1801
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 (3)
- Tait v. White — petition, 13 Feb 1801February 13, 1801 Petition of George White asking the Court to alter Lord Bannatyne's interlocutor
- George White v. Mary Tait — answers, 2 Jul 1801July 2, 1801 Answers by Mary Tait, spouse of William White, eldest son of George White, to the petition of said George White, responding to the allegation that the obligation to aliment grandchildren is confined to land…
- Tait v. White — petition, 12 Nov 1801November 12, 1801 Petition of George White asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
People & places in this case
People involved
- Mary Tait — Pursuer
- George White — Defender
- David Cathcart, Lord Alloway — Advocate for Defender
- William Boswell — Advocate for Pursuer
- Sir William Macleod Bannatyne, of Kames, Lord Bannatyne — Lord Ordinary
- Dav. Murray, W.S. — Agent
- P. Clerk — Clerk
- William Riddell, W.S., of Camieston — Agent
- Mr. Pringle — Clerk
- H. Clk. — Clerk
- William White — Named in case documents
- Walter Tait — Named in case documents
- Dr. James Finlayson, Reverend — Named in case documents
Published Reports
William Morison, The Decisions of the Court of Session (1811), pg. 4