Blackwood v Ferguson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1882 |
| Date | 06 December 1882 |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill, Lord Fraser.
County Franchise—Owner—Deduction—Reform Act, 1832 (2 and 3 Will. IV. cap. 65), sec. 7.—Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. c. 48), sec. 5.—
Under section 7 of the Reform Act of 1832, as amended by sec. 5 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, the owner of lands and heritages in a county of the annual value of £5, ‘after deduction of any feu-duty, ground-annual, or other annual consideration he may be bound to pay or give or account for as a condition of his right,’ is entitled to be enrolled as a voter. Held that the interest of a sum of money reserved to the disponer as a real burden in the disposition of the land in respect of which a claim to be enrolled was made, not being a condition of the right to the land, did not fall to be deducted.
At a Registration Court for the county of Peebles, held at Peebles on the 28th and 30th September 1882, Alexander Ferguson claimed to have his name entered on the register of voters as proprietor of dwelling-house and garden, Rosetta Road, Peebles. William Blackwood, a registered voter, objected.
The Sheriff-substitute (Orphoot) repelled the objection and admitted the claim.
Blackwood took a case.
From the case it appeared that the claimant's title consisted of a disposition in his favour of the subjects in question by the trustees of the Peeblesshire Savings Investment and Building Society, dated 20th, and registered in the Register of Sasines for the burgh of Peebles 21st January 1882. The material portions of this disposition are quoted below.* The subjects were entered in the Valuation-roll as of the yearly value of £12.
The objection was that the sum of £154, 2s. 4d., with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per annum, being constituted by the terms of the disposition a real burden on the subjects, the sum annually payable as interest formed under the Reform Act, 1832 (2 and 3 Will. IV., cap. 65), sec. 7, a ‘consideration,’ and under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. cap. 48), sec. 5, an ‘annual consideration’ which the claimant was bound to pay as a condition of his right, and which therefore fell to be deducted from the yearly value of the subjects. The value would thus be insufficient to afford a qualification.†
Argued for the appellant;—The interest on the reserved burden here was ejusdem generis with ground-annuals, which both the Act of 1832 and that of 1868 expressly mentioned as deductions. The reserved burden here was therefore one of the ‘other annual considerations’ to which the Act of 1868 referred. If it were excluded it was hard to see what annual considerations besides those expressly mentioned could be included. But the present objection had already been given effect to.1 The test was that the interest or other consideration must be payable to the party from whom the right flowed, and not to third parties,2 at least under the first set of deductions mentioned in the Act of 1868; the
second set of deductions, which had not been contained in the Act of 1832, might be payable to third parties. These last deductions were not limited to payments which would themselves found a qualification, for it had been held that annuities could not found a qualification.1
Argued for the respondent;—The reserved burden here was not a condition of the respondent's right, and consequently was not within the statute.2
At advising,—
Lord Craighill.—I am of opinion that the judgment of the Sheriff ought to be supported, and the appeal dismissed. The question before us is, whether the interest of £154, 2s. 4d., which was part of the price of the property conveyed to the claimant, and which was constituted a real burden on the property, must in fixing the yearly value as a qualification for the franchise be deducted from the rents of the subject, or, in other words, whether the yearly value of the property as a ground of qualification is to be taken under deduction of the interest of the sum constituted a real burden? The case as presented in argument for the appellant was the same whether the relative section of the Act of 1832 or that of the Act of 1868 be the criterion for determination. If payment of the interest is one of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Agar v Hyde; Agar v Worsley
...of the claim for relief2. It held that, in the present case, the test was clearly satisfied3. On the discretionary aspects of Pt 10 r 2, Pt 10 r 6A and Pt 11 r 8, the Court of Appeal attached no practical significance, adverse to the respondents, to assertions that the jurisdiction invoked ......
-
Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault Sa v Zhang
...relevant provisions of the Rules by which the discretion to which reference has been made is conferred upon the Supreme Court. 17 Part 10, r 6A provides: ‘(1) The Court may make an order of a kind referred to in Part 11 rule 8 (which relates to setting aside etc originating process) on appl......