Clark v. Hume [1902] ScotLR 40_229 (17 December 1902)

Clark v. Hume [1902] ScotLR 40_229 (17 December 1902)

The insurance clause in the lease did not impose an obligation on the landlord to expend insurance proceeds in reinstating the premises; the insurance was solely for the landlord's benefit, and the tenant's payment of half the premium did not confer any right to the proceeds or require the landlord to rebuild.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 40_229
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Mossman Clark; Defender: John Alexander Ross Hume
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 December 1902
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
defender assoilzied; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Insurance, Landlord Obligations, Tenant Rights
Property Law Contract Law Lease Insurance Landlord Obligations Tenant Rights

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Mossman Clark

Pursuer

John Alexander Ross Hume

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord is contractually bound to expend insurance proceeds in reinstating leased premises destroyed by fire
  2. 2 Whether the tenant has an interest in the insurance proceeds due to payment of half the premium

Ratio Decidendi

The insurance clause in the lease did not impose an obligation on the landlord to expend insurance proceeds in reinstating the premises; the insurance was solely for the landlord's benefit, and the tenant's payment of half the premium did not confer any right to the proceeds or require the landlord to rebuild.

Court Disposition

defender assoilzied; action dismissed

Orders

  • Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's judgment absolving the defender from the conclusions of the summons