Definition
Latin: "between conjunct persons." A phrase of Scots law denoting transactions or conveyances made between parties who stand in a close degree of relationship to one another — such as brothers, sisters, sons, or uncles. Under the Scottish Act 1621, c. 18, conveyances and alienations made between conjunct persons were declared null and void as against creditors, unless the transaction was supported by an onerous cause (that is, made for genuine valuable consideration). The phrase captures both the category of persons and the legal vulnerability of transactions between them when a third-party creditor's rights are in question.
---
Common Confusion
The phrase is sometimes loosely equated with transactions between spouses or "confidential parties" under English equity doctrine, but the Scots law category of conjunct persons is technically distinct. English law addressed suspicious intra-family transfers through fraudulent conveyance rules tracing to the Statute of Elizabeth (1571); the Scottish Act 1621 operates on a different statutory footing and applies a different presumption. Researchers using the phrase in an English common law context have likely encountered it borrowed into discussion of fraud on creditors, where it is being used loosely rather than as a term of art.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term of specifically Scottish origin and should be treated as such. Researchers encountering it in historical sources must determine whether the source is discussing Scots law directly or borrowing the phrase to describe analogous common law doctrine — a conflation that appears with some frequency in 19th-century Anglo-American legal writing.
The key research trap is the phrase "onerous causes." In Scots law, an onerous cause means consideration of genuine value — payment of a real price, discharge of a real debt. Modern researchers accustomed to English contract law's broad conception of consideration should not assume equivalence. A transaction that passes muster under common law consideration doctrine may not have qualified as grounded in onerous causes under the 1621 Act.
In the Law Mind corpus, this phrase is most likely to appear in: (1) Scottish legal materials dealing with creditor rights and fraudulent alienations; (2) comparative treatments of fraud on creditors in 19th-century American and British treatises; and (3) historical discussions of witness competency, since Black's 2nd Edition flags that conjunct persons were formerly excluded as witnesses in proceedings to which they had an interest — a rule of evidence largely abolished by the time of modern codification but present in older Scottish and some American sources.
Researchers tracing the history of fraudulent transfer law should note that the Act 1621 framework predates and runs parallel to the Statute of Elizabeth tradition. Cross-referencing both threads is essential when working with historical Scots-influenced jurisdictions, including parts of early American law where Scottish legal writing carried influence.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (1st and 2nd editions) are in close agreement on this term, with the 2nd Edition adding the important detail that conjunct persons were formerly excluded as witnesses. Both editions define the core concept identically: a Latin phrase meaning "between conjunct persons," anchored to the Act 1621, c. 18, and directed at protecting creditors from collusive intra-family alienations unsupported by genuine consideration.
What the historical dictionaries do not supply: any explanation of how "conjunct" was defined with precision, or what degree of relationship was required to bring parties within the category. The examples given (brothers, sisters, sons, uncles) suggest a fairly broad consanguinity standard, but researchers needing precise definitional boundaries must consult Scottish institutional writers — Stair, Erskine, or Bell — rather than relying on Black's alone. The dictionary entries treat the phrase as a known quantity, assuming a reader already familiar with Scottish institutional law.
Neither edition addresses the procedural question of how a creditor raised the challenge under the Act, or what defenses beyond onerous cause were available. For that level of detail, Scottish legal historians and institutional sources are the appropriate next stop.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term is rooted in Scots law and the Scottish Act 1621. It has no direct operative equivalent in English or American common law, though analogous doctrine exists under fraudulent conveyance and fraudulent transfer regimes. Researchers working in jurisdictions outside Scotland should treat the phrase as a comparative reference point, not as binding terminology.
---