Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The first case taken up was that of James Gow, farmer, Bankend, Denny, against Alex. Gillespie Watson, clerk, Grangemouth. Mr Watson was by the assessor placed on the list of voters for the present year, as proprietor of houses Nos. 34 and 37 Union Street, Grangemouth, in said county, but objections were lodged thereto by Mr Gow. The value was admitted to be sufficient.

The facts are—1. A society or company exists at Grangemouth called the “Grangemouth Building and Investment Society.” It was instituted in 1859, and is duly enrolled under the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 William IV., chapter 32, and has its rules approved of and signed by the registrar of friendly societies in Scotland. The purposes of the society is to raise a fund to enable its members, under the said Act and rules, to acquire heritable property. And its object is by the rules declared to be, by building or otherwise, to put the members in possession of heritable property.

2. In the year 1861 the society or company acquired right, in virtue of a feu-disposition from the Earl of Zetland, to a piece of ground extending to one acre or thereby, situated in or near Grangemouth, the conveyance being taken to certain persons for their own rights and interests respectively as partners of the said company, and also as trustees for behoof of the whole remanent partners or members, both present and future, of the said company and their assignees.

3. The company at different times erected various dwelling-houses on said piece of ground, and the directors, under their powers, when they considered that they had a sufficient property for disposal among the members of the company, under rule 18th, advertised publicly by printed notices, that four self-contained dwellings of three rooms each would be exposed for competition among the members on the 5th of February 1864, of which date, under certain “conditions of sale,” two of the said dwellings, which were “put up” at £150 each, were “sold” to the claimant, a member of the company, at £157 and £155 respectively, or altogether £312. The claimant's entry was to be at Whitsunday 1864, and he did then enter to and take possession of the premises, and he has ever since, by himself or his tenants, occupied or possessed the same. He paid at entry £22 in cash to account of the price, and then had twelve shares of £25 each of the company, amounting altogether to £300. He did not pay up that £300, but he was entitled to receive an advance to that amount from the company on the security of the property, of which he availed himself to the extent of £290, which with the £22 paid in cash made up £312, the price of the property. The building or block-account of the company was credited with the £312, and there was placed to the debit of the claimant's share-account the said advance of £290, and his obligation was, under the rules of the company, to pay the same (besides interest) in instalments of 2s. a share, or for his twelve shares, £1, 4s. per month. Besides paying the interest, he has ever since regularly paid these instalments, and there has been credited to him the profits accruing on his shares; and altogether there has, from these instalments and profits, been placed to the credit of his share-account the sum of £30, 5s. 2d. In all he has thus paid £52, 5s, 2d. towards the cumulo price of £312, and there now only stands at the debit of his share-account £259, 14s. 10d., being the balance of the price.

4. No conveyance has yet been granted by the company in favour of the claimant, and his title consists of the conditions of sale and act of preference and the journal and ledger of the company in

Page: 48↓

which the sale is duly entered—the building or block-account credited with the whole price, and the claimant's share account debited with the £290, and credited with the £30, 5s. 2d.

5. It was maintained for the objector that the claimant was not the true or proper owner of the subjects claimed on in the sense of the 7th section of the Reform Act.

6. But the Sheriff-Substitute is of opinion in law, and has decided, that though the claimant's title is not made up or completed to the subjects, the company only hold the same in security of the balance of the advance to the claimant on his shares, and that he is the true and proper owner or proprietor of the subjects, and that though, if he falls into arrears to the extent of more than three months' subscriptions or six months' interest, which he has not yet done, the directors of the company will have the option of disposing of the security or of entering into possession of the property, yet the claimant is no less the owner thereof, and that the directors are in no other position than heritable creditors, or parties having sold a subject under minute of sale, the whole price of which has not been paid, and to which no conveyance has been granted, and the purchaser's title remains uncompleted.

The agent for the objector considered the decision to be erroneous in point of law.