The third of the personal estate of the husband and wife, to which, in default of a settlement, the widow has right, when the husband has left children. When there are no children, the jus relictæ is one-half of the personal estate.
Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.
Legal Subject: Jus Relictæ |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| Ritchie v. Patersons | 1794 | Succession, Aliment, Interlocutor, Liferent, Debt, Jus Relictæ | Agnes Ritchie pursued the Patersons for one-fifth of her grandfather John Paterson’s moveable estate under his settlement, seeking to claim the share notwithstanding her mother’s predecease. The defenders maintained that she was entitled only to one-fifth of the dead’s part of the estate rather than one-fifth of the whole personal estate. |
| Ross, et al. v. Aglianby | 1796 | Debt, Terce, Jus Relictæ, Deed, Succession, Interlocutor | Ross and others pursued Aglianby in a dispute over estate distribution involving competing claims to terce and conventional provisions. Mrs Lowthian challenged an interlocutor voiding her conventional provisions and sought to retain funds and claim terce from her late husband's estate, prompting the respondents to answer regarding the exclusion of terce and the effect of obligations to George Mackenzie's trustees. Mrs Sarah Aglianby subsequently petitioned the court to alter its recent interlocutor respecting her own claim to terce from her husband's Scottish lands. |
Documents discussing this subject (20)
- Agnes Ritchie v. Janet, Jean, Elizabeth, and Martha Patersons — Information, 20 Nov 1794
- Alexander Calder v. John Chisholm — Answers, 6 Jul 1780
- George Ross, and others v. Mrs Sarah Aglianby — Answers, 28 Jun 1796
- Jean Colville v. William Lauder — answers, 19 Dec 1799
- Jean Colville v. William Lauder — petition, 29 Nov 1799
- Lady Nisbett v. John Nisbett — Answers, 1 Dec 1829
- Lauchlan Mackinnon of Gamboll v. John, Allan, and Janet Macdonalds — Information, 20 Jan 1763
- Lauchlan Mackinnon v. Allan and John Macdonalds — Information, 12 Nov 1762
- MEMORIAL FOR Mrs Nicolas Thomson, alias Maccullloch, Widow of Henry Macculloch of Torhouskie, and Elisabeth, Margaret, Janet, and John Macculllochs, younger Children of the said He
- Mrs Barbara Lowther v. Murdoch Maclean and the Trustees of the late Archibald Maclean — Memorial, 30 Nov 1786
- Mrs Rebecca Hog v. Thomas Hog — Answers, 26 Feb 1791 [2]
- Nisbett's Trustees v. Nisbett — Revised Case, 15 May 1834
- Petition — John Dingwall against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
- Petition — John Macdonald of Breakish, Allan Macdonald of Knock, and Janet Macdonald their sister, Humbly sheweth
- Petition — Mrs Lashley and Husband against Inner House Interlocutor
- Petition — Mrs Lowthian against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — Mrs Lowthian against Lord Justice-Clerk's Interlocutor
- Rebecca Hog and Thomas Lashley v. Thomas Hog — Memorial, 16 Feb 1791
- Reclaiming Note, James Pirie against Lord Corehouse's Interlocutor
- The Duke and Duchess of Buckingham and Chandos, Lord Breadalbane's Trustees v. The Marchioness of Breadalbane, and Others — Note, 1 Mar 1843
