Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Lord Falconer of Halkerton v. David Lawson [1778] UKHL 2_Paton_442 (23 February 1778)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1778/2_Paton_442.html
Cite as: [1778] UKHL 2_Paton_442
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 442↓
(1778) 2 Paton 442
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 107.
v.
House of Lords,
This case is similar to the case of the eight tenants, reported ante p. 373, which was reversed in the House of Lords, and remitted back to enquire on the facts by proof.
July 27, 1774.
In the present case, the lease to the respondent bore to be for 57 years, “ in the option of the said David Lawson, and upon the provisions and conditions after mentioned.” The conditions aftermentioned were, that he should “renounce at Lammas, before expiring of the first nineteen years of this present tack, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton and the said David Lawson.” The land-lord gave notice of warning on expiry of the first 19 years, but to this the tenant did not consent, refused to remove, and contended that the option referred to in the lease was one which he alone fell to exercise, or in which his consent was necessary. In this case the Court, of this date, “assoilzied the defender (the respondent), and decerned.”
Feb. 21, 1775
Upon reclaiming petition they adhered.
Against these interlocutors the landlord brought the present appeal to the House of Lords.
Pleaded for the Appellant.—The term of duration of the lease was 57 years, and granted under the “provisions and conditions aftermentioned.” These conditions were, that the tenant should “renounce at Lammas, before expiring of the first nineteen years of the tack or lease, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton and the said David Lawson.” This plainly imports that the tenant should be bound to remove at the end of nineteen years, or remain for three years longer; that is, if the landlord insisted on his removing at the end of the first nineteen years, the tenant might, if he pleased, remain three years longer; and if, on the other hand, the tenant insisted to surrender at that time, then the landlord might insist on his remaining three years longer.
Pleaded by the Respondent.—The respondent alone has the option of determining the lease. The disponing clause must govern, and it gives him that option, which makes the present case different from the other tenants. The clause, under the provisions and conditions aftermentioned,” does not refer to the duration of the lease, or the option to be
Page: 443↓
After hearing counsel, it was
Ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors be reversed.
Counsel: For the Appellant,
Al. Wedderburn,
Al. Forrester,
Gilb. Elliot.
For the Respondent,
E. Thurlow,
Henry Dundas.
Note.—Not reported in the Court of Session. This case, it was alleged, was different from the former with the other tenants. In the former case, the option was general, of which either of the parties might take the benefit. The clauses were different. There the leases were granted “for three 19 years,” in the option of the said Lord Halkerton and the lessee. In the present case, the lease is made for 57 years, “in the option of the said David Lawson to renounce at Lammas, before the expiry of the first 19 years, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton and the said David Lawson.”