Cadell v. Allan and Walker [1905] ScotLR 42_514 (17 March 1905)

Cadell v. Allan and Walker [1905] ScotLR 42_514 (17 March 1905)

The complainer failed to establish a special title to the minerals under the foreshore ex adverso of the glebe, as the 24 acres had been feued prior to the erection of the lands into a barony, and the subsequent charter of confirmation and novodamus contained no reservation of coal. The glebe title, followed by possession, is sufficient against anyone not holding a special title to the minerals. The presbytery's decree and excambion did not transfer minerals not owned by the excamber, but the complainer's lack of a special title is fatal to his claim.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_514
Parties
Complainer: Henry Moubray Cadell; Respondent: Charles Edward Sellar; Respondent: Robert Thomson Walker
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 March 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
complainer's reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Competition of Title, Mines and Minerals Under Foreshore, Boundary Disputes, Glebe Law, Excambion, Prescription
Property Law Ecclesiastical Law Mineral Rights Competition of Title Mines and Minerals Under Foreshore Boundary Disputes Glebe Law Excambion +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 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Moubray Cadell

Complainer

Charles Edward Sellar

Respondent

Robert Thomson Walker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minister's glebe includes the foreshore and minerals beneath it
  2. 2 Whether the complainer has a special title to the minerals under the foreshore ex adverso of the glebe
  3. 3 Effect of excambion and presbytery decree on title to minerals

Ratio Decidendi

The complainer failed to establish a special title to the minerals under the foreshore ex adverso of the glebe, as the 24 acres had been feued prior to the erection of the lands into a barony, and the subsequent charter of confirmation and novodamus contained no reservation of coal. The glebe title, followed by possession, is sufficient against anyone not holding a special title to the minerals. The presbytery's decree and excambion did not transfer minerals not owned by the excamber, but the complainer's lack of a special title is fatal to his claim.

Court Disposition

complainer's reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to

Orders

  • Refusal of interdict against respondents
  • Sustaining of respondents' sixth plea-in-law