Hamilton and Others v. Nisbet [1907] UKHL 392 (13 March 1907)

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 >> Hamilton and Others v. Nisbet [1907] UKHL 392 (13 March 1907)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1907/44SLR0392.html
Cite as: 44 ScotLR 392, [1907] UKHL 392

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 392↓

House of Lords.

Wednesday, March 13. 1907.

(Before the Lord Chancellor ( Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Robertson, and Lord Atkinson.)

44 SLR 392

Hamilton and Others

v.

Nisbet.

( Ante, July 19, 1905, 42 S.L.R. 781, and 7 F. 1034; vide also Caledonian Railway Company v. Glasgow Corporation, infra.)


Subject_Burgh — Police — Street — Building Regulations — “Width” of Street — Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900 (63 and 64 Vict. cap. cl), secs. 20 and 21.
Facts:

The Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900 confers in certain events power (section 20) on the Master of Works, and on appeal from him (section 21) on the Dean of Guild, to fix the “width” of a street.

Held ( aff. judgment of the Court of Session) that the only width which the Master of Works, or, on appeal, the Dean of Guild, was empowered to fix was the actually existing width of the street.

Headnote:

This case is reported ante ut supra, and was heard with the immediately following case of the Caledonian Railway Company v. Glasgow Corporation.

Nisbet, the respondent in the Court of Session, appealed to the House of Lords.

At delivering judgment—

 Judgment:

Lord Chancellor—This is an appeal from the decision of the Lords of the First Division, along with Lords Kyllachy, Low, and Stormonth Darling, and it depends upon the construction of the Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900. Another case, that of the Caledonian Railway Company v. The Corporation of Glasgow (infra, following case) raised similar questions, and was in effect heard and considered by your Lordships at the same time. It seems to me that the opinions delivered in these two cases by the Lord President cover the whole ground so exhaustively and so clearly, that I need do no more than express my entire concurrence in them and in the conclusions to which they lead. I therefore respectfully advise your Lordships to dismiss this appeal with costs.

Lord Macnaghten—I agree entirely.

Lord Robertson—I concur.

Lord Atkinson—I agree.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

 Counsel:

Counsel for the Respondents (Appellants in the Court of Session)— Clyde, K.C.— Hunter, K.C. Agents— Kerr & Barrie, Maclay, Murray, & Spens, James Hutcheson & Sons, Glasgow—Auld & Macdonald, W.S., Edinburgh — Grahames, Currey, & Spens, Westminster.

Counsel for the Appellant (Respondent in the Court of Session)—The Lord Advocate (Shaw, K.C.)—The Dean of Faculty (Campbell, K.C.)— M. P. Fraser. Agents— Campbell & Smith, S.S.C., Edinburgh—Martin & Leslie, Westminster.

 1907

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1907/44SLR0392.html