Houston v. Barr [1910] ScotLR 262 (10 November 1910)

Houston v. Barr [1910] ScotLR 262 (10 November 1910)

The disputed ground was not included in the feu charter grant, as the boundary was the western line of Quarrelton Street, not the medium filum. The defender's acts of possession were referable to tenancy, not ownership, and were not exclusive or unequivocal. The defender failed to prove ownership by express grant or prescription and cannot exclude the pursuer from access.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 262
Parties
Pursuer: George Ludovic Houstoun of Johnstone, Renfrewshire; Defender: John Barr, Albert Drive, Crosshill, Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 November 1910
Procedural Posture
Property Dispute / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutors of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; interdict granted against defender.
Legal Topics
Title Boundaries, Prescription, Possession, Feu Charter Interpretation, Right of Access
Property Law Real Estate Title Boundaries Prescription Possession Feu Charter Interpretation Right of Access

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Ludovic Houstoun of Johnstone, Renfrewshire

Pursuer

John Barr, Albert Drive, Crosshill, Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Property Dispute / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed ground was included in the feu charter grant
  2. 2 Whether prescriptive possession established ownership
  3. 3 Whether defender can exclude pursuer from access

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed ground was not included in the feu charter grant, as the boundary was the western line of Quarrelton Street, not the medium filum. The defender's acts of possession were referable to tenancy, not ownership, and were not exclusive or unequivocal. The defender failed to prove ownership by express grant or prescription and cannot exclude the pursuer from access.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutors of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; interdict granted against defender.

Orders

  • Interdict defenders, their workmen and others from erecting any wall, railing, or erection on the disputed ground or conducting operations to impede pursuer's access.
  • Defender not entitled to exclude pursuer, his servants, or others from free entry and passage over the disputed ground for lawful purposes.