Dunn v Cotesworth
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1874 |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Date | 03 November 1874 |
| Court | Court of Session |
County Franchise—Proprietor—Title—Building Society.—
County Franchise—Proprietor—Title—Sale of Heritage.—
Held, in accordance with the case of Bishop v. Dove, Dec. 19, 1868, that a member of a building society was not entitled to be placed on the roll of voters as owner of a house allotted to him by an entry in the society's books.
A purchaser of subjects, who has not obtained a disposition to the same till after 31st January of the current year is not entitled to the county franchise in respect thereof, unless he has, before that date, entered into a written contract of sale sufficient to bind both parties.
Dalglish claimed to be placed on the roll of voters for the county of Stirling as proprietor of a house and garden in Lennoxtown. The claimant was a member of the Campsie Building and Investment Society. In 1871 a steading of ground was allocated by the society to the claimant, and a house costing £150 was erected thereon by the society, which the claimant had occupied from a date prior to 31st January 1874.
On 20th December 1873 a meeting of the committee of the society, and of those members who had had property allocated to them, was held. The minute of meeting, which was initialed by the chairman, bore—‘After deliberating concerning the present position of the society, these members who have had houses allocated to them intimated their willingness to bond their properties and pay over the balance of the cost of their houses to the society, provided the society, in general meeting, agrees to wind up its affairs.’
At a meeting of the society, held on 16th January 1874, it was agreed to wind up its affairs as soon as circumstances would permit.
The books of the society shewed that the claimant had paid to the society, by way of instalments, sums amounting to £30, 12s. 8d. He made no further payment till 31st March 1874, when he paid the whole balance of the price, and thereafter obtained a disposition of the subjects. Wright objected to the claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allanfield Property Insurance Services Ltd ((in Administration)) ("APIS") (as trustee of a trust of client money under Chapter 5 of the Client Asset Sourcebook within the FCA Handbook) and Others v Aviva Insurance Ltd and Another
...the firm is the provision that, after all other claims to the trust pool have been met, the firm is entitled to the balance; see CASS 5.3. 2 R (5). There is no obvious reason why different excesses in client accounts should be treated differently. 5) The present cases involve shortfalls, no......
-
Lehman Brothers; CRC Credit Fund Ltd and Others v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) and Others
...effect would be, in relation to a CMP which suffered from no shortfall, to create a surplus for payment back to the firm under CASS7.7. 2R(5). In relation to a CMP in shortfall, it would create a sum for rateable distribution among the contributing clients generally, so as to reduce the sho......
-
Prasad v Wolverhampton Borough Council
...compensation from the date of the service of the notice to treat to the date on which the work of equivalent reinstatement pursuant to s. 2 r.5 of the Act of 1919 might normally have been commenced. In deciding that case the House of Lords was not concerned with loss incurred in anticipatio......
-
Global Trader Europe Ltd v Milner and Another
...by the part of the account which was not an excess. (Essentially the same proposition was expressly enacted in CASS 4.2. 3R(4) and CASS 7.7. 2R(5), but in my view follows as a matter of principle without the need for specific enactment.) 67 In the case of two clients ('the Atkinsons' and 't......
-
New UK Distribution Rules Effective December 31 – the Impact on Fund Managers
...se professional client (except for a client that is only a per se professional client because it is an institutional investor under COBS 3.5.2 R (5)) and, in relation to business other than MiFID or equivalent third-country business: (i) is a body corporate (including a limited liability pa......
-
Changing the Game: How the United States Can Look to the European Union to Create Effective Sports Betting Legislation in a Post-PASPA World
...Betting Bill Will Fail in 2018, LEGAL SPORTS REP., https://www.legalsportsreport.com/20516/federal-sports-betting-bill [https://perma.cc/ 2R5V-5EAN] (last updated May 21, 2018, 4:30 AM). 83. Id. 2020] CHANGING THE GAME 2283 laws post-PASPA. For New Jersey, there are “questions about tax rat......