Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

In Irvine v. Fordyce, a novel point was raised on the construction of Section 2 of the 1911 Act. That section provides that tenants who acquire the right to come within the provisions of that Statute, shall not be deemed to be Landholders, unless the greater part of the permanent improvements on the holding has been provided or paid for by themselves or their "predecessor in the same family." It was contended for the landlord that the use of the singular noun must be read literally, and that in estimating the permanent improvements which a tenant could found upon, he was limited to those executed by himself or his immediate predecessor. Such a construction, if given effect to, would have been contrary to the practice which has obtained under the Acts since its commencement, and would have a very serious effect in circumscribing the operation of the Statute. Although one of the judges of the Court of Session had in a previous case expressed himself in favour of this literal construction, we were constrained to reject it on a consideration of the provisions of the Interpretation Act of 1889, which enacts that in all statutes passed subsequently to 1850, the singular shall include the plural, "unless the contrary intention appears." We felt ourselves bound to give effect to the Interpretation Act, both upon the ground of good sense and of law. Far from the contrary intention appearing, the provisions of the 1911 Act could only be read consistently with those of the Crofters Act of 1886, by construing "predecessor" as meaning "predecessors," because the latter Statute expressly enacted that both for purposes of fixing rent and compensation, the tenant was entitled to rely upon improvements executed by himself or his "predecessors" in the same family. The situation would be entirely anomalous if, for the purpose of determining status, only the improvements of the immediate predecessor could be taken, but for determining rent and compensation, the tenant could plead all the improvements executed by any of his predecessors in the same family. We therefore rejected the Landlord's contention and held that the Applicant was entitled to rely on the permanent improvements executed by all his predecessors, provided they were members of the same family. The result was that we found the Applicant to be a Landholder. The Landlord appealed to the Court of Session by Stated Case, but the judges of the First Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Land Court.

STATUTORY SMALL TENANT.

In the case of Murray v. Logan, we were called upon to determine how far the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts affected the rights of Statutory Small Tenants in relation to a Landlord's power to terminate a tenancy by a notice to quit. The question arose in an application for resumption in which the Landlord maintained that a notice to quit given in terms of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, was a sufficient warrant for the Court granting resumption at an earlier date than could be

given effect to under the special rules laid down by this Court in Resumptions. A notice to quit had been given in May 1925, which, if valid, would have taken effect at Whitsunday 1926. The application for resumption was not lodged till 7th October 1925, and the Court held that a notice to quit was irrelevant and incapable of controlling the rights of a tenant on resumption. It was pointed out that a notice to quit under the Agricultural Holdings Act implied that the Landlord had the power to bring the tenancy to an end on adopting the statutory procedure, and that it must be assumed that the notice to quit could be made effectual. But the effect of the statutory provisions in the case of Statutory Small Tenants was to withdraw from the Landlord the power to bring the tenancy to an end at his own hand, and to confer on the Land Court the duty of determining whether the tenancy should be terminated under the conditions of Section 32 (4) of the 1911 Act. Accordingly the Court held that the rules applicable to cases of resumption should be applied, and that these were not affected by the Landlord's notice to quit. This decision seems in conformity with the analogous case decided in 1926 by the Court of Session, where they held in a Stated Case from an arbiter that a Statutory Small Tenant was not entitled to the benefits of the right to claim compensation for disturbance in terms of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, but that the limits of the rights of compensation open to a Statutory Small Tenant were determined solely by the provisions of the Small Landholders Acts, which did not contemplate disturbance as an item of compensation. The Statutory Small Tenant is thus in a worse position in this respect than a Landholder, who can competently claim compensation for breach of tenure.

GROWING TIMBER.

A point of general interest to all Small Holders was decided in the case of Fraser v. Carnegie. On a holding in Sutherlandshire certain trees had grown up by natural seeding, and they interfered with the grazing and general cultivation of the holding. The tenant claimed that these were natural accretions to his holding, and that he was entitled to cut them at maturity and utilise the timber in any way which suited him. We negatived this contention on the ground that the planting of trees was included in the Schedule of permanent improvements, and that all permenent improvements on a holding whether provided by the tenant or not are the property of the landlord, subject only to the right of the tenant to claim compensation at outgo for such as have been executed by himself or his predecessors in the same family. Natural grown timber on a holding is the spontaneous increment of the soil, and cannot be said to have been provided or paid for by the tenant or his predecessors. Nor can it be said to have been let by the landlord for other than agricultural purposes, and in particular it cannot be assumed to have been let with the view of being cut and sold

off the holding by the tenant. On the contrary, not being provided by the tenant or his predecessors, but being the natural increment of the soil, it accresces to the landlord, who is entitled to cut it for sale, unless in so far as its removal injures the agricultural capabilities of the holding for shelter of stock or otherwise.

SCATTALD RIGHTS IN SHETLAND.

In Sandison v. Scatholders of Unst Common Grazing, we had occasion to lay down one of the general rules which govern the acquisition and adjustment of rights of Common Grazing in the Scattalds of Shetland. We held that the normal method of determining the rights of parties in a Scattald was by ascertaining the amount of merk lands which effeired to each proprietor, and which carried with it a relative right of grazing, and that the derivative rights of the tenants were, as a rule, limited by the amount of merklands of their respective proprietors. The claim in this case was put forward by certain proprietors who admitted that their titles contained no merklands in virtue of which they could exercise grazing rights over Scattald. But they maintained that these titles were habile for the constitution of a right of grazing by prescription. We held that, in addition to the normal method of constituting a right of grazing over a Scattald by ownership of merklands, it was competent to set up such a right by prescription, and that on the authorities the exercise of such a right of possession was not inconsistent with, though it was antagonistic to, a right founded on an express grant of merklands. We pointed out, however, that, as this was the creation of a servitude which operated as a burden on the titles of other owners, the usual rule in servitudes would apply, that there must not only be a title to which the possession was directly attributable and upon which prescription could follow, but that the possession must be definite and specific enough to enable the Court to determine the exact limits and qualities of the rights claimed.

COMMON GRAZINGS.

A total of 162 appointments of Grazings Committees and Grazings Constables were registered during the year. Of these 58 were appointed by order of the Court, and 104 were elections by the respective townships confirmed by the Court. In 10 cases, new Committees were appointed and Regulations enacted for Common Grazings which had not been previously regulated. In 43 cases, existing Regulations were amended and brought up to date, either by partial amendment or complete re-enact

ment.

During the year the Grazings Officer made 95 visits to townships throughout the country for the purpose of advising Committees as to their duties, making enquiries into complaints regarding breaches of Regulations, and settling disputes such as constantly arise in the administration of Rules which fall to be enforced by a popularly elected body. Forty-six of these visits were made to Shetland, and the remainder to townships in Inverness and Ross.

Our experience in the administration of Common Grazings impresses us more and more with the expediency of working sheep stock on Common Grazings as Club Stocks instead of on the too prevalent system of each shareholder owning individual stocks. The advantages of the Club Stock system are obvious, and have been amply proved in practice. Its adoption results in greater facility in management, improvement in the quality of stock produced, and in largely increased pecuniary results, besides limiting if not curing the evils of overstocking. We have no power, however, to compel a Township to adopt the Club Stock system, and it is for consideration whether discretionary powers should not be conferred on the Court to enforce a conversion from individual ownership to the Club Stock system in all Common Grazings where it is found expedient that it should be adopted. The object could be effected, without interfering unduly with private rights, and would bring increased prosperity to many townships in the Highlands.

APPEALS TO THE COURT OF SESSION.

During the year, there was one case appealed to the Court of Session by Stated Case. The judgment of the Land Court was affirmed unanimously by the judges of the First Division.

We append tables showing the numbers and character of some of the classes of work which we have been called upon to perform during the year.

The appendices to this Report, which are neostyled as a non-Parliamentary Publication, contain details of the work of the Court during the year, and are referred to for further particulars.

TABLE SHOWING, ACCORDING TO COUNTIES, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOLDINGS FOR WHICH FIRST FAIR RENTS HAVE BEEN FIXED DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31ST DECEMBER 1926.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »