 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Alexander Ranaldson M'Donell of Glengarry - Shadwel - Keay. v. William Cameron and Others - Brougha - Stuart. [1827] UKHL 2_WS_592 (13 June 1827) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1827/2_WS_592.html Cite as: [1827] UKHL 2_WS_592 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 592↓
(1827) 2 W&S 592
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1827.
1 st Division.
No. 50.
Subject_Landlord and Tenant.—
Circumstances in which it was held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session) That a tenant of a sheep farm, who had given up to the landlord a part of it intended for winter pasture, was entitled to keep possession of another farm for that purpose, of which he had obtained possession as a subtenant of a party who was removed.
Cameron, an extensive sheep-farmer in the Highlands of Scotland, was tacksman of the lands of Inverguseran, part of the estate of M'Donell of Glengarry, and of Torrery, part of Scotos, belonging to Grant of Glenmorriston. Torrery was situated in the heart of the lands of Inverguseran, and was made use of for pasturing the sheep in winter, being in a more sheltered position than Inverguseran. In 1809, Cameron took a renewed lease of Inverguseran, and of a wintering farm called Aultfern. On the part of Glengarry, it was stated, that at this time he contemplated purchasing Scotos, and was desirous that Cameron should not take a lease of Torrery from Mr Grant. In 1814, and in reference to a proposal by Cameron, for a renewal of his lease of Inverguseran and Aultfern, Glengarry agreed to give a renewal, “under the express stipulation of having nothing to do with Torrery, while it continues the property of any other landlord.” The reason of this stipulation was the intention which Glengarry still entertained of purchasing the lands of Scotos. In 1818, Glengarry granted to Cameron a new lease for twelve years of Inverguseran and Aultfern, “Torrery excepted, under the express stipulation of my last letter.” By Cameron, it was stated, that the agreement between them was, that in the event of Glengarry purchasing Scotos, then Cameron was to give up the wintering farm Aultfern, and receive in place of it Torrery.
In 1819, Glengarry bought Scotos; at which time Torrery was under lease to another tenant till 1820. Glengarry thereupon raised an action of removing from Aultfern against Cameron, in which he obtained decree in absence. Cameron then suspended, on the ground that it had been agreed that if he removed from Aultfern, he was to have right to Torrery. Cameron, however, alleging that he was assured by a third party, authorized by Glengarry, that if he dropped the suspension, he would get Torrery at Whitsunday 1820, removed from Aultfern,
Page: 593↓
Cameron then advocated, and also raised a relative action of declarator, concluding that he was entitled to the possession of Torrery during the currency of the lease of Inverguseran, at such rent as might be fixed by men mutually chosen; and should he not succeed in having his right to Torrery enforced, then that the decreet in absence of removing from Aultfern should be reduced, and possession ceded to him. The process of advocation having been remitted to the declarator, and Cameron having died, and the action having been transferred against his representatives, the Lord Ordinary assoilzied Glengarry from the declarator, and remitted the advocation simpliciter to the Sheriff. Cameron's representatives then reclaimed, and the Court advocated and conjoined, and in both processes altered, assoilzied from the action of removing, found “that the petitioner's author, Alexander Cameron, having removed from the lands of Aultfern, is entitled to the possession of the lands of Torrery during the subsistence of his lease, at an adequate rent;” appointed mutual condescendences on the relative values of Aultfern and Torrery, as proper pendicles of the farm of Inverguseran; and found Glengarry liable in expenses; and thereafter the Court, on advising a petition for Glengarry on the 18th January 1825, adhered. *
Glengarry appealed.
Appellant.—M'Kinnon had no right to assign or subset Torrery. Even if he had, Cameron's right of subset expired at the
_________________ Footnote _________________
* 3 Shaw and Dunlop, No. 245.
Page: 594↓
Respondents.—It is quite evident that Torrery was only excepted while the property of another landlord—upon being acquired, then it entered the lease; and that such was the intention and arrangement of parties, is plain from the ceding of Aultfern. This is proved by the whole facts and written evidence in the case. In point of fact, Inverguseran was rendered useless without a wintering farm, which both Aultfern and Torrery were. Even had the written evidence been imperfect, the respondents were, in the circumstances of the present case, entitled to resort to parole testimony; but the Court of Session were satisfied with the evidence before it. Cameron was constrained to enter into the arrangement with M'Kinnon, otherwise Cameron's stock would have perished from want of wintering. He entered on a legal title; and the agreement as to the exchange of Torrery for Aultfern, barred Glengarry from challenging that possession.
Master of the Rolls.—There is a difficulty here—whether, not having a better legal title, but a better equitable title than Glengarry, could Cameron enter into possession against the will of the owner?—If Cameron had a title to enter without the consent of the owner, then he might have continued possession. But suppose Torrery had been vacant, could Cameron, without Glengarry's consent, have entered and retained possession against Glengarry's ejectment ?—Would his admission that it had been agreed that the farms were to be exchanged, have afforded a good defence to this action of removing ?—Cameron's antecedent title was not complete—the proposed valuation had not been made—the rent was not settled—no valuation could be made by Glengarry; he had in view to purchase Scotos, but could not tell the seller that. Now, could Cameron have claimed Torrery until the rent was fixed ?
Page: 595↓
The House of Lords ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors complained of be affirmed, with L.150 costs. *
Appellant's Authorities.—Ersk. Inst. 4. 1. 15.
Respondents' Authorities.—M'Rory, 18th December, 1810. (F. C.) Murdoch, 18th June, 1812. (F. C.)
Solicitors: Fraser,— M'Dougall and Callender, —Solicitors.
_________________ Footnote _________________
* The Master of the Rolls gave his reasons for the judgment in a side room; and the reporters understand that his Lordship would have had much difficulty as to the title on which Cameron got into possession, being a good defence to a removing, if the advocation had not been conjoined with the declarator.