 Tailzie, Entail, Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Next of Kin William Sommervell of Kennox, Mrs Lilias Porterfield, and Peter Paterson, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice-Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Tait v. White 1801 Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Creditor, Debt, Sequestration After Mary Tait’s husband William White left the country, Tait sought alimony from her father-in-law, George White. George, a small farmer, denied that he was obligated to support Tait and her infant child. He argued that this burden should fall on Tait's parish of residence, not solely on him, and that support obligations had only been extended to relatives in cases where a man of rank was required to provide for his heir. Tait argued that the duty to aliment children applied equally to all classes of society.
Wallaces v. Brown 1792 Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Deed, Marriage, Contract of marriage Poor Elizabeth and Margaret Wallace petitioned the Court to alter the late Lord Hailes's interlocutor in their action against Brown. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 243)