Howden v Blackwood
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1881 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Date | 14 November 1881 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill, Lord Fraser.
County Franchise—Proprietor—Member of building society—Suspensive condition.—
Five persons, who had agreed to feu five building stances (each one stance), applied to a building society for advances to enable them to build, and agreed that the title to the whole property should be taken in the name of the trustees of the society. The title having been granted, the trustees gave a back-letter to one of the feuars, binding themselves to grant a conveyance in his favour to his part of the subjects on repayment of the advances made by the society to him. While the advances were still unpaid objection was taken to the feuar remaining on the register of voters, on the ground that he had no title to the subjects. The Court sustained the objection, holding that his right to the subjects was in suspense until the advances to him were repaid.
At a Registration Court for the county of Peebles, held at Peebles on the 28th September, William Blackwood, writer, The Neuk, Peebles, a voter on the register, objected to Robert Howden, mill-worker, Peebles, who stood on the register of voters as ‘proprietor, dwelling-house and garden, Rosetta Road, Peebles,’ being continued on the said register, on the ground that he was not proprietor of the said subjects.
The Sheriff (Orphoot) sustained the objection, and expunged the name of the said Robert Howden from the roll.
Howden took a case.
The facts, as stated in the case, were:—
‘I. The voter is now, or has been, in possession of the subjects on which he stood enrolled from at least six months previous to the 31st July 1877, and he has paid the taxes and all public and parochial burdens exigible in respect of the said subjects since 31st January of that year.
‘II. The title consists of (1) a feu-charter by John Buchan, writer in Peebles, in favour of the trustees of the Peeblesshire Savings Investment and Building Society, of all and whole that triangular plot or area of ground, which plot or area of ground is, on the plan after mentioned, divided into seven different building areas, and on said plan the following markings in pencil occur:—
| ‘R. Somerville, No. 1 | area .062 | feu-duty | £0 19 10 |
| ‘A. Ferguson, ‘2 | ‘.064 | ‘ | 1 0 6 |
| ‘J. Bruce, ‘3 | ‘.063 | ‘ | 1 0 2 |
| ‘Mr Howden, ‘4 | ‘.073 | ‘ | 1 3 4 |
| ‘T. Goskirk, ‘5 | ‘.080 | ‘ | 1 5 7 |
| ‘J. Goskirk, ‘6 | ‘.085 | ‘ | 1 7 2 |
| ‘R. M'Gregor, ‘7 | ‘.123 | ‘ | 1 19 5 |
|
| .550 |
| £8 16 0 |
‘(2) The application for a loan from the said investment and building society, which is in these terms:—“Northgate, Peebles, February 22, 1876. To J. D. Bathgate, Esq. Sir,—I intend to build a cottage on the Rosetta Road, and I will require to borrow the sum of £130 from the investment society; would you be as kind as lay this before the directors at their first meeting, you would much oblige me.—Yours,
‘(Signed) “Robert Howden.”
‘The said application is holograph of the voter.
‘(3) Valuation by Messrs David Murray and George Wilkie, builders, Peebles, as follows:—“Peebles, 26th February 1876. The directors of the Peebles Savings Investment Society.—Gentlemen, we have examined the plans and specifications of double cottage proposed to be built on Mr Buchan's feu, Rosetta Road, and we consider the society may advance the sum applied for by Mr Robert Howden, as we consider the value of the house, when furnished, according to plans and specifications, will be two hundred and three pounds, 14s. (£203, 14s.)
‘(Signed) “David Murray.
‘“George Wilkie.”’
Then followed excerpts from the minute-book of the directors of the society, stating that Mr Howden's application of 22d February 1876, and Messrs Murray & Wilkie's report, were read at a meeting of the directors.
The special case then proceeded—‘This valuation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Companies Law (2013 Revision) the Sphinx Group of Companies in Official Liquidation)
...committees) or of the Company Winding Up Rules (‘CWR’) where mention is made. 51 In this respect, the current version of CWR Order 9 r. 1 provides: ‘ Unless the Court otherwise directs, a liquidation committee shall be established in respect of every company which is being wound up by the C......
-
Yashwant Dahyabhai Patel v Girish Dahyabhai Patel and Others
...2005 Will) was control of a US$50m interest in Aumkar via [R1's] interest in Barrington, as well as tactical advances in other litigation. 9. [R1 's] case in the will proceedings was that the Deceased visited him in London in May/June 2005, that conversations between the Deceased and her si......
-
Spreadex Ltd v Sekhon
...intermediate customer may be limited to one or more types of: (a) designated investment; or (b) designated investment business.” 132 COB 4.1. 9 R(1)(a) refers to the firm taking reasonable care to determine the client's experience and understanding. This is the subject of the guidance in CO......
-
Lehman Brothers; CRC Credit Fund Ltd and Others v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) and Others
...purposes, it is sufficient to note that it is one of the types of account into which a firm is permitted to segregate client money. CASS7.2. 9R(1) appears to be in conflict with the combined effect of CASS7.2.15R and 17R. Those provisions all appear to attempt to define circumstances when m......
-
Investment Funds Update - Europe: Legal and regulatory updates for the funds industry from the key asset management centres and primary European fund domiciles - July 2016 - Issue 6: United Kingdom
...to highlight the conditions for meeting the independence requirements introduced by the UCITS V Level 2 Regulation. Amendment to SYSC 19E.2.9R(1) to set out the circumstances in which a UCITS management company must appoint a remuneration Copying out into COLL, the provisions of the SFT Reg......
-
UK Financial Regulatory Developments - May 2016 #17
...reflect certain measures in the Securities Financing Transactions and Reuse Regulation (SFTR). There will be a minor amendment to SYSC 19E.2.9R(1), on UCITS management company remuneration committee requirements. FCA plans to copy out into COLL the SFTR provisions which require managers of ......