BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> M'Cubbing v. Spalding [1866] ScotLR 2_8 (17 May 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0008.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_8, [1866] ScotLR 2_8 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 8↓
Averments in an action of damages for wrongous sequestration which held irrelevant.
This is an action of damages for wrongful sequestration by a landlord. The defender pleaded that the action was irrelevant.
The pursuer was tenant of certain lands under the defender, on a lease for a term of years. On 3d December 1862 an agreement was concluded, by which the pursuer gave up the farm as at Whitsunday 1863, in regard to the houses and grass; and at the separation of the crop of the year, as to the arable lands. The defender agreed to take the white crop of that year off the tenant's hands at a valuation to be fixed by arbiters mutually chosen. On 10th August 1863 the landlord presented a petition for sequestration of the growimg crop to the sheriff of the county. There was then due by the pursuer a balance of the half-year's rent payable at Martinmas 1862, amounting to &26, 1s. 6d., and the whole half-year's rent, amounting to £77, 16s., payable at Whitsunday 1863. In other words, there was an amount of rent in arrear, of which part was nine months and part was three months past due. Under this application a sale was made of the growing crop, by warrant of the sheriff. The pursuer now complains that this sequestration and sale were wrongful proceedings, seeing that the landlord had full security in the agreement to make over the growing crop at a valuation. He says that the sale under sequestration was made at inadequate prices. But he admits that no pecuniary damage rose to him in consequence, for a valuation of the crop took place by arbiters mutually named. The pursuer got credit for the amount of the valuation in settling with the landlord, and received payment of the balance due'to him after paying his rent. His present action of damages is accordingly limited to reparation of the alleged damage to credit and feelings by the proceedings of the defender in the sequestration of August 1863.
The pursuer proposed the following issue:—
“It being admitted that the defender applied for and obtained the warrant of sequestration dated 10th August 1863, annexed to the petition, No. 10 of process, and that the said warrant was executed:
It being also admitted that the defender applied for, and obtained the relative warrant of sale, dated on or about 21st August 1863, and in virtue thereof sold by public roup the growing crop belonging to the defender on the said farm of Cubbox:
Whether the said warrants were wrongously applied for and executed, to the injury and damage of the pursuer?”
Damages laid at £300.
The Lord Ordinary (Kinloch), in reporting the issue, observed that he thought the action was irrelevant, on the pursuer's own statement. The pursuer showed no ground in law on which the landlord was to be held not entitled to exact payment of the rent when it fell due, or barred from using the appropriate diligence for its recovery when unpaid, merely on account of the bargain about taking the tenant's white crop at the issue of the lease. There might have been very good reasons why the landlord did not trust to this security, or delay exacting his rent. For anything that appears, the landlord was entitled to use all ordinary personal diligence for recovery of the past due rents, and there seems no reason why he should not equally use sequestration. The pursuer did not maintain that the sequestration was used for rent not covered by the hypothec. It was admitted that no actual loss was sustained by the tenant. The Lord Ordinary could see no legal ground for sustaining a claim at his instance for injury to credit and feelings.
After hearing counsel for the pursuer, who referred to Mackay v. Grant, June 14, 1865, 3 Macq. 994, the Court to-day, adopting the reasoning of the Lord Ordinary, unanimously dismissed the action, with expenses.
The Lord President—I think, on the whole, there is no tangible ground of damage here. As to real injury, it has been held that the landlord is
Page: 9↓
Counsel for Pursuer— Mr Millar and Mr J. G. Smith. Agent— Mr W. S. Stuart, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defender— Mr Gordon and Mr J. H. A. Macdonald. Agent— Mr John A. Macrae, W.S.
