![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Lord Blantyre and Master of Blantyre v. Lord Advocate and Clyde Navigation Trustees [1878] ScotLR 15_382 (12 February 1878) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1878/15SLR0382.html Cite as: [1878] ScotLR 15_382, [1878] SLR 15_382 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 382↓
[
Parties holding a barony title to certain lands situated on the banks of the river Clyde, which was a public navigable river, raised an action against the Crown concluding for declarator that the foreshore ex adverso of their lands belonged to them in property, subject to such rights of navigation or other rights as the public and the Clyde Navigation Trustees under their statutes might have over it. The Clyde Navigation Trustees got themselves sisted as defenders (Jan. 15, 1876, 13 Scot. Law Rep. 213), and after a proof had been led regarding the state of possession, it was held ( aff. judgment of Lord Curriehill, Ordinary) that the acts of possession proved, which consisted, inter alia, in the use by the pursuers and their tenants of all available portions of the foreshore for pasturing their cattle, in the cutting of reeds and sea-weed found there,
_________________ Footnote _________________
* Decided 19th December 1877.
Page: 383↓
Opinions per Lord Curriehill and First Division (in accordance with the case of Agnew v. The Lord Advocate, decided by the Second Division, Jan. 21, 1873, 11 Macph. 309) that a barony title to lands so situated, which does not contain any express grant of foreshore, or any such specific boundary as can be held to include the foreshore, is not sufficient to confer that right, if unaccompanied by any proof of possession.
Counsel for Pursuers (Respondents)— Balfour— Hunter. Agents— Skene, Webster, & Peacock, W.S.
Counsel for Lord Advocate—Lord Advocate (Watson)— Ivory. Agent— Donald Beith, W.S.
Counsel for Clyde Trustees— Asher— Lorimer. Agents— Webster, Will, & Ritchie, S.S.C.