Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> County Council of Roxburgh v. Melrose District Committee [1897] ScotLR 34_481 (5 March 1897)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1897/34SLR0481.html
Cite as: [1897] SLR 34_481, [1897] ScotLR 34_481

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 481↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Friday, March 5. 1897.

34 SLR 481

County Council of Roxburgh

v.

Melrose District Committee.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Special Case
Subject_3Competency
Subject_4Title to Appear.
Facts:

In a special case raised by a county council and a district committee for the purpose of determining whether a certain assessment fell to be levied upon the ratepayers of the whole county or on those only of the district represented by the committee, the Court dismissed the special case as incompetent on the ground that the district committee had no title to appear.

Headnote:

A special case was presented to the Court by (1) the County Council of Roxburgh and (2) the Melrose District Committee of the County Council for the purpose of determining whether certain operations requiring to be executed upon Melrose Bridge amounted to a “rebuilding” of the bridge or were only of the nature of “maintenance” or repairs. The importance of the distinction lay in the fact that in the former case the expense of the operations would be defrayed by assessments levied over the whole county, while in the latter it would fall only upon the ratepayers in the Melrose district.

The second parties maintained that they had a right to appear as representing a separate body of ratepayers, who would be seriously affected if the contention of the first parties were affirmed.

Judgment:

Lord President—I do not think that the special case will do.

The District Committee has administrative duties, but it is not a contributory to the rate which it maintains ought not to be levied, and accordingly it has no concern with or interest in the question from what rateable area the money has to be found to pay for the bridge.

It is no part of our duty to suggest other people who might competently raise the question, but the statements of the case would point to the ratepayers.

Lord Kinnear—I agree that there may be persons with a good title and interest to raise this question, but it has not been shown that the District Committee have any. Accordingly, we can no more entertain a special case between that committee and the other party than we could hear an action raised at the instance of a party who has no title to sue.

Lord Adam and Lord M'Laren concurred.

The Court dismissed the special case as incompetent.

Counsel:

Counsel for the First Parties— J. Wilson. Agent— William Boyd, W.S.

Counsel for the Second Parties— A. J. Young. Agent— Alex. O. Curie, W.S.
1897

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