BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> County Council of Roxburgh v. Melrose District Committee [1897] ScotLR 34_481 (5 March 1897) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1897/34SLR0481.html Cite as: [1897] ScotLR 34_481, [1897] SLR 34_481 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 481↓
In a special case raised by a county council and a district committee for the purpose of determining whether a certain assessment fell to be levied upon the ratepayers of the whole county or on those only of the district represented by the committee, the Court dismissed the special case as incompetent on the ground that the district committee had no title to appear.
A special case was presented to the Court by (1) the County Council of Roxburgh and (2) the Melrose District Committee of the County Council for the purpose of determining whether certain operations requiring to be executed upon Melrose Bridge amounted to a “rebuilding” of the bridge or were only of the nature of “maintenance” or repairs. The importance of the distinction lay in the fact that in the former case the expense of the operations would be defrayed by assessments levied over the whole county, while in the latter it would fall only upon the ratepayers in the Melrose district.
The second parties maintained that they had a right to appear as representing a separate body of ratepayers, who would be seriously affected if the contention of the first parties were affirmed.
Lord President—I do not think that the special case will do.
The District Committee has administrative duties, but it is not a contributory to the rate which it maintains ought not to be levied, and accordingly it has no concern with or interest in the question from what rateable area the money has to be found to pay for the bridge.
It is no part of our duty to suggest other people who might competently raise the question, but the statements of the case would point to the ratepayers.
The Court dismissed the special case as incompetent.
Counsel for the First Parties— J. Wilson. Agent— William Boyd, W.S.
Counsel for the Second Parties— A. J. Young. Agent— Alex. O. Curie, W.S.
