The Evolution of the Scots Law and Practice of Succession: 1300–2000

Kotlyar, Ilya

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76258-6_6

Ilya Kotlyar⁴

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 14))

799 Accesses

Abstract

The Scots law of succession, throughout its history, demonstrated a considerable evolution in many respects and continuity in other respects. Until the 1964, the succession regimes of immoveable (heritable) property and moveable goods followed differing sets of rules. The system of heritable succession was largely of Anglo-Norman origin, deeply connected to the system of feudal landholdings. Despite the decline in the significance of the feudal principles in the Early Modern period, this system remained quite archaic and experienced no major changes until the 19th century. A strict rule against leaving heritable property by a last will stimulated growth of alternative means to arrange the transfer of property after death, such as ‘tailzied succession’. The system of moveable succession in Scotland originated from a mixture of Canon law and local custom, employing executors to distribute estates and dividing the estate into three portions. The rules on moveable succession in Early Modern Scotland developed slowly, largely in the direction of stronger protection of creditors. Both systems experienced some influence of Civil law principles in the 16–18th centuries, but this influence was more often conceptual rather than practical.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 299.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 379.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 379.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Regiam Majestatem and Quoniam Attachiamenta, based on the text of Sir John Skene. 1947. Ed. Rt. Hon. Lord Cooper, LL.D. 1. Edinburgh: J. Skinner & Co.; MacQueen, Hector L. 1993. Common Law and Feudal Society in Medieval Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; Sellar, W. David H. 2000. Scots Law: Mixed from the Very Beginning? A Tale of Two Receptions. Edinburgh Law Review 4: 5–7.
2.
Craig of Riccarton, Thomas. 1732. Jus feudale, tribus libris comprehensum. Edinburgh: apud Tho. & Walt. Ruddimannos; English edition: Craig of Riccarton, Thomas. 1934. Jus feudale, trans. by Rt. Hon. J.A. Clyde. Edinburgh: Willian Hodge and Co. Ltd., III.3.
3.
Sir Balfour of Pittendreich, James. 1962–1963. The Practicks, or a system of the more ancient Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: Gregg Associates and Robert Maclehouse and Co. Ltd, Anent alienatioun of heritage and landis, c. 1–4.
4.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, c. 12—where the now lost tract De Judiciis of unknown date is cited in support of this.
5.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.4.4–5.
6.
Dalrymple, James, Viscount of Stair. 1759. The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, Deduced from Its Originals, and Collated with the Civil, Canon and Feudal Laws, and with the Customs of Neighboring Nations. Edinburgh: Heir of Andrew Anderson, III.4.26. Smith, Irvine J. 1958. Succession. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 215–216. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
7.
Sir Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, George. 1687. Observations on the Acts of Parliament. Edinburgh: Heir of Andrew Anderson, 113–114.
8.
RPS, A1504/3/121 (Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707. University of St Andrews: http://www.rps.ac.uk, accessed 15 Jan 2017).
9.
See, e.g., the Lombard Libri Feudorum (Libr.Feud.I.8).
10.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.14.6.
11.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, I.11.1; Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) 141.
12.
The main motivation behind the indivisibility of the superiority was that a vassal was not obliged to accept several superiors, which would be to his disadvantage. See McDouall, Andrew, Lord Bankton. 1751–1753. An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights with Observations upon the Agreement or Diversity between them and the Laws of England, in Four Books, after the General Method of the Viscount Stair’s Institutions. Edinburgh: Fleming, Kincaid, Donaldson, III.5.75.
13.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.14.7 considered them divisible among the sisters; Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759 (as n. 8) III.5.11 (mid–17th century) disagreed. By the 18th century Stair’s opinion prevailed, but the elder sister was to compensate others for the value of the feu-duties she obtained. See Erskine, John. 1773. An Institute of the Law of Scotland, in Four Books, in the Order of Sir George Mackenzie’s Institutions of That Law. Edinburgh: John Bell, III.8.13.
14.
Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) II.28–29; Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Homage, c. 2 (with reference to De Judiciis).
15.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.14.7.
16.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.14.7.
17.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Airis and successouris, c. 4.
18.
Cairns, John W. 2000. Historical Introduction. In Zimmermann, Reinhard, and Reid, Kenneth (eds.), A History of Private Law in Scotland, 14–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–34. (https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267782.001.0001).
19.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Airis and successouris, c. 5; Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.13.37–38.
20.
Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) II.25. This rule prevailed in medieval England: Sir Pollock, Frederick, and Maitland, Frederick W. 1898. The History of English Law before the time of Edward I. Vol II. Cambridge: at the University Press, 300–301.
21.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.15.13, II.17.9—where he cites John Gilbert’s Case of unknown date, which contradicted his opinion.
22.
Sir Hope of Craighall, Thomas. 1726. Minor Practicks, or, a Treatise of the Scottish Law. Edinburgh: Th. Ruddiman, §114.
23.
Pollock and Maitland 1898, 296–297.
24.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.15.13; Pollock and Maitland 1898, 302–305.
25.
Sellar, W. David H. 2007. Succession Law in Scotland: a Historical Perspective. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Exploring the Law of Succession: Studies National, Historical and Comparative, 49–66. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 54. Pollock and Maitland 1898, 286–295.
26.
Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) Supp.24; Quo.Attach.97.
27.
Acta Parliamentorum Roberti III, APS I, 575 (The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, ed. Th. Thomson, C. Innes. 1814–1872. Edinburgh).
28.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.5.10.
29.
Pollock and Maitland 1898, ibidem.
30.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.4.35.
31.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.12.
32.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.19.
33.
Pollock and Maitland 1898, 289–294.
34.
Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) II.22—which fragment caused confusion to the 17th century lawyer John Skene.
35.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Homage, c. 2 (with reference to De Judiciis).
36.
Pollock and Maitland 1898, 291.
37.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.11.5.
38.
Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) 160; Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Of bastardis.
39.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.12.
40.
Milsom, Stroud F.C. 2002. What was a right of entry? Cambridge Law Journal 61(3): 561–574.
41.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.7.25.
42.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.12.24.
43.
RPS, A1474/5/13.
44.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.21–43.
45.
RPS, 1540/12/78.
46.
RPS, A1474/5/8.
47.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.7.
48.
Gardner, John C. 1928. The origin and nature of the legal rights of spouses and children in the Scottish law of succession. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh.
49.
Anton, Alexander E. 1958. Parent and Child. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 122–123. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
50.
Ashley, Anne. 1953. Property in Relation to Marriage and Family. Juridical Review 65: 37–68, 150–181.
51.
Helmholz, Richard H. 1984. Legitim in English Legal History. University of Illinois Law Review 3: 659–674.
52.
SES, 166 (Concilia Scotiae: Ecclesiae Scoticanae statuta tam provincialia quam synodalia quae supersunt. 1866. Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club).
53.
However, if marriage was dissolved before a year and a day passed after its making and before the birth of a child, the spouses were restored in their original patrimonies (Paton, G. Campbell H. 1958. Husband and Wife: Property Rights and Relationships. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd, 109–110).
54.
Paton 1958, 100.
55.
Ashley 1953.
56.
Nisbet of Dirleton, John. 1698. Some Doubts and Questions in the Law, Especially of Scotland, Edinburgh: George Mosman, Legitima Liberorum, 114. There, Dirleton cites case law from the 1550s.
57.
Regiam Majestatem (as n. 1) II.38.5–6.
58.
Helmholz, Richard H. 1990. Roman Canon Law in Reformation England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79–89.
59.
Anton, Alexander E. 1955. Medieval Scottish Executors and the Courts Spiritual. Juridical Review 67: 133–134.
60.
Papal decretals on the matters of succession (X. 3.26–27; Sext. 3.11; Clem. 3.5), while containing some important rules, never intended to fully substitute secular law.
61.
Lyndwood, William. 1679. Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae). Oxford: H. Hall, III.13, s.v. Residuis, 169; s.v. Probatis, 174.
62.
Swinburne, Henry. 1591. A Briefe Treatise on Testaments and Last Wills. London: J. Windet, I.10, 19.
63.
E.g., Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Anent testamentis and latter wills, c. 11.
64.
Finlay, John. 2009. The History of the Notary in Scotland. In Schmoeckel, Mathias, and Schubert, Werner (eds.), Handbuch zur Geschichte des Notariats der europäischen Traditionen, 393–428. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
65.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, ibidem; Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, I.6.24.
66.
Swinburne 1591, II.9, 50.
67.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Anent testamentis and latter wills, c. 3.
68.
Ashley 1953.
69.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.1.
70.
Culross v. Balvaird (1548, M.3877); Earl of Morton v. Duke (1557, M.14685). Citations from: Morison, William M. 1811. Decisions of the Court of Session, from Its Institution until the Separation of the Court into Two Divisions in the Year 1808. Edinburgh: A. Constable.
71.
X. 3.26.3, 6.
72.
Collington v. Johnston (1557, M.5201); Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.16.
73.
Anton 1955, 138.
74.
See St. Andrews Formulare, –1546. 1942–1944. Ed. G. Donaldson and C. Macrae. Edinburgh: Stair Society Publications, §53—for an episcopal monition to this effect from the early 16th century.
75.
RPS, 1526/6/40; later re-enacted in 1541 (RPS, 1540/12/95).
76.
Anton 1955, 148–149.
77.
SES, 280.
78.
In Scotland, a reversion was a right of the debtor to ‘redeem’ back the land pledged to the creditor by paying the principal sum.
79.
See Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Anent testamentis and latter wills, c. 13.
80.
The term ‘annualrent’ in Scots law denoted two closely related but still separate rights. An ‘annualrent by infeftment’ was a real right, attached to a particular piece of land (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, II.5.2–3). An ‘annualrent’ could also be a purely personal obligation to pay interest on borrowed money (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, I.15.7).
81.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, II.5.2; Stuart, Mackenzie A.J. 1759. Moveable Rights. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 204–206. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
82.
This was also due to the medieval Canonistic distinctions: a loan was not usurious if the principal sum and the interest were due alternatively, not simultaneously (Hope of Craighall 1726, §§99–104).
83.
APS V, 414–415. The ‘Covenanting Parliaments’ operated in Scotland during the Civil War, in 1637–1653; they were declared illegitimate upon Restoration in 1660.
84.
Act concerning heritable and moveable bonds, RPS, 1661/1/300.
85.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, II.1.3; Sir Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, George. 1684. The Institutions of the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: J. Reid Mackenzie, II.2.6–10.
86.
Mackenzie of Rosehaugh 1687, 113–114.
87.
See, e.g., a will by Archibald Bordland in the National Records of Scotland (27/06/1604, NRS, CC8/8/39/544).
88.
Monteath, H.H. 1958. Heritable Rights—From Early Times to the Twentieth Century. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 194–196. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
89.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, II.1.4, III.5.6; Rule v. Hume (1635, M.14374); Boyd v. Sinclair (1671, M.14375).
90.
Lord Craigie-Wallace v. Wallace (1626, M.3206).
91.
Cleiland & Boyde v. Cleiland (1672, II B.S.695).
92.
Liferent is, essentially, the Scots version of the Civilian ‘usufruct’.
93.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, I.12.36.
94.
Ibidem.
95.
RPS, 1696/9/56.
96.
Straton v. His Mother (1632, M.12274).
97.
Pitillo v. Forrester (1671, II Stair 6); McBride v. Bryson (1680, M.17002).
98.
The document of disposition, in such a case, was required to have at least two witnesses in the text, in order to prove the date of its making. This was to ensure that the disposition was not granted on deathbed (Dickie v. Montgomery [1662, M.12606]).
99.
Eleis v. Inglistoun (1669, M.16999).
100.
Act anent procuratories of resignation and precepts of sasine, RPS, 1693/4/138.
101.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.7.1.
102.
The earliest preserved reported case on this topic comes from 1594 (M.9737); see Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.6.
103.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.13–14.
104.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.4–5.
105.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.7.
106.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.17; Home v. Home (1632, M.14678); Lawers v. Dunbar (1637, I B.S.368); Burnet v. Leper (1665, M.14682); Salton v. Salton & Forbes (1670, M.5360); Oswald v. Somervel (1685, M.14682).
107.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, III.2.23–24.
108.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.2.45, 47.
109.
This was initially unclear but was settled by mid–17th century (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.2.49).
110.
RPS, 1621/6/19.
111.
Act for ordering the payment of debts betuixt creditor and debitor, RPS, 1661/1/433.
112.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.2.51, III.5.23.
113.
Act concerning appearand airs their payment of their own and their predecessours’ debts, RPS, 1661/1/118.
114.
George J. Bell refers to this practice as invented by Hope, without, however, making a specific reference or citation to Hope’s writings (Bell, George J. 1830. Principles of the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Son, §835. See also Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.2.49).
115.
RPS, 1695/5/167.
116.
See Justinian’s 531 A.D. constitution on beneficium inventarii (C. 6.30.22).
117.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.16.2.
118.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759 (as n. 8) III.4.33; Sir Stewart, James. 1715. Dirleton’s Doubts and Questions in the Law of Scotland, Resolved and Answered. Edinburgh: James Watson, Heirs of Provision and Substitute, 148–149.
119.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.16.19.
120.
Erskine 1773, III.3.38.
121.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, II.3.43.
122.
Fairly v. Heirs of Blair (1611, M.2746 = 3575); Calderwood v. Pringle (1664, M.3036).
123.
Sharp v. Sharp (1631, M.4299 = 15562).
124.
Scots contract law of the time did not put strict requirements on privity, offer and acceptance, etc.: even a simple unilateral written promise was considered binding (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, I.10.1–5). This is why a bond granted in favour or “myself and such persons” was not deemed ineffectual.
125.
Earl of Hume Case (1634, M.15563 = I B.S.202).
126.
Drummond v. Drummond (1636, M.4302).
127.
Hope of Craighall 1726, §367.
128.
Vans Agnew, John. 1826. Some important questions in Scots entail law 8. Edinburgh: Waugh & Innes.
129.
See, e.g.: Bart., D. 41.2.38.1; Alex., D. 41.2.38.1; Bald., C. 4.6.3, C. 4.51.7; Pellegrini, Marco A. 1599. De fideicommissis praesertim universalibus tractatus. Francofurti ad Moenum: a collegio Paltheniano, art. LI, 825–826.
130.
Gretton, George L. 2007. Fideicommissary Substitutions: Scots Law in historical and comparative perspective. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Exploring the Law of Succession: Studies National, Historical and Comparative, 156–176. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
131.
RPS, 1685/4/49.
132.
In a 1724 case (Willison v. Callender of Dorator, M.15369) it was established that a pre–1685 unregistered tailzie was effectual as to heirs but not effectual as to bona fide creditors. Lord Bankton considered them effectual against the purchasers, if the ‘clauses irritant’ were repeated in the text of all dispositions preceding the contravention (McDouall, Lord Bankton 1751–1753, II.3.141).
133.
See, e.g., Laird of Wauchton v. Hamilton (1627, M.14355); Thomson v. Merkland (1630, M.5774).
134.
Fleming v. Fleming (1666, M.13999 = 14848); Nisbet of Dirleton 1698 (as n. 58) Heirs of Provision and Substitute, 87; Substitutes, 183.
135.
In this period, it was yet unclear whether a bond containing a substitution in favour of persons named nominatim was heritable by virtue of this alone. See: Scrimzeour v. Murrays (1663, M.464 = 6446). This changed in the 18th century.
136.
Robertson v. Preston (1680, M.14357); Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.5.25.
137.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.19.
138.
Calderwood v. Pringle (1664, M.3036); Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.5.17.
139.
Fleming v. Fleming (1666, M.13999 = 14848).
140.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.5.16; Nisbet of Dirleton 1698, Heirs of Provision and Substitute, Heirs of Tailzie, 87–88; Erskine 1773, III.8.51; Baird v. Neil (1766, M.14019).
141.
Paton 1958, 114.
142.
Lady Pitifirran v. Hepburn of Waucton (Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.12.6, II.14.10, date unknown).
143.
Hewtam v. Baillie (1615, M.13897); Frazer v. Frazer (1677, M.12859).
144.
Clerk of Pennycuick v. His Sisters (1682, M.6330 = 12881); Creditors of A. Marjoribanks v. M. Marjoribanks (1682, M.12891).
145.
Wallace v. Wallace (1665, M.9650 = 12857); Drummelziar v. Earl of Tweddall (1677, I B.S.795).
146.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.5.25.
147.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.4.33; McDouall, Lord Bankton 1751–1753, III.5.14–16.
148.
Buchanan v. Campbell (1601, M.1353); Halero v. Somervel (1626, M.1348).
149.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.3.46; Mackenzie of Rosehaugh 1684, III.10.
150.
D. 49.14.1.
151.
Carta constitutionis Commissariorum Edinburgi (Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, 670–673).
152.
Cant v. Edgar (1628, M.3199).
153.
Nisbet of Dirleton, writing around 1680, expounds this doctrine with maximum clarity (Nisbet of Dirleton 1698, Legitima Liberorum, 112–113).
154.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, I.5.6, III.8.44.
155.
In Moncrieff’s Bairns v. Moncrieff (1637, I B.S.371) the testator on his deathbed gave the keys of a chest with cash to one of his sons. The court found that the cash located in the chest at the moment of the gift belonged to the testator only in one third, the other thirds belonging to the wife and children.
156.
Paton 1958, 102–103.
157.
Anton 1958, 120–121.
158.
Hamilton v. Wallace of Cragie (1561, M.8178).
159.
Stair, however, mentions that the Commissaries in his time presumed the discharge of the ‘Bairn’s part’ if all the testator’s children were endowed and married (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.44–45).
160.
McGill v. Countess of Oxenford (1671, M.8179).
161.
RPS, 1669/10/56.
162.
Chapman v. Gibson & Fingask (1631, M.8163).
163.
Paton 1958, 101–102.
164.
Ross v. Kelly (1627, M.2366); Dumbar v. Frazer (1663, M.2367); Balmain v. Glenfarquhar (1719, M.2378).
165.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, 662.
166.
Shaw v. Lewis (1665, M.4494).
167.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.33–34.
168.
At the time of the 1707 Union, the pound Scots exchange rate to pound sterling was fixed at 12 to 1, so that 100 lb Scots equalled 8 l. 6 s. 8 d. sterling.
169.
Moncrief v. Monypenny (1711, M.13307); McDouall, Lord Bankton 1751–1753, III.8.6; Erskine 1773, III.9.7.
170.
Wallace v. Muir (1629, M.1350).
171.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.33–34.
172.
Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, Of probatioun be writ, c. 36; RPS, 1593/4/44.
173.
Act concerning probative witnesses in writs and executions, RPS, 1681/7/27.
174.
Mackenzie of Rosehaugh 1684, III.9.2.
175.
CC8/10/3/9/18; CC8/10/3/9/22.
176.
Pursuer v. Titill (1610, M.16959).
177.
See: Earl of Rothes v. Leslie (1635, M.12605).
178.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.22; Spreul v. Miller (1665, M.8052).
179.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.38; Leitch v. Balnamoon (1623, M.3844 = 14845).
180.
Instructions of 12 March 1563(64); Instructions of 26/03/1567; Injunctions of 12 March 1610; Instructions of 28/02/1666.
181.
Earl of Morton v. Duke (1557, M.14685); Lovat v. Frasers (1567, M.2189 = 3878); Mackenzie of Rosehaugh 1684, III.9.19.
182.
Aitkin v. Hewart (1625, M.3878).
183.
RPS, 1617/5/28.
184.
Hope of Craighall 1726, §76; Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.31–32.
185.
In that era, he was a public official of the Commissary court.
186.
Known as ‘Usurpation’ in Scottish historiography.
187.
See M.3906. This rule was expressly confirmed in respect of executors-creditors by the 14 November 1679 Act of Sederunt of the Court of Session.
188.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.51.
189.
4 Geo. IV, c. 98.
190.
In case of a married woman dying, an inventory of the entire family estate was made, with the husband’s participation (1666 Instructions, registered in the Acts of Sederunt); however, only the woman’s personal (in most cases, ante-nuptial) debts would be liquidated (Paton 1958, 101, 105).
191.
1567 Instructions, c. 2; 1610 Injunctions (Balfour of Pittendreich 1962–1963, 666).
192.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.15.
193.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.70.
194.
Alternatively, the executor could receive a bond confirming the debt (“a bond of corroboration”) from the debtor, to the same effect (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.71).
195.
Craig of Riccarton 1732, II.17.3, 16.
196.
Swinburne 1591, VI.3, 214; VI.10, 221; VI.22, 237.
197.
Sicchard, C.6.30.22.4.
198.
The amount sufficient to establish an intromission was subject to judicial discretion; early authors, however, insisted that the intromission needed to be to per universitatem, not simply to particular items (Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.9.7).
199.
Hope of Craighall 1726, §§77, 92–94. Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.9; McDouall, Lord Bankton 1751–1753, III.9; Erskine 1773, III.9.49–56.
200.
McDouall, Lord Bankton 1751–1753, III.9.5–10.
201.
1610 Injunctions to the Commissaries (667); Smeiton v. Hamilton (1610, M.14385).
202.
Brown v. Lawson (1664, I Stair 209).
203.
The term donatio mortis causa in the 17th century Scottish practice was still defined quite widely, as any gift made in subjective contemplation of death, and did not yet attain the more narrow meaning that it bore in the 18–19th centuries.
204.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, III.8.32, 39, 43; Nasmith v. Jaffray (1662, M.3593 = 5483).
205.
Sandilands v. Sandilands (1683, M.3202 = 14384).
206.
Grant v. Grant (1679, M.3596).
207.
Thomsons v. Creditors of Thin (1675, M.3593).
208.
Dalrymple, Viscount of Stair 1759, I.5.6; Erskine 1773, III.9.22.
209.
McKay v. Fowler (1744, M.3948).
210.
Cumming v. Kennedy (1697, M.6441 = 12881).
211.
APS V, 410.
212.
RPS, 1661/1/297.
213.
RPS, 1669/10/56.
214.
RPS, 1690/4/117.
215.
RPS, 1693/4/65.
216.
RPS, 1695/5/207.
217.
Such creditors could charge the debtor’s ‘next-of-kin’ to obtain confirmation within 20 days; the ‘next-of-kin’ was liable as a ‘vitious intromitter’, unless renounced the estate.
218.
RPS, 1700/10/243.
219.
Reid, Kenneth G.C. 2011. Testamentary Formalities in Scotland. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Comparative Succession Law I, 404–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Reid, Kenneth G.C. 2015. Intestate Succession in Scotland. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Comparative Succession Law II, 371–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
220.
Gretton 2007.
221.
Mercer v. Scotland (1745, M.9786 = 14015).
222.
Sommervil v. Creditors of Murray (1745, M.3902); Ogilvie v. HM Advocate (1760, M.3916). However, these precedents were soon overruled (Alison v. Scollay’s Creditors, 1802, M.3922).
223.
Reid 2015 (as n. 221).

References

Sources

Sir Balfour of Pittendreich, James. 1754. The Practicks, or a system of the more ancient Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: T.&W. Ruddimans; repr. 1962–1963. The Practicks. Vols I–II. Edinburgh: Gregg Assotiates and Robert Maclehouse and Co. Ltd.
Google Scholar
Bell, George J. 1830. Principles of the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Son.
Google Scholar
Concilia Scotiae: Ecclesiae Scoticanae statuta tam provincialia quam synodalia quae supersunt I–II. 1866. Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club.
Google Scholar
Craig of Riccarton, Thomas. 1732. Jus Feudale, tribus libris comprehensum. Edinburgh: apud Tho. & Walt. Ruddimannos (English edition: Craig of Riccarton, Thomas. 1934. Jus Feudale, translated by Rt. Hon. J.A. Clyde. Edinburgh: Willian Hodge and Co. Ltd).
Google Scholar
Dalrymple, James, Viscount of Stair. 1759. The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, Deduced from Its Originals, and Collated with the Civil, Canon and Feudal Laws, and with the Customs of Neighboring Nations. Edinburgh: G. Hamilton & J. Balfour.
Google Scholar
Erskine, John. 1773. An Institute of the Law of Scotland, in Four Books, in the Order of Sir George Mackenzie’s Institutions of That Law. Vols I–II. Edinburgh: John Bell.
Google Scholar
Sir Hope of Craighall, Thomas. 1726. Minor Practicks, or, a Treatise of the Scottish Law. Edinburgh: Th. Ruddiman.
Google Scholar
Lyndwood, William. 1679. Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae). Oxford: H. Hall.
Google Scholar
Sir Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, George. 1684. The Institutions of the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: J. Reid.
Google Scholar
Sir Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, George. 1687. Observations on the Acts of Parliament, made by King James the First, King James the Second… King Charles the Second. Edinburgh: Heir of Andrew Anderson.
Google Scholar
McDouall, Andrew, Lord Bankton. 1751–1753. An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights with Observations upon the Agreement or Diversity between them and the Laws of England, in Four Books, after the General Method of the Viscount Stair’s Institutions. Vols I–III. Edinburgh: Fleming, Kincaid, Donaldson (repr. 1993–1995, vol. 41–43, Edinburgh: Stair Society Publications).
Google Scholar
Morison, William M. 1811. Decisions of the Court of Session, from Its Institution until the Separation of the Court into Two Divisions in the Year 1808. Vols I–XLII. Edinburgh: A. Constable.
Google Scholar
Sir Nisbet of Dirleton, John. 1698. Some Doubts and Questions in the Law, Especially of Scotland. Edinburgh: George Mosman.
Google Scholar
Pellegrini, Marco A. 1599. De fideicommissis praesertim universalibus tractatus. Francofurti ad Moenum: a collegio Paltheniano.
Google Scholar
Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707. University of St Andrews. (http://www.rps.ac.uk).
Regiam Majestatem and Quoniam Attachiamenta, based on the text of Sir John Skene. 1947. Ed. Rt. Hon. Lord Cooper, LL.D. Edinburgh: J. Skinner & Co.
Google Scholar
Sir Stewart, James. 1715. Dirleton’s Doubts and questions in the law of Scotland: resolved and answered. Edinburgh: James Watson.
Google Scholar
St. Andrews Formulare, 1514–1546. 1942–1944. Edited and transcribed by G. Donaldson and C. Macrae. Vols I–II. Edinburgh: Stair Society Publications.
Google Scholar
Swinburne, Henry. 1591. A Briefe Treatise on Testaments and Last Wills. London: J. Windet.
Google Scholar
The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland. 1814–1872. Ed. Th. Thomson, C. Innes. Vols I–XI. Edinburgh.
Google Scholar

Literature

Anton, Alexander E. 1955. Medieval Scottish Executors and the Courts Spiritual. Juridical Review 67: 129–154.
Google Scholar
Anton, Alexander E. 1958. Parent and Child. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 122–123. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
Google Scholar
Ashley, Anne. 1953. Property in Relation to Marriage and Family. Juridical Review 65: 37–68, 150–181.
Google Scholar
Cairns, John W. 2000. Historical Introduction. In Zimmermann, Reinhard, and Reid, Kenneth (eds.), A History of Private Law in Scotland, 14–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267782.001.0001).
Finlay, John. 2009. The History of the Notary in Scotland. In Schmoeckel, Mathias, and Schubert, Werner (eds.), Handbuch zur Geschichte des Notariats der europäischen Traditionen, 393–428. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Google Scholar
Gardner, John C. 1928. The origin and nature of the legal rights of spouses and children in the Scottish law of succession. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Google Scholar
Gretton, George L. 2007. Fideicommissary Substitutions: Scots Law in historical and comparative perspective. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Exploring the Law of Succession: Studies National, Historical and Comparative, 156–176. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
Helmholz, Richard H. 1984. Legitim in English Legal History. University of Illinois Law Review 3: 659–674.
Google Scholar
Helmholz, Richard H. 1990. Roman Canon Law in Reformation England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
MacQueen, Hector L. 1993. Common Law and Feudal Society in Medieval Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
Milsom, Stroud F.C. 2002. What was a right of entry? Cambridge Law Journal 61(3): 561–574.
Article Google Scholar
Monteath, H.H. 1958. Heritable Rights—From Early Times to the Twentieth Century. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 194–196. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
Google Scholar
Paton, G. Campbell H. 1958. Husband and Wife: Property Rights and Relationships. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
Google Scholar
Sir Pollock, Frederick, and Maitland, Frederick W. 1898. The History of English Law before the time of Edward I. Vol. II. Cambridge: at the University Press.
Google Scholar
Reid, Kenneth G.C. 2011. Testamentary Formalities in Scotland. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Comparative Succession Law I, 404–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Reid, Kenneth G.C. 2015. Intestate Succession in Scotland. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Comparative Succession Law II, 371–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Sellar, W. David H. 2000. Scots Law: Mixed from the Very Beginning? A Tale of Two Receptions. Edinburgh Law Review 4: 5–7.
Google Scholar
Sellar, W. David H. 2007. Succession Law in Scotland: a Historical Perspective. In Reid, Kenneth G.C., de Waal, Marius J., and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Exploring the Law of Succession: Studies National, Historical and Comparative, 49–66. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
Smith, Irvine J. 1958. Succession. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 215–216. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
Google Scholar
Stuart, Mackenzie A.J. 1958. Moveable Rights. In Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 204–206. Edinburgh: Robert Canningham and Son Ltd.
Google Scholar
Vans Agnew, John. 1826. Some important questions in Scots entail law 8. Edinburgh: Waugh & Innes.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Ilya Kotlyar

Authors

Ilya Kotlyar
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilya Kotlyar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Private Law and Legal History, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Maria Gigliola di Renzo Villata

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kotlyar, I. (2018). The Evolution of the Scots Law and Practice of Succession: 1300–2000. In: di Renzo Villata, M. (eds) Succession Law, Practice and Society in Europe across the Centuries. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76258-6_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76258-6_6
Published: 20 March 2018
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76257-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76258-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics