BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Fogo, Petitioner [1877] ScotLR 15_221 (14 December 1877) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1877/15SLR0221.html Cite as: [1877] SLR 15_221, [1877] ScotLR 15_221 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 221↓
[
The Court will allow as charges against an entailed estate under the provisions of the Entail Amendment Act 1875 (38 and 3D Vict. cap.61), such improvements upon the mansion-house as are likely to secure an increase of rent for it let as a residence and may be classed as “of a substantial nature and beneficial” to the estate, without regard to the fact that by the charges the free agricultural rental suffers corresponding diminution.
This was a petition under the 7th and 8th sections of the Entail Amendment Act 1875 (38 and 30 Vict. cap. 61), presented by Mrs Jane Mathie Laurie Fogo, heiress of entail in possession of the entailed estate of Row, and her husband, the Rev. John Lawrie Fogo, for leave to charge the entailed estate with certain sums for improvements on the mansion-house, partly already executed, and partly in course of execution, or only contemplated. The Lord Ordinary remitted to Mr George Dalziel, W.S., as a man of business, and to Mr David Ballingall, as a man of skill, to report on the petition. As regarded the sum for improvements executed prior to this application, the Lord Ordinary granted the desired authority, after deduction of a trifling sum for certain items of improvement which had been altered or removed by subsequent operations.
But the petitioner further asked to be allowed to charge the estate with a sum of upwards of £3000 for contemplated expenditure. The improvements were reported by Mr Ballingall to be of a substantial nature, but excessive when compared with the rental of the estate. And it appeared that the free rental, which, exclusive of the mansion-house, amounted to £670, would be reduced by the proposed charges to £220 per annum. Mr Dalziel, the reporter, suggested that in these circumstances it might be necessary to make some provision for the protection of the younger children of the petitioner, in favour of whom and of her husband the petitioner Mrs Fogo had executed a bond of provision, dated 9th September 1843. That deed provided for payment of au annuity of £225 to her husband during his life in the event of his surviving her, and of £1500 to the younger
Page: 222↓
children of the marriage. Both these bequests were restrictable in terms of the Aberdeen Act. Mr Dalziel also remarked in his report—“It is submitted for your Lordship's consideration whether an expenditure on the mansion-house of an entailed estate, the effect of which is to reduce the income from the remainder of the estate to such an extent as to be totally inadequate to enable the heir of entail personally to occupy the mansion-house, can be treated as being ‘beneficial to the estate' in the meaning of the Act.”
The next heir of entail, Mr David Fogo Lawrie Fogo, concurred in the application. Mr Bruce Johnston, W.S., who had been nominated factor ad litem to the two others of the three next heirs of entail, who were children of Mr D. F. L. Fogo, stated in a minute—“The result of these inquiries has been to satisfy the curator ad litem that the property has all along had a mansion-house of some sort, and that the house now existing, as improved and enlarged, is not out of keeping with the nature and extent of the property. He is also satisfied that an increased rent, corresponding to the amount proposed to be charged in respect of additions to the mansion-house and offices, may reasonably be expected, and has indeed been obtained, on a five years' lease. At the same time, it appears to the curator that the free rental obtained from the estate otherwise would by itself be inadequate to enable an heir of entail to reside on the property. Whether the expenditure on the mansion-house is properly chargeable on the entailed estate in the view of its being beneficial only in the sense of the house being let to a third party, is a question which the curator ad litem desires to leave in the hands of the Lord Ordinary; but, on the assumption that, in the circumstances stated, the expenditure proposed to be allowed by Mr Ballingall's report can be competently charged, the curator does not oppose the prayer of the petition being granted.” It was stated that the petitioner's younger children consented to the authority being granted. The question therefore came to be, whether the prospect of an increased rent for the mansion-house as a residence was sufficient to bring these improvements under the category of being “beneficial to the estate?”
The Lord Ordinary (
Adam ) thereupon pronounced an interlocutor in which, inter alia, he allowed the proposed expenditure for contemplated improvements to the extent of £1500, and authorised the petitioner to charge the entailed estate, other than the mansion-house, with a bond of annual-rent accordingly.The petitioner having obtained leave, reclaimed.
At advising—
Now, it does not appear from the Lord Ordinary's judgment on what precise ground his Lordship has disallowed half of this sum, but it was stated to us that his view was that the extent of improvements on the mansion-house was so much in excess of the agricultural value of the estate that they could not be represented as being beneficial to it. The full agricultural rent, as appears from Mr Dalziel's report, exclusive of the mansion-house, is about £670. That is the free rental, and it will be reduced, as he reports, by the charges to be imposed on the estate, if the Court should grant authority as is craved in this petition, to a sum of £220 or thereby. It appears that the estate will be immensely improved as a place of residence by the proposed expenditure, and I see that Mr Johnston, who acted as tutor ad litem for two of the heirs of entail, who are in pupillarity, states very properly that he is “satisfied that an increased rent, corresponding to the amount proposed to be charged in respect of additions to the mansion-house and offices, may reasonably be expected, and has indeed been obtained on a five years' lease.” That statement I accept as showing that the property will by these proposed improvements be greatly enhanced in value as a place to reside on, although the effect will be to reduce the agricultural rental.
The question then is—Are these improvements to be allowed to this full extent, or only to the extent of one-half? I propose to your Lordships to allow the full amount to be charged. In the case of Mosman, January 25, 1867, 5 Macph. 303, it was decided that in dealing with improvements of the class authorised by the Act 11 and 12 Vict. cap. 36, there is no limitation of the cost to two or three years' rental. What the Court has to look to is whether the improvements are truly beneficial to the estate or not? So here there is no limitation imposed by the Statute of 1875 of any number of years' rental as the extent to which improvements are to be authorised. The question is therefore, to adopt the words of the statute—Whether the contemplated improvements are “of a substantial nature, and beneficial to the estate?” It cannot be doubted that they are of a most substantial nature, and further, they come within the description of what is beneficial to the estate, for they will give a correspondingly increased value to the estate. Therefore I am of opinion that they are within the meaning of the statute beneficial to the estate.
A question, not unattended with difficult, might have arisen from the circumstance that the lady now in possession of the estate granted at her marriage a bond of provision for the younger children of the marriage. It was for
Page: 223↓
The Court pronounced the following interlocutor:—
“The Lords having heard counsel for the petitioners on the reclaiming note for them against Lord Adam's interlocutor of 6th November 1877, Recal the interlocutor in so far as it finds that it would not be beneficial to the estate that it should be charged with any greater expenditure in respect of improvements on the mansion-house, &c, than £1500: Find that the petitioners ought to be allowed to charge the estate on this account with the full amount of £3090 of improvement expenditure: Remit to the Lord Ordinary to modify and alter his interlocutor so as to give effect to this finding, with power to his Lordship to dispose of the expenses incurred in the Inner House.”
Counsel for Petitioners— Rutherfurd. Agents— Frasers, Stodart, & Mackenzie, W.S.
