Duke of Argyll v. Campbell and Another [1912] ScotLR 487 (06 February 1912)

Duke of Argyll v. Campbell and Another [1912] ScotLR 487 (06 February 1912)

The defenders' possession of Dunstaffnage Castle was not adverse to the pursuer's title but was referable to their obligations as vassals under the reddendo clauses of their titles. The special service and subsequent titles did not constitute a habile title to the castle itself, which was not included in the original grant of lands. The abolition of military services did not transfer ownership of the castle to the defenders. Therefore, prescription could not operate to vest ownership of the castle in the defenders.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 487
Parties
Pursuer: Duke of Argyll; Defender: Angus John Campbell of Dunstaffnage; Defender: Mrs Jane Campbell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 February 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Pursuer's reclaiming note allowed; defenders not entitled to property in the castle; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Prescription of Heritable Rights, Interpretation of Feudal Charters, Parts and Pertinents, Abolition of Military Services, Conveyancing and Land Transfer (scotland) Act 1874, Clan Act 1747
Property Law Conveyancing Feudal Law Prescription Title to Land Prescription of Heritable Rights Interpretation of Feudal Charters Parts and Pertinents +3 more

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duke of Argyll

Pursuer

Angus John Campbell of Dunstaffnage

Defender

Mrs Jane Campbell

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders acquired ownership of Dunstaffnage Castle by prescription based on their titles and possession
  2. 2 Whether the castle was included in the original grant of lands or could be acquired as a pertinent
  3. 3 Effect of the abolition of military services on property rights in the castle

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' possession of Dunstaffnage Castle was not adverse to the pursuer's title but was referable to their obligations as vassals under the reddendo clauses of their titles. The special service and subsequent titles did not constitute a habile title to the castle itself, which was not included in the original grant of lands. The abolition of military services did not transfer ownership of the castle to the defenders. Therefore, prescription could not operate to vest ownership of the castle in the defenders.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's reclaiming note allowed; defenders not entitled to property in the castle; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.

Orders

  • Declarator granted that the castle of Dunstaffnage is the property of the pursuer (Duke of Argyll).
  • Defenders found to have no right or title to the castle except as required for obligations under their land titles.