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 Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Graham v. Graham. [1818] ScotJCR 2_Murray_54 (30 November 1818) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1818/2_Murray_54.html Cite as: [1818] ScotJCR 2_Murray_54 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 54↓
(1818) 2 Murray 54
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 9.
PRESENT,
Value of a house, and of political interest, ascertained.
An action to compel payment of half the value of certain property, said to be contained in an agreement betwixt the parties.
Defence.—By the agreement, the de fender was the sole judge of the value, and whether any value was to be given. The pursuer admitted that he had no legal claim
Page: 55↓
“What was the value of the mansion-house and offices upon the estate of Kinross, at the time the defender succeeded to said estate, under the transaction with the pursuer?
What was the surplus value of the policy or pleasure ground about the said mansion-house at the time aforesaid, over and above the value accounted for under the reference to Mr Adam, and consequent settlement?
What was the value of the superiorities and political interest upon the said estate, and those lying in the county of Fife, to which the said defender succeeded, in virtue of said transaction, at the time the defender so acquired right to them?”
The late Mr Graham of Kinross conveyed his estate to trustees, for behoof of his son the pursuer, under certain conditions.
The pursuer, entered into a transaction with the trustees, by which they agreed that he should have the value of half of the estate, as
Page: 56↓
Jeffrey, for the defender.—The trustees refused to value the house, &c. as they thought it disproportioned to the estate. The value put on it by the witnesses we think extravagant, and shall prove it of no value in reference to the estate. In consequence of the decision of the Court, the Jury must value the political influence, though that was never before considered a marketable commodity.
Clerk.—The value in this case does not depend on the special circumstances, but on
Page: 57↓
It is ridiculous to say the votes are worth nothing. It is by keeping them out of the market that the defender has twice put himself into parliament.
We must confine our attention to the terms of the Issues, as it is by them we are limited; and we must put a fair value on the house, &c. as between man and man.
1 st Issue.—It is vain to say that the house is worth nothing. It is proved, that, as a quarry, it would sell for L.800 or L.900; and if the proprietor keeps it up, he must consider it as worth more. We are to consider the value of the house, or its worth in the market, in reference to the estate on which it is situate. That the house is too large, was sworn to by almost every witness; but none of them said the offices were too large.
The question is the value of the house
Page: 58↓
It appears to me, that your good sense will probably put a value of L.1000 or L.1200 upon the offices; and something between L.900 and L.4500 upon the house.
2 d Issue.—If you consider the house as a residence, the value of the avenue must remain as it is: if you consider the house as a quarry, then the higher value must be put on the avenue. But I consider Mr Selkrig's report to fix the value at the time, for either alternative, as he employed professional persons.
3 d Issue.—On this we must banish all that was said of the discussion in the other Court. We are merely to return the value of the superiorities, deducting the feu-duties and the casualties. This value is what they would have sold for at the date of the agreement, if that can be ascertained. There is no direct proof of the value at that date; but you
Page: 59↓
Some of the witnesses considered, that if the whole superiorities were offered for sale at once, the market might be glutted: but they merely formed their opinions on general reasoning, and an answer was made, worthy of consideration, that the whole might be an object to any person who wished the command of the county.
We are not to overset the award of the arbiter, but to put a value on what was excepted from the submission. This is an intricate case, but I have no doubt you will make a proper return upon it.
As the party seems to wish it, you may return that you took such a sum of valuation at so many shillings sterling for the pound Scots; and should the Court of Session think there were other votes which ought to have been included, they can easily do so.
Verdict.—“The Jury found L.5000 as the value of the house and offices, and L.7845. 8s. as the value of the superiorities;
Page: 60↓
Counsel:
Clerk,
Cuningham, and
Robertson, for the Pursuer.
Jeffrey and
Cockburn for the Defender.
Solicitors: (Agents, James Robertson & Son, w. s. and John Campbell, w. s.)
Expences refused, an appeal being entered.
On 31st December 1819, a motion for the expences was dismissed, on the ground that an appeal had been presented to the House of Lords, against the decision of the Court of Session.
