A month before his death, Jedburgh merchant John Young settled his heritage upon the daughters of his older sister, although his customary heir was Andrew Young, the eldest son of his younger brother. Andrew Young then sold his right to this heritage to his sister, Agnes, who raised an action of reduction of Young's disposition on the head of deathbed, because he had died within sixty days of its execution. The defenders asserted to Lord Covington that Young had recovered his health just before his death, and produced two witnesses who swore that they had encountered Young at the Flesh Market after he had executed the disposition. Covington pronounced that Young had indeed recovered. The pursuers then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. They asserted that numerous countervailing testimonies cast doubt on whether Young had really visited the Flesh Market in the weeks before his death. On July 3rd, 1777, the Court adhered to Lord Covington's interlocutor. The pursuers submitted another petition, emphasizing that the oaths of the two witnesses to Young's alleged convalescence were unreliable: "Robson is in low circumstances, and considerably in debt to the defender in this reduction; and Laidlaw is in a manner subsisted upon charity." Marginalia on the second petition indicates that the Court may indeed have altered their decision on August 6th, however reports of this case mention no such revision.
Documents in this case (2)
People involved
- Alexander Lockhart, Lord Covington — Lord Ordinary
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Pursuer
- Agnes Young — Pursuer
- William Thomson — Pursuer
- James Murray — Pursuer
- Agnes Scott — Defender
- Margaret Scott — Defender
- Elizabeth Scott — Defender
- John Young — Named in case documents
- Mrs. Young Scott — Named in case documents
- John Scott — Named in case documents
- Andrew Young — Named in case documents
- Mary Thomson — Named in case documents
- Ann Sheil — Named in case documents
- Robert Scott — Named in case documents
- Elizabeth Leiden — Named in case documents
- James Henderson — Named in case documents
- Andrew Lookup — Named in case documents
- Richard Telfert — Named in case documents
- John Oliver — Named in case documents
- Thomas White — Named in case documents
- Thomas Oliver — Named in case documents
- Andrew Robson — Named in case documents
- William Spynie Jr. — Named in case documents
- John Rutherfurd — Named in case documents
- James Stevenson — Named in case documents
- John Laidlaw — Named in case documents
- Agnes Turnbull — Named in case documents
- Thomas Hamilton — Named in case documents
- Andrew Thomson — Named in case documents
- Robert Reid — Named in case documents
A month before his death, Jedburgh merchant John Young settled his heritage upon the daughters of his older sister, although his customary heir was Andrew Young, the eldest son of his younger brother. Andrew Young then sold his right to this heritage to his sister, Agnes, who raised an action of reduction of Young's disposition on the head of deathbed, because he had died within sixty days of its execution. The defenders asserted to Lord Covington that Young had recovered his health just before his death, and produced two witnesses who swore that they had encountered Young at the Flesh Market after he had executed the disposition. Covington pronounced that Young had indeed recovered. The pursuers then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. They asserted that numerous countervailing testimonies cast doubt on whether Young had really visited the Flesh Market in the weeks before his death. On July 3rd, 1777, the Court adhered to Lord Covington's interlocutor. The pursuers submitted another petition, emphasizing that the oaths of the two witnesses to Young's alleged convalescence were unreliable: "Robson is in low circumstances, and considerably in debt to the defender in this reduction; and Laidlaw is in a manner subsisted upon charity." Marginalia on the second petition indicates that the Court may indeed have altered their decision on August 6th, however reports of this case mention no such revision.