M'Martin and Others v. Robertson [1914] ScotLR 677 (01 June 1914)

M'Martin and Others v. Robertson [1914] ScotLR 677 (01 June 1914)

The complainers' applications to the Land Court were for declaration of existing holdings as landholdings and fixing of fair rent, not for enlargement or alteration of rights. The Land Court's decrees did not expressly or impliedly abrogate the respondent's pre-existing grazing rights. Therefore, the complainers are not entitled to exclusive possession or to interdict the respondent from exercising his grazing rights.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 677
Parties
Complainers: Malcolm M'Martin and others; Respondent: Alexander Robertson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 June 1914
Procedural Posture
Note of Suspension and Interdict / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Application for interdict refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled.
Legal Topics
Landholder Rights, Exclusive Possession, Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911, Grazing Rights, Land Court Decrees
Land Law Agricultural Law Landholder Rights Exclusive Possession Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911 Grazing Rights Land Court Decrees

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm M'Martin and others

Complainers

Alexander Robertson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Note of Suspension and Interdict / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration as landholders under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 confers exclusive possession of holdings and common grazings, thereby abrogating pre-existing grazing rights of a third party.

Ratio Decidendi

The complainers' applications to the Land Court were for declaration of existing holdings as landholdings and fixing of fair rent, not for enlargement or alteration of rights. The Land Court's decrees did not expressly or impliedly abrogate the respondent's pre-existing grazing rights. Therefore, the complainers are not entitled to exclusive possession or to interdict the respondent from exercising his grazing rights.

Court Disposition

Application for interdict refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled.

Orders

  • Refusal of interdict against respondent.
  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.