Troup v. Aberdeen Heritable Securities and Investment Co., Ltd [1916] ScotLR 770 (13 July 1916)

Troup v. Aberdeen Heritable Securities and Investment Co., Ltd [1916] ScotLR 770 (13 July 1916)

The defenders and their authors possessed the disputed structures for the prescriptive period under a habile title, and the title could be construed to include the encroachments. The title was not a bounding title, and exclusive possession of the structures was established. Prescription was not interrupted. Alternatively, a servitude of support could have been acquired by prescription. The pursuer's claim for removal and declarator of encroachment fails.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 770
Parties
Pursuer: Alexander Troup; Defender: Aberdeen Heritable Securities and Investment Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 July 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
Appeal sustained. Interlocutors of Sheriff-Substitute recalled. Defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the initial writ seeking declarator of illegal encroachment and removal.
Legal Topics
Prescription, Title to Land, Servitude (oneris Ferendi), Boundary Disputes, Possession, Acquiescence
Property Law Scots Law Prescription Title to Land Servitude (oneris Ferendi) Boundary Disputes Possession Acquiescence

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Troup

Pursuer

Aberdeen Heritable Securities and Investment Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders acquired title to alleged encroachments by prescriptive possession under a habile title
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' title was a bounding title precluding prescription beyond the boundary
  3. 3 Whether exclusive possession of the wall and structures was established for prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders and their authors possessed the disputed structures for the prescriptive period under a habile title, and the title could be construed to include the encroachments. The title was not a bounding title, and exclusive possession of the structures was established. Prescription was not interrupted. Alternatively, a servitude of support could have been acquired by prescription. The pursuer's claim for removal and declarator of encroachment fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained. Interlocutors of Sheriff-Substitute recalled. Defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the initial writ seeking declarator of illegal encroachment and removal.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutors of 18th June and 16th October 1914.
  • Find that defenders and their authors possessed for the prescriptive period under a habile title the subjects alleged to be encroachments.