BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Hope v Speares [1838] CS 16_1007 (15 May 1838) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1838/016SS1007.html Cite as: [1838] CS 16_1007 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Page: 1007↓
Subject_Superior and Vassal—Clause.—
Terms of a clause of reddendo in a charter, which held not to entitle the superior to his option of having paid to him the ipsa corpora of so many capons, but to imply that the vassal was only bound to pay a money conversion set forth in the charter.
Sequel of case reported ante, XV. 1288.
The reddendo clause of a feu charter, granted in 1721, by Sir Thomas Bruce Hope of Craighall to one Pitcairn, was in these terms:—“Paying therefor yearly, the said Thomas Pitcairn and his foresaids, to me, my heirs and successors, of feu duty, the sum of £462, 11s. 3d. Scots money rent, twenty-four bolls well-dight, good, and sufficient bear, six bolls good and sufficient well-dight oats, fifteen threaves of straw, and in the option of the said Sir Thomas Bruce Hope, three shillings Scots for each threave thereof, sixty-nine poultry and a-half, or in my option, four shillings, six pennies, Scots, for each of the said poultry, with the sum of eight shillings Scots for each capon, of three dozen capons,” &c. A question arose upon the construction of this clause; the pursuer, the superior, maintaining that he was entitled to his option of choosing the ipsa corpora of the capons, instead of the conversion specified in the charter; while the defender, the vassal, contended that he was only bound to pay a conversion equal to eight shillings Scots, for each capon.
The Court held the clause to be somewhat ambiguous, but concurred in the view of the defender, sustaining the defences as to this point, and on the other points of the cause, decerning in favour of the pursuer.
The pursuer having moved for the expenses of the whole proceedings,
The Court found the defender liable therein, but, of consent, ordered that one-third should be struck off from the account when taxed.
Solicitors: James Hope, W.S.— Walter Cook, W.S.—Agents.
