Smeaton v St Andrew's Police Commissioners. [Court of Session—2d Division.]
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1868 |
| Date | 10 December 1868 |
| Docket Number | No. 56 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
Lord Jerviswoode. R.
Locus Pænitentiæ—Agreement—Statutory Commissioners.—
SEE case reported ante, vol. iii. p. 816; and vol. v. p. 743.
This was an action of declarator by Mr Smeaton of Abbey Park, St Andrews, against the police commissioners of that burgh, concluding, inter alia, to have it declared ‘that the defenders are bound to execute in duplicate a formal deed of agreement embodying the stipulations and provisions contained in a memorandum or heads of agreement signed …. on behalf of the pursuer on 12th February 1866, and approved of, accepted, and adopted by the defenders at a meeting held by them in St Andrews on the said 12th February.’
The following narrative of the facts is taken from the opinion of Lord Cowan:—
‘The defenders are commissioners of police of the burgh of St Andrews under the General Police Act, 25 and 26 Vict. c. 101; and in virtue of the powers conferred by that statute, they resolved to carry through certain operations affecting the drainage of the burgh. The line of these operations passed through the lands of Abbey Park, belonging to the pursuer, who considered himself aggrieved by the contemplated works; and having unsuccessfully opposed their being sanctioned by the Sheriff, applied to this Court for interdict against their execution. This interdict was refused by the First Division of the Court on 17th May 1865. A claim for compensation, in respect of the damage to his property, amounting to £3325, by and through the contemplated operations, was thereafter made for him in December 1865, which led to extrajudicial communings between the parties. The defenders appointed a special committee in that view on 20th December 1865. The object was, if possible, to arrange how the drainage operations might best be carried through the pursuer's property, and on what terms his claim for compensation should be adjusted. It is unnecessary to detail these communications further than to state that, at a meeting on 27th December, the commissioners continued the special committee, on the footing “that they in no way depart from their right to carry out the statutory plan to its full extent, if the present negotiation with Mr Smeaton should not result in any final arrangement with him; and that, after protracted negotiations, the commissioners, at their statutory meeting held on 1st February 1866, resolved to adhere to the statutory line sanctioned by the Sheriff, and to proceed with its execution.” This resolution led to an intimation from the pursuer that he desired to have his claim of compensation determined by ajury; and in consequence the commissioners, at their meeting on 6th February 1866, gave instructions to their clerk in reference to the impendingjury trial. Matters stood thus when the statutory meeting of the commissioners was held on 12th February 1866, to which the conclusions of the summons refer.
‘At that meeting a tender was authorised to be made to the pursuer, which was done by their clerk, of same date, the sum of £420 being tendered in full of the pursuer's claim. The meeting was, however, adjourned till the evening of the same day,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paterson v Magistrates of St Andrews
...with expenses. 1Duncan v. Salmond, Jan. 4, 1874, ante, vol. i. p. 329. 2Smeaton v. St Andrews Police Commissioners, Dec. 10, 1868, 7 Macph. 206, 41 Scot. Jur. 132, rev. H. of L., March 20, 1871, 9 Macph. (H. L.) 24, 43 Scot, Jur. 349, L. E. 2 So. App. 107. 3Cormack v. Waters, June 25, 1846,......