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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> James Thomson - Wetherel - Wilson v. Thomas Forrester - Lushingto - Dundas [1830] UKHL 4_WS_136 (18 June 1830)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1830/4_WS_136.html
Cite as: [1830] UKHL 4_WS_136

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 136↓

(1830) 4 W&S 136

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1830.

2 d Division.

No. 22.


James Thomson,     Appellant.—Wetherell—Wilson

v.

Thomas Forrester,     Respondent.—Lushington—Dundas

June 18. 1830.

Lord Mackenzie.

Subject_Landlord and Tenant. —

On a question of fact, relative to a tenant's liability for a year's rent, the House of Lords, (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session), held the tenant not to be liable.

Forrester held a lease of a farm from Balfour of Leys, (whose factor loco tutoris was James Thomson), for nineteen years from Whitsunday and Martinmas 1797. Among the subjects let were a mill and orchards; and from these Forrester was to remove at Whitsunday 1816, but not from the arable lands until the ensuing Michaelmas. Nearly five years after a settlement with Forrester, and his removal from the farm, a claim was made upon him by Thomson for the value of the fruit of the year 1816; and in an action the Sheriff of Perthshire and the Lord Ordinary

Page: 137↓

decerned against him; but the Court of Session remitted to an accountant to report on the question, how many crops' rent had actually been paid for the orchard and fruit thereof. It appeared from the report, that Forrester had not got the fruit of the orchard crop 1797; and thus, counting crop 1816, only had the number of crops (nineteen) stipulated for by the lease. Evidence was also produced, that a person authorized by Mr Thomson had been paid by Forrester for the crop of 1816. The Court therefore altered, and assoilzied Forrester, with expenses. Thomson appealed; but the House of Lords, without requiring the respondent's Counsel to be heard, affirmed the interlocutor, with L.50 costs.

Solicitors: James Chalmer— Spottiswoode and Robertson,—Solicitors.

 1830

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1830/4_WS_136.html