Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Macome v. Dickson [1868] ScotLR 5_587 (6 June 1868)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1868/05SLR0587.html
Cite as: [1868] SLR 5_587, [1868] ScotLR 5_587

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 587↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Saturday, June 6. 1868.

5 SLR 587

Macome

v.

Dickson.

Subject_1Landlord and Tenant
Subject_2Furnished House
Subject_3Taxes.
Facts:

In the letting of a furnished house, the taxes in respect of tenancy or occupancy are, by the custom of the country, paid by the landlord, unless otherwise stipulated.

Headnote:

Dickson took a three-years' lease of a furnished house from Macome, no special stipulation being made as to the payment of taxes on the house. A question arose as to the tenant's liability for payment of these taxes. The Sheriff-substitute ( Steele) found the tenant liable for the taxes under deduction of the landlord's proportion. The Sheriff ( Hunter) reversed, and found that, “according to the usage of the district, all such taxes are either paid by the landlord or deduction of the amount allowed by him to the tenant: Finds in law, that the usage is to be held to constitute, ipso jure, an integral part of the contract; and, second, that the defender 13 therefore entitled to have deduction from the rent of the amount of taxes payable by the tenant.”

The landlord appealed.

Judgment:

J. M'Laren for appellant.

Watson, for respondent, was not called on.

Lord President—Apart from the seven-pence of income-tax, I have no doubt as to the rest of the case, and I am not disposed very much to refine in such a question, or to affect to decide it on any clear principle beyond this, that there is no doubt of the understanding, not confined to the west country, but very general, that in the letting of a furnished house the tenant pays no taxes. On that simple ground, I think the Sheriff is right.

Lord Curriehill, and Lord Deas concurred.

Lord Ardmillan—I am of the same opinion. No exception to the general practice has been established, and it cannot be presumed that a man who takes a furnished house takes it on a different understanding from What is usual. Besides, we have the evidence of the house-agent, who let the house, and who understood that the taxes were, as usual, to be paid by the landlord.

Solicitors: Agents for Appellant— Millar, Allardice, & Robson, W.S.

Agents for Respondent— Tawse & Bonar, W.S.

1868

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010