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.
The defender pleaded, inter alia —“1. In respect that the defender succeeded to her father in the entailed lands, duty is only payable at 1 per cent. 2. Alternatively, in respect that the defender's succession was not the first succession within the meaning of section 58 (4) of the Finance Act 1910, duty is only due at the rate of 5 per cent.”
On 24th January 1917 the Lord Ordinary ( Cullen ) decerned and ordained the defender to deliver the account sued for, and granted leave to reclaim. To that interlocutor was appended the following opinion, from which the facts of the case appear:—
Opinion .—“By disposition and deed of tailzie, dated 11th October 1823, Hugh Hamilton of Pinmore disponed his lands of Pinmore and others in strict entail to him Page: 164 ↓
I am therefore of opinion that the defender is under the Act of 1853 liable in succession duty at the rate of 5 per cent.
The next question in the case arises under section 58 of the Finance (1909–10) Act 1910.
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.