Murray's Trustees. v. Trustees of St Margaret's Convent [1907] UKHL 633 (13 May 1907)


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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Murray's Trustees. v. Trustees of St Margaret's Convent [1907] UKHL 633 (13 May 1907)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1907/44SLR0633.html
Cite as: 44 ScotLR 633, 45 ScotLR 633, [1907] UKHL 633

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 633↓

House of Lords.

Monday, May 13. 1907.

(Before the Earl of Halsbury, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Robertson, and Lord Atkinson.)

44 SLR 633

Murray's Trustees.

v.

Trustees of St Margaret's Convent.

(In the Court of Session, July 19, 1906, 43 S.L.R. 774, 8 F. 1109.)


Subject_Property — Servitude — Building Restrictions — Prohibition against “Any Building of an Unseemly Description.”
Facts:

A restriction upon ground prohibiting the erection of “any building of an unseemly description” is not sufficiently definite to be capable of being enforced.

Headnote:

This case is reported ante ut supra.

Murray's Trustees, the pursuers (respondents in the Division) appealed to the House of Lords.

At the conclusion of the appellants' argument:—

 Judgment:

Earl of Halsbury — The question in this case is certainly reduced to a very simple one, and that is whether your Lordships are able to give a definite legal meaning to the restrictive words of this covenant. I confess I have been looking in vain for some definite guide as to what is suggested to be the real meaning. Both the learned counsel who have addressed your Lordships have, I think, failed to give any definite meaning to the words. What may reasonably be “seemly” appears to be a question rather of the personal conduct of the individuals engaged than any characteristic of the building which is supposed to be itself an infraction of the covenant that has been entered into.

I really do not feel it necessary to say any more about the matter except that I concur with the judgment of the Court of Session, and I think the appeal should be dismissed. I am wholly unable to follow the reasoning which alters the applicability of such words as are used here into some definite meaning which a Court can enforce. I am not aware of anything which will give in the ordinary use of language such an effect to these words as to render that meaning capable of being enforced.

For these reasons I move your Lordships that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Lord James of Hereford—I concur.

Lord Robertson—I think this is a very clear case, but the law on this subject of servitudes affecting real property is one which requires delicacy of statement, and I shall most usefully express my opinion by saying that I entirely concur in the whole of the judgment of Lord Kinnear.

Lord Atkinson—I concur. I think the judgment of the Court of Session was right.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

 Counsel:

Counsel for Appellants— Scott Dickson, K.C.— Constable. Agents— Blair & Cadell, W.S., Edinburgh— Martin & Leslie, Westminster.

Counsel for Respondents — The Dean of Faculty ( Campbell, K.C.)— Chree. Agents—Wm. Considine, S.S.C., Edinburgh— John Kennedy, W.S., Westminster.

 1907

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1907/44SLR0633.html