 |
[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 >> Lord Falconer of Halkerton v. David Lawson [1778] UKHL 6_Paton_799 (23 February 1778) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1778/6_Paton_799.html Cite as: [1778] UKHL 6_Paton_799 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 799↓
(1778) 6 Paton 799
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 147
House of Lords,
Subject_Lease — Ambiguous Clause. —
A clause in a lease of fifty-seven years, bound the tenant “to renounce at Lammas, before the expiry of the first nineteen years, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton, and the said David Lawson.” Held, in an action of removing brought against the tenant, that this did not import an option that might be exercised by the landlord alone. Reversed in the House of Lords, and held it an option which either landlord or tenant might use singly and alone.
This is a case similar in its nature to that reported ante, vol. ii., p. 373, with the same appellant.
The late Lord Falconer, in the year 1756, let on lease the farm of Whitesaugh, for the space of fifty-seven years, to the respondent, Lawson, upon the conditions after mentioned. The tenant was taken bound to leave the houses in as good repair as he found them, “and to renounce at Lammas before expiry of the first nineteen years of this present tack, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton and the said David Lawson.”
The appellant, after Lord Falconer's death, succeeded; and conceiving that he had an option to recall the lease, he brought the present action of removing for that purpose.
In defence, the respondent stated that the farm was let to the respondent for the term of fifty-seven years absolutely; and although the lease mentions an option of renouncing at the end of the first nineteen years, yet that option is evidently given to the tenant and not to the landlord; and it was not in the power of the latter to remove him, unless he consented and gave up possession.
Dec. 7, 1773.
July 27, 1774.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor:—
“Finds that by the clause in the tack founded on, there was an option stipulated to both master and tenant severally, therefore, repels the defences, and decerns against the defender, David Lawson, conform to the conclusions of the libel.”
But, on reclaiming petition to the Court, the following interlocutor was pronounced:—
“The Lords having advised this petition, with the answers thereto, they assoilzie the defender and decern.”
Page: 800↓
Against this interlocutor Lord Halkerton presented a reclaiming petition, but the Court adhered.
Against this interlocutor the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.
Feb. 21, 1775.
Vide Journals of the House of Lords.
After hearing counsel,
It was ordered and adjudged that the interlocutor complained of be, and the same is hereby reversed.
Counsel: For the Appellant,
Al. Wedderburn,
Al. Forrester,
Gilb. Elliot.
For the Respondent,
E. Thurlow,
Henry Dundas.