Logan v. Logan [1920] ScotLR 466 (18 May 1920)

Logan v. Logan [1920] ScotLR 466 (18 May 1920)

There was no evidence of a transference of property in the surplus remittances from husband to wife; the surplus remained the property of the husband and was recoverable by him. The remittances were not proven to be alimentary or gifts, and any donation inter virum et uxorem was revocable. The defender failed to establish any legal ground for the savings to become the wife's separate estate.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 466
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: John Logan; Defender/reclaimer: Mary M'Master Logan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 May 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Husband and Wife, Donation Inter Virum Et Uxorem, Aliment, Remittances, Ownership of Savings, Legal Rights in Succession
Family Law Property Law Husband and Wife Donation Inter Virum Et Uxorem Aliment Remittances Ownership of Savings Legal Rights in Succession

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Logan

Pursuer/respondent

Mary M'Master Logan

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether surplus remittances sent by a husband to his wife, and saved by her, became her separate property or remained the property of the husband
  2. 2 Whether the wife earned her keep and thus acquired ownership of the savings
  3. 3 Whether the remittances were gifts, alimentary, or revocable donations

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of a transference of property in the surplus remittances from husband to wife; the surplus remained the property of the husband and was recoverable by him. The remittances were not proven to be alimentary or gifts, and any donation inter virum et uxorem was revocable. The defender failed to establish any legal ground for the savings to become the wife's separate estate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer £937, 14s. with interest at 5% per annum from date of citation until payment.