Alexander's Trustees v. Muir and Others [1903] ScotLR 40_316 (28 January 1903)

Alexander's Trustees v. Muir and Others [1903] ScotLR 40_316 (28 January 1903)

The Court held that the feu-disposition imposed an obligation to pay only twice the feu-duty every nineteenth year, not twice the feu-duty in addition to the annual feu-duty. The wording did not support a triple payment, and the historical conduct of the parties reinforced this interpretation. The action for additional sums was therefore not maintainable.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_316
Parties
Pursuer: Eliza Lady Alexander and others, Trustees of the late Major-General Sir Claud Alexander, Bart. of Ballochmyle; Defender: Sir John Muir, Bart. of Deanston House, Perthshire; Defender: James Finlay & Company, merchants, Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
appeal allowed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Feu Duty, Duplicand, Construction of Deeds, Casualty Payments, Superior and Vassal Obligations
Property Law Scottish Feudal Law Feu Duty Duplicand Construction of Deeds Casualty Payments Superior and Vassal Obligations

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

Parties

Eliza Lady Alexander and others, Trustees of the late Major-General Sir Claud Alexander, Bart. of Ballochmyle

Pursuer

Sir John Muir, Bart. of Deanston House, Perthshire

Defender

James Finlay & Company, merchants, Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the feu-disposition obliges the vassal to pay twice the feu-duty every nineteenth year, or twice the feu-duty over and above the feu-duty for the year
  2. 2 Whether the action is barred by mora, taciturnity, and acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the feu-disposition imposed an obligation to pay only twice the feu-duty every nineteenth year, not twice the feu-duty in addition to the annual feu-duty. The wording did not support a triple payment, and the historical conduct of the parties reinforced this interpretation. The action for additional sums was therefore not maintainable.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled
  • defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the summons