Gilmour v. Peterson [1901] ScotLR 38_384 (26 February 1901)

Gilmour v. Peterson [1901] ScotLR 38_384 (26 February 1901)

Respondent has no statutory or crofting right to use rocks above high-water mark for fish-curing or to erect buildings for fish-curing on croft without landlord's consent; statutory rights under fisheries acts do not extend to the locus in question.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_384
Parties
Complainer: William Ewing Gilmour; Respondent: Peter Peterson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 1901
Procedural Posture
Note of Suspension and Interdict / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Interdict granted in terms of first and second conclusions; removal of shed refused.
Legal Topics
Crofters Holdings, Fish Curing Rights, Statutory Interpretation, Interdict, Use of Land for Non Agricultural Purposes
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Law Crofters Holdings Fish Curing Rights Statutory Interpretation Interdict Use of Land for Non Agricultural Purposes

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ewing Gilmour

Complainer

Peter Peterson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Note of Suspension and Interdict / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent may use rocks above high-water mark for fish-curing under statutory rights
  2. 2 Whether a crofter may erect buildings for fish-curing on croft without landlord's consent

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent has no statutory or crofting right to use rocks above high-water mark for fish-curing or to erect buildings for fish-curing on croft without landlord's consent; statutory rights under fisheries acts do not extend to the locus in question.

Court Disposition

Interdict granted in terms of first and second conclusions; removal of shed refused.

Orders

  • Interdict, prohibit, and discharge respondent from using beaches and rocks for fish-curing except for white herring fishing.
  • Dismiss note in so far as it prays for removal of the shed.