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 >> Richmond v. Little [1867] ScotLR 3_290_1 (8 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0290_1.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_290_1, [1867] SLR 3_290_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 290↓
Circumstances in which held that it was not proved that the teinds of a portion of divided commonties were included in a decree of subvaluation.
This is a question in the locality of Orwell between Mr Richmond, one of the heritors, the minister of Orwell, and the common agent in the locality. The question is, whether the portion now belonging to Mr Richmond of the divided commonties of Cuthill Muir and Berry Muir are to be held as having been included in a sub-valuation obtained in 1630. The subjects described in Mr Richmond’s title are “the lands of Collinstain or Collinston, and Stenton, with houses, biggings, yards, parts, pendicles, and pertinents of the same whatsoever, lying within the barony of Cuthill-Gourdie and sheriffdom of Perth.” The commonties were divided and allocated in 1774. The Lord Ordinary (Barcaple) held that Mr Richmond had failed to show that the valuation included the teinds of his portion of the commonties. There being no mention of the commonties in the titles and no information in regard to them at all prior to the division in 1774, it was only presumptively that it could be held that they existed as commonties in 1630, and that the right of commonty then attached to Collinston and Stenton. But assuming that that was to be presumed, the Lord Ordinary was of opinion that on a sound construction of the decree of valuation it could not be held to include the teinds in question.
The pursuer (objector) reclaimed.
Cook and Duncan for him.
Clark and Asher for defender.
At advising,
It is a principle well established that an heritor asserting that the teinds of his lands have been valued has imposed on him the burden of making out the fact on grounds satisfactory to the Court. This principle is specially applicable to a question
Page: 291↓
On the first question, it is contended that the description of the lands has continued the same in the titles from a date within a few years of the valuation of 1633 until now. It is “All and whole”—[Reads]—This description contains no right to the commonty either specially or in the general terms cum communitatibus usual in early title-deeds. though “parts and pertinents” are given. These words may, by possession of commonty, apply to a right of property or to a right of servitude. It cannot therefore be certainly predicated that at the date of the valuation any right of property in the undivided commonty appertained to the proprietor of the lands of Colliston and Stenton. There may be a presumption to that effect, but it is not certain that it was a property and not a servitude right. Passing, however, from that objection, the graver objection is, that the valuation affords no evidence that this right of commonty was included in the valuation. The words are, “the lands of Stenton and Colliston pays of teind 29 bushels victual, two-part meal and third-part bear.” No reference is here made to rights of commonty, or to parts and pertinents. Observe the different terms in which other lands in the decreet are specifically valued as regards teinds. Where valuation sets forward a sum of money paid as rent or value and worth of “stock and teind,” there might be room for holding that rent or value to have included rights in commonty attached to the lands then valued. The present is not a case of that kind at all. There is merely a valuation of the teinds paid for the lands. That must have been the value or worth of the rental both paid by the then owner of the teinds to the titular. On the Whole, I think this reclaiming note should be refused.
Lords Benholme and Neaves concurred.
The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary was accordingly adhered to.
Agents for Pursuer— Jardine, Stodart, & Fraser,W. S.
Agents for Defender— Lebrun, Henderson, & Wilson, S.S.C.
