RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: Forfarian on Monday 18 February 19 18:04 GMT (UK)
-
I came across this term yesterday and it is a completely new one on me.
I have a couple in my tree who were married in 1786. He died in 1840 and she in 1843.
Having downloaded his very long will with 3 codicils, as I was ploughing through the repetitive verbiage and endless detailed descriptions of the testator's many properties in search of clues to the family, I came across, in the first codicil (dated 1828), a reference to a 'Contract of Separation' dated 20th March 1822 between himself and his wife.
I've never heard of such a thing before.
I am now wondering if this contract might perhaps be in the Registers of Deeds in the National Records of Scotland. I do hope so!
-
If you search for "contract of separation" in the NRS catalogue, three come up.
-
So they do - but not the one I am interested in. Thanks.
-
It's a legal separation and the husband isn't responsible for his wife's debts.
We had a neighbour in the 1940s who had legally separated from his wife (probably couldn't afford the fees for a divorce)
I wonder if your couple's separation is in the Edinburgh Gazette. If it is, you'll know the names of the legal team and there might be a chance of finding the documention in the archives.
-
I wonder if your couple's separation is in the Edinburgh Gazette. If it is, you'll know the names of the legal team and there might be a chance of finding the documention in the archives.
There's a thought. I'll have a look. Thanks.
-
I think Rena is correct. See this from 1828:
Held that a contract of separation and provision, whereby a hus- 1
band bound himself to pay to his wife, during her life and separa-
tion, an annuity of £30, in consideration of which she renounced
all legal claims against him, was not effectual to bar her from
claiming her legal provisions on his death, — the amount not being
fair, onerous, and adequate in the circumstances of the husband,
No/ 157. p. 266.
https://archive.org/stream/casesdecidedinc00blacgoog/casesdecidedinc00blacgoog_djvu.txt
Monica
-
Interesting, thanks.
The first codicil in the husband's will stipulates that she is to get £40 a year, which is the sum agreed in the Contract of Separation. It's not a large sum - £40 in 1822 is (according to various online calculators) equivalent to £3500 to £5000 today, which is nothing like enough to keep her, let alone keep her in comfort.
-
Interesting, thanks.
The first codicil in the husband's will stipulates that she is to get £40 a year, which is the sum agreed in the Contract of Separation. It's not a large sum - £40 in 1822 is (according to various online calculators) equivalent to £3500 to £5000 today, which is nothing like enough to keep her, let alone keep her in comfort.
Ooh I don't know. It's a tidy income in 1822. Worth as income or wealth £35,000 to £48,000. (Measuring worth website)
-
Hmmm. Quite hard to compare, then, because what one has to look at is the purchasing power of £40 in 1822.
-
It was often an alternative to Divorce if the parties were members of certain religions and so were separated a mensa et thoro!
-
That looks like a right and proper linguistic muddle! A mensa et is clear enough, but where did thoro come from? There's no 'th' sound in Latin, so it must be Greek!
-
Have never really thought about it before but always known the phrase since my time working in Court, and haven't studied Latin for over 40 years otherwise lol!
-
I haven't studied it for more years than that, but it was one of the most useful things I did learn at school. Very handy for all the nonsense Latin in legal documents - you know, the ones where they invent Latin equivalents for given names and then decline them so you get messy phrases like 'Gulielmum Waddell pistorem in Airdrie' and 'Josephus Maclean filius Jacobi Maclean'.
-
Hmmm. Quite hard to compare, then, because what one has to look at is the purchasing power of £40 in 1822.
It may also be worth considering how old she was & how many yrs she was likely to live to need it (when it was drawn up) which turned out to be not too many really?
Just a thought.
Annie
-
It's a legal separation and the husband isn't responsible for his wife's debts.
We had a neighbour in the 1940s who had legally separated from his wife (probably couldn't afford the fees for a divorce)
I knew a couple who had a 'Legal Separation' 1970s (Scotland) on the grounds of faith, he being Catholic & didn't believe in divorce!
Annie