Hetherington v. Galt [1905] ScotLR 42_571_1 (02 June 1905)

Hetherington v. Galt [1905] ScotLR 42_571_1 (02 June 1905)

The errors in measurements in the titles, qualified by 'or thereby', permitted minor deviations. The boundary as adjusted by the original proprietors, marked by a row of trees and followed by possession, was consistent with the titles and is binding on singular successors. The trees on the boundary are common property and cannot be removed without mutual consent.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_571_1
Parties
Complainer/respondent: Thomas Chalmers Hetherington; Reclaimer/appellant: Alexander Galt
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 June 1905
Procedural Posture
Suspension and Interdict / Appeal in the Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondent (Hetherington) affirmed.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Feu Charter Interpretation, Effect of Measurement Errors in Titles, Binding Effect of Boundary Adjustments on Successors
Property Law Boundary Disputes Feu Charter Interpretation Effect of Measurement Errors in Titles Binding Effect of Boundary Adjustments on Successors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Chalmers Hetherington

Complainer/respondent

Alexander Galt

Reclaimer/appellant

Procedural Posture

Suspension and Interdict / Appeal in the Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a boundary adjusted by agreement between original proprietors, followed by possession, is binding on singular successors when measurements in titles are inexact and qualified by 'or thereby'.
  2. 2 Whether the trees planted on the agreed boundary are common property or belong solely to one proprietor.

Ratio Decidendi

The errors in measurements in the titles, qualified by 'or thereby', permitted minor deviations. The boundary as adjusted by the original proprietors, marked by a row of trees and followed by possession, was consistent with the titles and is binding on singular successors. The trees on the boundary are common property and cannot be removed without mutual consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondent (Hetherington) affirmed.

Orders

  • The interdict previously granted is made perpetual, restraining Galt from cutting down or interfering with the boundary trees without Hetherington's consent.