1794
The child of Andrew Hunter and Euphemia Muir pursued a declaration of his right to the fee of lands heritably settled by his mother under a post-nuptial contract, while the creditors of Hunter defended the action by contending that the contract had conveyed a fee to Andrew Hunter rather than a mere liferent and that his infeftment should therefore be upheld. Alexander Nairne, Accountant, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, whereupon the defenders argued that a post-nuptial settlement granting liferent to one spouse and fee to the children procreated between them did not render the liferent a fee to the exclusion of those children.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Hunter v. Creditors of Hunter — Petition, 16 May 1794May 16, 1794 Petition of the petitioner, child of Andrew Hunter and Euphemia Muir, asking the Court to declare his right to the fee of lands heritably settled by his mother under a post-nuptial contract
- James Hunter v. Alexander Nairne — Answers, 26 Jun 1794June 26, 1794 Information of defenders, arguing that a postnuptial contract conveyed a fee to Andrew Hunter, not merely a liferent, and that his infeftment should be upheld.
- Hunter v. Creditors of Hunter — Petition, 19 Nov 1794November 19, 1794 Petition of Alexander Nairne, Accountant, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- James Hunter and James Young v. Alexander Nairne, Andrew Hunter and Alexander Macphail — Answers, 11 Dec 1794December 11, 1794 Information of defenders, arguing that a postnuptial contract granting liferent to one spouse and fee to children procreate betwixt them does not render the liferent a fee to the exclusion of the child…
Similar cases
- Elizabeth and Isobel Grays, Daughters of John Gray of Rogart, deceased v. John Wood, and Others, Creditors of said John Gray
- Alexander, Duke of Gordon, v. The Commissioners for Managing the Forfeited Estates annexed to the Crown
- Janet Duncan v. John Sloss
- Murdoch and Miller v. Home and Scott
- James M'Harg v. Marquis of Tweeddale
