BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Magistrates and Town Council of Culross v The Trustees of Charles Cochran. [1769] Hailes 291 (14 June 1769) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1769/Hailes010291-0131.html Cite as: [1769] Hailes 291 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1769] Hailes 291
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PROPERTY.
Subject_3 Property in Wreck and Ware.
Date: Magistrates and Town Council of Culross
v.
The Trustees of Charles Cochran
14 June 1769 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Fac. Coll. IV. p. 180. Dict. 12,810.]
Gardenston. The right of the town of Culross is a grant from the crown, confirmed and explained by possession. The subject of the grant is bounded by the sea. If this does not comprehend the shore, there is a valuable property still in the hands of the crown, which is supposed to be in the subjects having estates on the coast; I mean the whole seaware all over Scotland. On the other side, the grant is of a later date, and there has been no possession.
Monboddo. Here is a competition betwixt a general grant to the town of
Culross, and a special grant to Lord Kincardine. A grant of the sea-shore will convey wreck and ware. By the Roman law the shore was res nullius; but this is not modern law. We follow the constitution of the Emperor Frederic I. The only difficulty is from the prior grant. If Lord Kincardine had been in possession, and the town not, I would have preferred him: but the grant to the town may comprehend what is within the sea-mark, and the town has been in possession. Pitfour. The town of Culross needs no prescription: its right is preferable, and carries the sea-ware. As to the question of nuisance, that depends upon the distance.
Justice-Clerk. The use of the sea-ware, by burning kelp, is new. What is a trifling addition to the revenue may do great damage to the inhabitants. I doubt whether the right and possession will authorise an inverting of the mode of possession. The house of Culross is within the royalty, and so the proprietor may here argue for his own behoof as an inhabitant.
On the 14th June 1769, “The Lords decerned and declared, with exception as to the shore opposite to Pretty Common and St Mungo.”
Act. G. Haldane. Alt. J. Boswel. Reporter, Justice-Clerk. N.B. As there was no proof of the nuisance, the question concerning it was not understood to be before the Court.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
