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 >> Cameron v. Robertson and Others [1867] ScotLR 3_266 (21 February 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0266.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_266, [1867] SLR 3_266 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 266↓
A warrant of ejection granted by a Sheriff reduced in respect the petitioners for it had no title to sue, not being either proprietors or lessees of the subjects. Question whether tenants under an alleged verbal lease can pursue a removing.
This was an action of reduction and damages brought by the occupant of a croft on the farms of Corpach and Banavie, which form part of the estate of Lochiel. Reduction was sought of a summary warrant of ejectment pronounced by the Sheriff-Substitute of Argyleshire, and damages were also claimed, the decree of ejectment having been put in force. The defenders, at whose instance the decree of ejectment was obtained, set forth that they are a committee of crofters on Corpach and Banavie. According to their statement, each crofter has his own separate portion of arable land, while the hill part of the farms is grazed .by their young cattle in common. These possessions are held from year to year. The pursuer has possessed a croft since 1847, free of rent, in consideration of acting as cowherd for the crofters, for which he also received a shilling a year from each crofter who had cattle on the hill. He was engaged by the committee of crofters. The crofters' committee, in spring 1865, resolved to dismiss him, and accordingly one of their number intimated to him on the 3d April that he would not be required as cowherd after Whitsun-day, and that he would then require to remove from the croft. On 1st June they presented a petition to the Sheriff for a warrant for his summary ejection, which the Sheriff, in absence, granted.
The Lord Ordinary (Barcaple) reduced the decree complained of, on the ground that the defenders, assuming them to resent the whole crofters, had no title to eject the pursuer. It did not appear, on their own statement, that they were tenants in common of the pursuer's croft, and in possession of it through him. The arrangement by which a cowherd was to occupy a croft rent free was an accommodation to the other crofters, but was also for the benefit of the land-lord, as enabling him to let the other crofts to advantage. When the notice was given, the crofters had clearly no control over the occupation of the pursuer's croft for the following year. It might that when they took their crofts for that year, by tacit relocation or otherwise, they were entitled to rely upon the landlord continuing to give them the benefit of a cowherd being kept by him in possession of of a croft rent free, to give them his services for a small fee. But that would be only a claim against the landlord, and not a right in the special subject entitling them to eject the pursuer.
The defenders reclaimed.
Trayner ( Clark with him) was heard for the reclaimers.
Watson and Rhind, for the pursuer, were not called on.
At advising,
The other Judges concurred.
The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary was therefore adhered to.
Solicitors: Agents for Pursuer— D. Crawford and J. Y. Guthrie, S. S. C.
Agent for Defenders— W. Mitchell, S. S.C.
