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 £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Mercer v. Esk Valley Railway Co. and Others [1867] ScotLR 4_178 (11 July 1867)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/04SLR0178.html
Cite as: [1867] SLR 4_178, [1867] ScotLR 4_178

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 175

Court of Session.

Thursday, July 11 1867.

Lord President Lords Curriehill Ardmillan Lord Deas

4 SLR 178

Mercer

v.

Esk Valley Railway Co. and Others.

Subject_1Interdict
Subject_2Private Road
Subject_3Property
Subject_4Sub-Lease.
Facts:

Circumstances in which the Court granted interim interdict against a railway company constructing railway works on ground belonging to the complainer, and using, for access to their works, a road passing through his grounds, the railway company founding on, as their title, a sub-lease from the tenant of the complainer's lands.

Headnote:

Mr Mercer, proprietor of the lands of Kevock Mill, Lasswade, presented a petition against the Esk Valley Railway Company, the North British Railway Company, and the Shotts Iron Company, asking to have them interdicted from proceeding further with the construction of a railway siding, loading of bank, access, and other works, at a point the complainer's lands at Kevock Mill, and from passing along or using in any way that part of the private road leading from the Lasswade public road to Kevock Mill, which passes through the complainer's lands.

The Esk Valley Railway Company was incorporated in 1863, and obtained power for making a line of railway from near Eskbank to a point near Springfield paper works, passing through the complainer's lands. The complainer alleged that the line, as constructed by the Esk Valley Railway Company, was not on the line sanctioned by their act of incorporation, nor within the limits of deviation allowed by the railway acts and the act of incorporation, nor on a line agreed to by the complainer, in certain agreements which he set forth, but on ground belonging to the complainer, to which the railway company has no title whatever. He complained, farther, that the levels, gradients, and curves of the line, as constructed, were discon-form to the said act and agreements, and that the railway company had wrongfully failed to implement the obligations undertaken by them in the said agreements, in consideration of which the complainer had consented to the deviation from the Parliamentary plan. In 1867 the Esk Valley Railway Company had leased their line to the North British Railway Company. Recently they had commenced to construct n siding, loading-bank, and access to loading-bank, at a point on the line as at present constructed through the complainer's lands, and had intimated to the complainer their intention to use these works, when completed, as well as the road leading from the Lasswade public road, through the complainer's property, to Kevock Mill, for the purpose of conveying ironstone from the mineral field leased by the Shotts Iron Company from Sir George Clerk, to the line of railway. The road which the respondents so proposed to use was, the complainer alleged, a private road, forming part of his property.

The defenders relied chiefly upon a sub-lease from the tenant of Kevock Mill of the ground for the siding, and contended that, as his sub-tenants, they were entitled to the use of the road in question, to which he had right, for the purpose of access to the ground so sub-let.

The Lord Ordinary ( Mure) granted interim interdict, holding it to be clear from the admissions on record, that a part of the ground on which the access to the loading-bank in question had been formed was beyond the ground which the company were to take for the purposes of their Act, and that the complainer was entitled to interdict, unless it could be shown that the tenant of Kevock Mill had power to sub-let the ground for the purposes to which it was proposed to apply it, and to give them and the other respondents right to use the rand to Kevock Mill as an access to the loading-bank. His Lordship was inclined to hold that the tenant had no such power, and that the complainer was entitled to interim interdict during the trial of the question of right.

The Railway Companies reclaimed.

Dean of Faculty Moncrieff and J. M'Laren for them.

A. R. Clark and Shand for complainer.

The Court adhered.

Judgment:

Lord President—Interim interdict is always a matter of delicacy and importance. I have no doubt in this case that the Lord Ordinary was quite right. There were two matters involved in the present application—(1) the use of a bit of ground coloured dark brown on the plan, and (2) the use of the road leading from the public road to Kevock Mill. As to the first, it is conceded that the Railway Company hare not obtained any title from the proprietor. As to the other ground taken for their railway,

Page: 179

they did obtain a title in regular form, but they seek to add to that a bit which the proprietor will not give them, and they have endeavoured to get a title by means of a sub-lease. These proceedings of the Railway Company have, at the first aspect of the case, a doubtful appearance, which is not removed on looking at the facts. Somerville, the tenant, has a lease of Kevock Mill and the adjoining lands, but he is plainly not entitled to use Kevock Mill except as a paper mill, and it is quite as clear that he in to hold the lands for agricultural purposes; but the purpose for which he has sub-let this piece of ground is to make a railway station—not a siding for his own accommodation—but a station of the railway, for the use of the public of the locality. That seems to me at present to be all inversion of the use for which this land was let to Mr Somerville. On the passed note, that may be seen to be too strict a view, but that is the view I am inclined to take at present. I think the title the Railway Company has acquired to the bit of ground is good for nothing in the present case. No doubt the complainer gave some ground himself as proprietor, but that is an altogether different case.

As to the use of the road, that is still clearer. The notion of this being a public road is out of the question. It never led farther than Kevock Mill, and the only character that it ever had was as the mill of a barony. That is not a public road, it is only a road for those going to the mill. The tenant of Kevock Mill, no doubt, is entitled to use it, but he attempts to communicate it to the Railway Company. That is just as strong an infringement of the rights of the proprietor as the other. But it is said, that when land is acquired for milking a railway, every occupation road is given by implication for the use of the land acquired. According to that view, if a railway crossed a private avenue, they would be entitled to use it as an access to The railway, because getting ground through which the private road passes.

Lords Curriehill and Ardmillan concurred.

Lord Deas declined.

Counsel:

Agents for Complainer— Tods, Murray, & Jamieson, W.S.

Agents for Respondents— White-Millar & Robson, S.S.C.

1867


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/04SLR0178.html