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!
 |
[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 >> James Duke of Roxburghe v. John Roberton, late Tenant of Newton [1820] UKHL 6_Paton_614 (17 July 1820) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1820/6_Paton_614.html Cite as: [1820] UKHL 6_Paton_614 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 614↓
(1820) 6 Paton 614
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 101
[Hunter's Landlord and Tenant, vol. ii., p. 476.]
House of Lords,
Subject_Landlord and Tenant — Lease — Straw of the way-going Crop. —
Held under a clause in the lease, that the landlord was entitled to prevent the disposal of the straw or hay of the waygoing crop, it being provided, that it should always be spent on the farm.
Dec. 28, 1815.
In a lease granted to the respondent of the farm of Newton, belonging to the appellant, there was the following clause:
“at no time shall the said John Roberton, or his foresaids, sell or give away any of the hay or straw of said farm, which shall always be spent on the ground.”
The tenant at the expiry of his lease, gave notice, that he meant to sell the whole straw of that crop, unless the appellant would take the crop, both corn and straw, at a valuation, insisting that the above clause in his lease did not refer to the last year of the lease; whereupon the Duke brought a suspension and interdict (injunction). The Lord Ordinary held, that the above clause could “not be held as applicable to the hay or straw of the out-going crop.” And to this, the Court, on two several reclaiming petitions, adhered.
Page: 615↓
Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.
After hearing counsel,
Journals of the House of Lords.
It was ordered and declared, that the respondent, according to the true intent and construction of the tack, is not entitled to sell or give away any of the hay or straw upon the farm, at any time during the continuance of the tack, or upon the same, at the time of the expiry of the tack; and it is ordered, that, with this declaration, the cause be remitted back to the Court of Session to review the interlocutors complained of, and further to do in the cause as is just and consistent with this declaration.
Counsel: For the Appellant,
F. Jeffrey,
J. H. Mackenzie.
For the Respondent,
Chas. Wetherell,
John A. Murray.
