Carmichael v. maccoll [1913] ScotLR 693 (23 May 1913)

Carmichael v. maccoll [1913] ScotLR 693 (23 May 1913)

The Court held that the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 regarding statutory small tenants apply to joint-tenants, and that the applicants were entitled to renewal of their tenancy as from Whitsunday 1912. The restrictive language in section 26(8) did not exclude joint-tenants from the statutory benefits, and the Act did not intend to foster new joint-tenancies but did not deprive existing joint-tenants of statutory rights.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 693
Parties
Applicants: Hugh Carmichael senior and James Carmichael; Respondent: Duncan Maccoll
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 May 1913
Procedural Posture
Special Case Stated by the Scottish Land Court Under the Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911 / Appeal to the Inner House, First Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Land Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Small Tenant, Joint Tenancy, Renewal of Tenancy, Competency of Application, Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Carmichael senior and James Carmichael

Applicants

Duncan Maccoll

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Case Stated by the Scottish Land Court Under the Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911 / Appeal to the Inner House, First Division, Court of Session

  1. 1 Whether the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 regarding statutory small tenants apply to joint-tenants.
  2. 2 Whether the renewal of tenancy at Whitsunday 1912 was competent under the Act, or excluded by tacit relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 regarding statutory small tenants apply to joint-tenants, and that the applicants were entitled to renewal of their tenancy as from Whitsunday 1912. The restrictive language in section 26(8) did not exclude joint-tenants from the statutory benefits, and the Act did not intend to foster new joint-tenancies but did not deprive existing joint-tenants of statutory rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Land Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Applicants declared joint statutory small tenants entitled to renewal of tenancy as from Whitsunday 1912.
  • Objections to competency repelled.