Duke of Argyll v. Bullough [1904] ScotLR 41_737 (07 July 1904)

Where parties differ as to annual value for casualty, and either declines to be bound by the valuation roll, proof must be allowed; valuation roll is not binding or conclusive.

Citation: [1904] ScotLR 41_737
Parties: Pursuer: Duke of Argyll; Defender: Sir George Bullough
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 07 July 1904
Procedural Posture: Declarator / Proof Allowed; Reclaiming Motion
Outcome: Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor allowing proof.
Legal Topics: Superior and Vassal, Casualty, Composition, Annual Value Determination

Property Law Scots Law Superior and Vassal Casualty Composition Annual Value Determination

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Duke of Argyll

Pursuer

Sir George Bullough

Defender

Procedural Posture

Declarator / Proof Allowed; Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

1 Is the annual value in the valuation roll binding between superior and vassal for casualty determination?
2 What is the proper method for determining the amount due as composition when parties differ on annual value?

Ratio Decidendi

Where parties differ as to annual value for casualty, and either declines to be bound by the valuation roll, proof must be allowed; valuation roll is not binding or conclusive.

Court Disposition

Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor allowing proof.

Orders

Proof of annual value allowed; no decree of absolvitor granted.