Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Husband and Wife Subject_2 Wife's Separate Estate Subject_3 Married Women's Property (Scotland) Act 1881 (44 and 45 Vict. c. 21), sec. 5 Wife Living Apart from Husband Subject_4 “With His Consent.” Facts: The Married Women's Property (Scotland) Act 1881 (44 and 45 Vict. cap. 21), section 5, enacts—“Where a wife is deserted by her husband, or is living apart from him with his consent, a Judge of the Court of Session or Sheriff Court, on petition addressed to the Court, may dispense with the husband's consent to any deed relating to her estate.”
Held ( rev . judgment of the Lord Ordinary ( Salvesen ), who had allowed the parties a proof) that where a husband had, as shown by his averments, acquiesced in his wife's living apart by taking no steps to end such relations, although he had protested, the wife was living apart “with his consent,” and a petition to dispense with his consent to a deed dealing with her property, granted de piano.
On July 12, 1907, Mrs Marion May Duncan or M'Donald or M'Lennan, Glasgow, wife of H. A. M'Lennan, wine and spirit merchant there, presented a petition under section 5 of the Married Women's Property (Scotland) Act 1881, in which she craved the Court to dispense with her husband's consent to such dispositions, assignations, or other deeds of transfer, as might be requisite to effectually convey to a purchaser a bill-posting business carried on by her, which she desired to dispose of owing to the state of her health, and for which she had received advantageous offers.
The respondent returned to South America in December 1893, and remained there till he returned to Glasgow about April 1895. During his absence the parties Page: 168 ↓
“… Admitted that the respondent is now a partner of the firm of M. Robin & Sons. Explained that the respondent has never been asked to contribute to the support of the petitioner, who has ample means of her own. Nor has the respondent ever asked the petitioner to contribute to his support. Specifically denied that the respondent ever suggested that the petitioner should make Page: 169 ↓
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.