Buchanan v. Finlayson [1900] ScotLR 38_152 (08 December 1900)

Buchanan v. Finlayson [1900] ScotLR 38_152 (08 December 1900)

The majority held that an admission of intercourse after the time of conception, even with proof of opportunity at the time of conception, is not sufficient corroboration to prove paternity without additional evidence of familiarity or improper conduct at the relevant time. The pursuer failed to provide corroboration of her statement that there was connection at the time of conception, and thus her case failed.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 38_152
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Jessie Buchanan; Defender/respondent: John Finlayson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 December 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil (filiation and Aliment) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutors adhered to
Legal Topics
Filiation, Aliment, Bastardy, Proof Requirements, Presumption From Admission, Corroboration
Family Law Evidence Filiation Aliment Bastardy Proof Requirements Presumption From Admission Corroboration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jessie Buchanan

Pursuer/appellant

John Finlayson

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (filiation and Aliment) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the evidentiary standard for establishing paternity in filiation and aliment actions when the defender admits intercourse only after the time of conception?
  2. 2 Does an admission of intercourse after the time of conception, combined with proof of opportunity at the time of conception and the pursuer's oath, suffice to prove paternity?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that an admission of intercourse after the time of conception, even with proof of opportunity at the time of conception, is not sufficient corroboration to prove paternity without additional evidence of familiarity or improper conduct at the relevant time. The pursuer failed to provide corroboration of her statement that there was connection at the time of conception, and thus her case failed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutors adhered to

Orders

  • Defender assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the action
  • No decree for aliment or filiation granted