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.
Documents in this case (4)
People involved
- Mary Tait — Pursuer
- George White — Defender
- Sir William Macleod Bannatyne, of Kames, Lord Bannatyne — Lord Ordinary
- Dav. Murray, W.S. — Agent
- P. Clerk — Clerk
- David Cathcart, Lord Alloway — Advocate for Defender
- William Riddell, W.S., of Camieston — Agent
- Mr. Pringle — Clerk
- William Boswell — Advocate for Pursuer
- H. Clk. — Clerk
- William White — Named in case documents
- Walter Tait — Named in case documents
- Dr. James Finlayson, Reverend — Named in case documents
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.
