Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
But the question here is with the landlord, and in reference to a warehouse let along with the distillery, and forming part of the same premises. No use to which the tenants might apply this portion of the individual subject let to them could affect or abridge the landlord's rights at common law, unless by virtue of an express enactment to this effect, which, however, the statute in question does not contain.
The Lord Justice-Clerk said—This interlocutor is clearly founded on the provisions of the act 4 Geo. IV. c. 94. There can be no delivery or removal of spirits deposited in a warehouse authorised by this statute, except in the way therein required, viz. by obtaining an excise permit or order of delivery after having paid the duties. Therefore, apart from all other statutes and rules of law, the property of the spirits in question cannot be considered as transferred to Wyld and Company.
Lord Glenlee thought that the question was attended with some doubt, in consequence of the reversal (4 April 1831) of the judgment of the Court in the case of Maxwell and Company v. Stevenson and Company, 2 March 1830; otherwise he was inclined to be of opinion that the interlocutor was well founded.
Lord Medwyn, Ordinary. For the Pursuers, Rutherfurd. J. R. Stodart, W. S. Agent. For the Defender, Dean of Fac. (Hope.) P. Conper, W. S. Agent. F. Clerk.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.