Maxwell v. M'Farlane [1902] UKHL 64 (13 November 1902)

Maxwell v. M'Farlane [1902] UKHL 64 (13 November 1902)

Additional feu-duty is exigible only for ground on which buildings have actually been erected, not for ground used for approaches or reservoir banks, as the contract language is clear and unambiguous.

Citation
[1902] UKHL 64
Parties
Pursuer, Reclaimer, Respondent: Maxwell; Defender, Respondent, Appellant: M'Farlane
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 November 1902
Procedural Posture
Appeal / House of Lords Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor appealed from reversed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary restored; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Feu Contract Interpretation, Additional Feu Duty, Construction of Contractual Terms
Property Law Contract Law Feu Contract Interpretation Additional Feu Duty Construction of Contractual Terms

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxwell

Pursuer, Reclaimer, Respondent

M'Farlane

Defender, Respondent, Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / House of Lords Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional feu-duty is payable for ground used for approaches and reservoir banks, or only for ground on which buildings are erected

Ratio Decidendi

Additional feu-duty is exigible only for ground on which buildings have actually been erected, not for ground used for approaches or reservoir banks, as the contract language is clear and unambiguous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor appealed from reversed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary restored; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary restored, dismissing the action.