Case Report: (1866) 4 M 819

Key points: Right of way terminus at seashore – distinction between seashore generally and right of way terminus – necessary characteristics of terminus of a right of way – procedural necessity to state claim clearly.

The facts: This case follows on from Darrie v Drummond, above, which failed because Scott did not aver (i.e. claim as part of the Action) that the terminus was a ‘public place’.

Legal arguments: Drummond argued that the question of the shore as a public place required to be proved. The Court allowed the matter to go to a jury to be resolved.

Comments: As the report dealt only with procedural matters, we are not told the outcome, though the case reinforces the need to establish the particular character of a part of the seashore which is claimed as the terminus of a right of way.

Case referred to: Darrie v Drummond (1865) 3 M 496

Powered by BetterDocs