Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 RUNRIG - Act 1695, cap. 38.
Subject_3 I. Benefit of the statute is competent to feuars even against their superior, without regard to the circumstance of some of the feuars called as defenders having their several properties in one plot, each by themselves, surrounded by the lands lying Runrig, (these particular feuars making no objections themselves,) and although the Runrig lands lay in the neighbourhood of a borough of barony.

II. Competent in the division to set off the shares of the parties on either side of the town, as shall be most convenient for the general interest, without regard to the previous local possession of individuals.

David Russell and Others
v.
The York-Building Company

Date: 27 January 1774

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Faculty Collect. VI. 265; Dictionary, 14,144.]

Kennet. A feuar obtains a small feu which, from its situation, does not entitle him to insist in the action for dividing runrig. I doubt how far his acquiring another parcel of ground, at another place, can give him a title to insist.

Coalston. The law under our consideration is a wise law, and has always received a liberal interpretation. This is the single case, where the most considerable heritor objects to the execution of the law. That, however, is of no moment. If the objection were well founded, it ought to have been made in initio litis, and, were it now sustained, I think the defenders ought to pay the expense hitherto incurred. There is nothing in the objection. Were it listened to, it would put an end to the Act of Parliament.

Justice-Clerk. The objection ought certainly to have been made at the beginning, because it goes to the title of the pursuers.

On the 27th January 1774, “The Lords repelled the objection to the title.”

Act. R. Blair, H. Dundas. Alt. J. Swinton. Reporter, Kaimes.