Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord Ormidale observed that although the dwelling-house in respect of which the voter put in his claim was held in tenancy by different contracts, there was nothing in section 9 of the Reform Act to show that such fragmentary occupancy was beyond the scope of the statute. If there had been any allegation of fraud in this case such an occupancy might not do. But there was no room for suggesting that here; and looking to the meaning of the expression “yearly value” in connection with long leases under the Act, we must hold that “yearly rent,” in cases such as the present, must be interpreted not as a stated sum payable by the year, but as the gross amount paid by the tenant during the year.

Lord Kinloch concurred with his Lordship's remarks. This was not a question of successive occupancy in the sense in which that word was generally used. Successive occupancy meant the occupancy of different premises. But here the party had possessed the same premises for a good deal more than the requisite statutory period; and he could not think that the claimant's right could be affected by the successive acquirements under which this occupancy took place.