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.
Subject_1 Jurisdiction Subject_2 Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 Subject_3 Cottars Subject_4 Permanent Improvements. Facts: Held that an action by a cottar for compensation for permanent improvements under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 is incompetent in the Court of Session, and that such claims fell to be dealt with by the Crofters Commissioners.
The said parish has been duly ascertained and determined to be a crofting parish under sec. 19 of the said Act.
The pursuer pleaded—“In respect pursuer is a cottar within the meaning of the said Act, he is entitled to compensation for improvements as concluded for.”
The defender pleaded—“It is incompetent to claim compensation for improvements under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 in the Court of Session.”
The Lord Ordinary ( Kincairney ), on 7th January 1890, pronounced the following interlocutor:—“Finds … that the amount of compensation due to a cottar under the said Act on removal from his dwelling cannot competently be determined in an action brought for that purpose in the Court of Session: Therefore dismisses the action, and decerns… .
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.