BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Macdonald v. Macdonald [1881] ScotLR 18_706_2 (19 July 1881)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0706_2.html
Cite as: [1881] ScotLR 18_706_2, [1881] SLR 18_706_2

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 706

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, July 19. 1881.

18 SLR 706_2

Macdonald

v.

Macdonald.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Petition
Subject_3Aliment
Subject_4Competency of Petition, to Restrict Aliment.
Facts:

It is competent for a husband to proceed by petition in order to have the amount of aliment payable by him under a decree of separation and aliment restricted.

Headnote:

On 29th November 1876 Mrs Mary Hume or Macdonald obtained decree of separation from her husband, with aliment at the rate of £40 per annum, payable half-yearly at Whitsunday and Martinmas. Macdonald was in business in Glasgow as a tailor, and he now alleged that he was unable to continue paying aliment to the amount decerned for owing to the depressed condition of his business, and that having failed to pay the amount due at Whitsunday last he was imprisoned in virtue of an extract-decree obtained by Mrs Macdonald. In these circumstances he presented this petition, in which he prayed the Court “to allow the petitioner a proof of his averments, if that should be found necessary, and to restrict the aliment to be paid by the petitioner to his said wife to £15 per annum as from and after Whitsunday last, and to find that the petitioner is only bound to pay aliment at said rate as from and after Whitsunday last, and to grant warrant for liberating the petitioner, reserving right to the petitioner or his said wife to apply to the Court to alter the rate of aliment if any change of circumstances should supervene; and to find the said Mrs Mary Hume or Macdonald liable in expenses in the event of her appearing to oppose the prayer hereof; or otherwise, to order the Deputy-Clerk Register, or other custodier thereof, to transmit the process in said action to the clerk at Lord Rutherfurd Clark's bar, and to remit this petition to Lord Rutherfurd Clark to proceed further herein as may be just; and meantime to grant interim warrant of liberation, and to decern.”

Mrs Macdonald lodged answers, in which she denied that the petitioner's circumstances were so reduced as to make it impossible to continue the payment of the aliment originally decerned for.

Doubts having been suggested as to the competency of this petition—

Judgment:

Lord President—I may state that at first I had some doubts as to the competency of the present proceeding. It is undoubtedly the practice to proceed by way of suspension, but in the old case of Maclachlan v. Campbell, May 25, 1809, F.C., a wife used caption against her husband for arrears of aliment. He presented a bill of suspension, which was refused on the merits. He also pleaded “that his funds had turned out much less than was supposed at the time of modifying the aliment, and that he was unable to pay it.” The Court did not think that that appeared from his statement, and they also seem to have indicated an opinion that it was doubtful whether suspension was the proper form of raising the question, and that it “should have been brought forward by a petition to the whole Court, which it was open to the suspender to give in, since the decree of aliment was only in hoc statu.” I think therefore that the present petition is a competent proceeding.

Lord Deas, Lord Mure, and Lord Shand concurred.

The Court granted interim liberation on caution.

Counsel:

Counsel for Petitioner— Dickson. Agents— J. & J. Ross, W.S.

Counsel for Respondent— Baxter. Agent— Andrew Fleming, S.S.C.

1881


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0706_2.html