Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PUBLIC POLICE.
Subject_3 The proprietor of a house within burgh has right to prevent any conterminous proprietor, from painting his name, or erecting a sign upon it, against his will.

William Thompson
v.
Andrew Crombie

Date: 21 November 1776

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

[Fac. Coll., VII, 300; Dict., App. No. I.; Pub. Pol., No. I.]

Gardenston. This sign is innocuæ utilitatis, and the tenant who possesses the house does not complain.

Kennet. I doubt of the interlocutor. It is admitted that the whole house belongs to Crombie, and I do not see how any thing can be put on his wall without his consent.

Covington. The insignificancy of the cause will not vary the principles on which it ought to be determined. The plea of innocuæ utilitatis is not receivable, as was determined in the case of the Earl of Eglinton and Fairlie; for property is a sacred thing. If Crombie may put up a sign, so may any person in the close; and thus there will be no room for Thompson's tenants to put up signs.

President. When I set a house to a tenant, it is with the power of his using it for his own advantage, not for that of others. As most tradesmen live in closes, the argument used by Crombie will lead to this, that tradesmen may load the house next to the street with as many signs as they please.

Kaimes. The tenant lies by and says nothing. Thompson asks Crombie why do you put up the sign? Crombie answers, The tenant gives me leave. Thompson replies, Where is that consent? there is no such thing. The tenant remains with his arms across, and lets the landlord fight his battles.

On the 21st November 1776, “The Lords found that Crombie has no right to affix his sign on the house;” altering Lord Monboddo's interlocutor.

Act. Adam Ogilvie. Alt. Allan M'Conochie.

Diss. Gardenston, Monboddo.