Lord Abinger's Trustees v. Cameron [1909] ScotLR 887 (08 July 1909)

Lord Abinger's Trustees v. Cameron [1909] ScotLR 887 (08 July 1909)

The agreement did not constitute a valid lease binding on succeeding heirs of entail because it was not granted for a fair rent as required by the Rosebery Act; the consideration was a counter lease, not money or tack duty. No implied warrandice arose, as both parties knew the arrangement might not be binding and there was no express clause.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 887
Parties
First Parties: Lord Abinger's Trustees; Second Party: Captain Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 1909
Procedural Posture
Special Case (stated Case) / Judgment of the Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Both questions of law answered in the negative; the lease is not binding on the second party as heir of entail, nor is the second party liable in warrandice as residuary legatee.
Legal Topics
Entail, Lease, Powers of Heir of Entail, Fair Rent, Warrandice, Entail Powers Act (rosebery Act) 1836
Property Law Succession Law Entail Lease Powers of Heir of Entail Fair Rent Warrandice Entail Powers Act (rosebery Act) 1836

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Abinger's Trustees

First Parties

Captain Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel

Second Party

Procedural Posture

Special Case (stated Case) / Judgment of the Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minute of agreement constituted a valid lease binding upon the second party as heir of entail
  2. 2 Whether the second party as residuary legatee was liable under any implied warrandice in respect of the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement did not constitute a valid lease binding on succeeding heirs of entail because it was not granted for a fair rent as required by the Rosebery Act; the consideration was a counter lease, not money or tack duty. No implied warrandice arose, as both parties knew the arrangement might not be binding and there was no express clause.

Court Disposition

Both questions of law answered in the negative; the lease is not binding on the second party as heir of entail, nor is the second party liable in warrandice as residuary legatee.