Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
Subject_3 An objection to a decree of division, that no notice was taken of a grassum paid at the commencement of a tack, was repelled.

William Boyd Esq
v.
General James Abercrombie

Date: 10 August 1774

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

[Faculty Collection, VI. 358; Dictionary, 8669.]

Hailes. I have a difficulty as to the grassums having been omitted in dividing the valuation. Had the objection been repelled in the Forfar case, I would have repelled it here. But in the Forfar case the grassum had been paid, not for a subsisting tack, but for a tack which expired before the date of the division. The case here is of a nineteen years' lease, at a rent of L.32, with a grassum of L.100 paid down. This, in calculation, may be equal to L.10 per annum for nineteen years; so that, if a correspondent rent had been paid instead of a grassum, the rent would have been L.42 not L.32. This makes a very wide difference.

Coalston. Divisions of valuation must be proportioned according to the rent of the lands. If the grassum were small, and the rent large, I would not consider the grassum. In a valuation of teinds, a grassum, if large, would go into the account.

President. In all the counties that I know, grassums are not brought in computo. As to the valuation of teinds, the case does not apply. If, in the Teind Court, a grassum is brought into the account, on the other hand a deduction is allowed for improvement. Besides, the decision of the Commissioners is good ex facie of the proof.

Justice-Clerk. In the case of Forfar the grassums were not paid for the tacks of a short continuance, but for the hope of remaining as tenants for a longer space. According to the objection now made, no valuation in the kingdom could stand. This not the rule in first valuation.

Auchinleck. The intention of valuation was, that every man should pay according to the value of his estate. This is laid down in the Act of Convention in Charles II.'s reign. If there are two estates paying L.20 each for a tack of nineteen years, and the one pays a grassum of L.100, and the other none, can we say that the estates are equal? I think not: the one is an estate of L.20, the other L.30. If the grassum is inconsiderable, the rule applies, De minimis non curat prætor. It is true that, in sales, grassums are not brought in, nor flying customs, as they are called; the reason is, that that estimation is no more than a rough vidimus. As also, in sales, the rate at which the lands may sell is generally undervalued.

Elliock. The grassum is no rent: it is a consideration for receiving one tenant rather than another. Perhaps, at the end of the 19 years, the grassum may not be renewed: if so, the cess will be paid for a subject that does not exist.

Alva. The cess-roll is a standard thing, and must not be varied by circumstances: we are to judge like the English gentleman who said, whenever he gave away a shilling, he considered that he gave away the interest of a shilling for ever.

Kaimes. A grassum may be said to enter into the value of the subject; but there is a necessity that some general rule should be followed.

On the 10th August 1774, “The Lords repelled the objection that the grassum was not valued.”

Act. D. Rae. Alt. H. Dundas.

Diss. Monboddo, Auchinleck, Coalston, Hailes.