Civil

Inverness County Council v. Burgh of Inverness

[1909] ScotCS 46SLR0305Court of Session1909

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Held that the Town Council of the burgh were not liable in repayment of any part of loans effected by the County Council, prior to the extension, for the general purposes of the county or of the first district, and secured on assessments leviable by the County Council on the county or the first district.

No provision is made by the Act for adjustment or transference of liabilities affecting areas brought within the boundaries of a burgh except in sections 21 and 22, which deal respectively with debts and obligations incurred by local authorities acting under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867 (30 and 31 Vict. cap. 101), and amending Acts, and with the expenses payable for the preparation of the parliamentary register.

The nature and purposes of these loans sufficiently appear from the opinion ( infra ) of the Lord Ordinary ( Mackenzie ).

On 19th February 1908 the Lord Ordinary pronounced an interlocutor finding the pursuers' averments irrelevant and dismissing the action.

“Turning now to the loans raised by the pursuers for the purpose of the First Page: 307 ↓

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

Lord Low —I am of opinion that the judgment of the Lord Ordinary is right. The question depends entirely on the construction of the statute. The Act of Parliament under which the area in question was transferred from the County of Inverness-shire to the Burgh of Inverness was the Burgh Police Act 1892. By section 11 of that Act power was given to the Sheriff to extend the boundaries of burghs. In that section nothing whatever is said about the transfer of liabilities affecting the transferred area. But in sections 21 and 22 of the Act it is provided that the adjustment of obligations connected with public health and registration shall be dealt with in a particular way. I agree with the Lord Ordinary that these cases having been specially provided for, the plain inference is that no further adjustment was considered necessary. The Lord Ordinary has dealt very fully with the case, and I agree so entirely with what he has said that I do not think it necessary to add anything more.

Page: 310 ↓

Lord Ardwall —The Lord Ordinary has dealt with this case very fully, and I am of opinion that the decision he has arrived at and the arguments by which he supports it are well founded. I have read the Lord Ordinary's opinion more than once, and I do not think it can be improved upon in any particular. It may be that there existed prior to 1903 a legislative omission with regard to the allocation of existing county debt when a portion of a county was annexed to a burgh, and that it would have been fairer if the statute of 1892 had contained a clause which would have entitled the pursuers to the decree which they ask in this action, but that is a matter with which we have nothing to do; our duty is simply to apply Acts of Parliament as they stand on the Statute Book.

The Lord Justice-Clerk and Lord Dundas concurred.

The Court adhered.

Counsel for Pursuers (Reclaimers)—Dean of Faculty ( Scott Dickson, K.C.)— Malcolm. Agents— Baillie & Gifford, W.S.

Counsel for Defenders (Respondents)— M'Lennan, K.C.— Murray. Agents— Skene, Edwards, & Garson, W.S.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Civil cases

Saddiq Ahmed against Kamall Ahmed (Court of Session)

[2026] ScotCS 2026csoh26

Saddiq Ahmed against Kamall Ahmed (Court of Session)

[2026] ScotCS 2026csoh30

56 Fellows Road Limited v ABC Block Management Limited

[2026] EWCA Civ 401

ZS against TS (Court of Session)

[2026] ScotCS 2026csoh27

Leo Bruce Huisman against University of the Highlands and Islands and another (Court of Session)

[2026] ScotCS 2026csih17

Dr Marcus Bicknell & Anor v NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board

[2026] EWCA Civ 21

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.