v.
Thomas Forrester, Respondent.—Lushington—Dundas
Lord Mackenzie.
Subject_Landlord and Tenant. —
On a question of fact, relative to a tenant’s liability for a year’s rent, the House of Lords, (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session), held the tenant not to be liable.
Forrester held a lease of a farm from Balfour of Leys, (whose factor loco tutoris was James Thomson), for nineteen years from Whitsunday and Martinmas 1797. Among the subjects let were a mill and orchards; and from these Forrester was to remove at Whitsunday 1816, but not from the arable lands until the ensuing Michaelmas. Nearly five years after a settlement with Forrester, and his removal from the farm, a claim was made upon him by Thomson for the value of the fruit of the year 1816; and in an action the Sheriff of Perthshire and the Lord Ordinary
Page: 137↓
decerned against him; but the Court of Session remitted to an accountant to report on the question, how many crops’ rent had actually been paid for the orchard and fruit thereof. It appeared from the report, that Forrester had not got the fruit of the orchard crop 1797; and thus, counting crop 1816, only had the number of crops (nineteen) stipulated for by the lease. Evidence was also produced, that a person authorized by Mr Thomson had been paid by Forrester for the crop of 1816. The Court therefore altered, and assoilzied Forrester, with expenses. Thomson appealed; but the House of Lords, without requiring the respondent’s Counsel to be heard, affirmed the interlocutor, with L.50 costs.
Solicitors: James Chalmer— Spottiswoode and Robertson,—Solicitors.
Source: https://www.bailii.org/
