Brown v. North British Railway Co. [1906] ScotLR 43_327 (01 February 1906)

Brown v. North British Railway Co. [1906] ScotLR 43_327 (01 February 1906)

The defenders' title was a bounding title limited to 4.037 acres as identified by measurement and extrinsic evidence; the disputed land was not included in the conveyance, and the defenders' acts of possession were not referable to ownership but to tenancy or other arrangements. Prescription could not enlarge the title, and the land did not become superfluous land under the Lands Clauses Act.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_327
Parties
Pursuer (respondent): Robert Ainslie Brown of Manuel; Defender (reclaimer): North British Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 February 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of 27 May 1905 adhered to; expenses to pursuer since 23 February 1905.
Legal Topics
Bounding Title, Positive Prescription, Identification of Heritage, Superfluous Lands, Extrinsic Evidence, Railway and Canal Company Land Acquisition
Property Law Land Law Scots Law Bounding Title Positive Prescription Identification of Heritage Superfluous Lands Extrinsic Evidence +1 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Ainslie Brown of Manuel

Pursuer (respondent)

North British Railway Company

Defender (reclaimer)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' title included the disputed area beyond the 4.037 acres specified in the disposition of 1819
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the land conveyed
  3. 3 Whether the defenders acquired title to the disputed land by positive prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' title was a bounding title limited to 4.037 acres as identified by measurement and extrinsic evidence; the disputed land was not included in the conveyance, and the defenders' acts of possession were not referable to ownership but to tenancy or other arrangements. Prescription could not enlarge the title, and the land did not become superfluous land under the Lands Clauses Act.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of 27 May 1905 adhered to; expenses to pursuer since 23 February 1905.

Orders

  • Declared the area of 1 acre and 16 parts of an acre (except 'Lumber Pit') belongs to the pursuer as proprietor of Manuel estate.
  • Assoilzied defenders from the fifth conclusion of the summons.