CHAP. II. Of the Dividing of Valuations. $1. IN GEN I. THE dividing of valuations is one of the principal departments belonging exclufively to commiffioners ERAL. of fupply. The nomination of thefe magiftrates, their qualification, appointment of their clerk, times and place of their meeting, quorum, and other matters, pertaining either to the general nature, or to the correct and regular execution of their office, have been already taken notice of": Here, therefore, only fuch things remain to be mentioned as are neceffary to the proper divifion of valuations. As already mentioned, in place of the old method of taxation, not only the whole lands of the kingdom, whether held of the king or of a fubject, but alfo all real rights relating to lands, feu-duties, teinds, mines, fishings, were valued. And the direction of the convention 1643, and of Valuation fubfequent enactments, was to value the whole of every tion 1643. one's taxable fubjects in cumulo, that is, together. Lands, by conven a Vol. I, p. 325. 1. therefore, and other rights above mentioned connected therewith, were never valued feparately, unless they happened to belong to different proprietors. IN GEN- Its inconveniences. In a new method of levying the land tax, tried by way of experiment merely, this was adopted as most expeditious. This new method was found to answer, and followed out by fubfequent parliaments. HOWEVER, numberless re-valuations foon became necef fary. The value of temporary rights was perpetually varyRe-valua ing. And when different fubjects which had once been tion why, valued in cumulo paffed to different proprietors; when, for neceffary? example, a colliery or fifhery was fold to one, and the lands either retained or fold to another, it was neceffary to value them separately. On two accounts. Remedy to venience of cumulo valuations. In order to remedy this inconvenience, by act of conventhe incon- tion 1667, on the narrative," that where lands, teinds, or other real estate did, the time of former valuations, pertain to one person, and are fince difmembered and difponed to feveral perfons in parcels, fo that the value of each parcel in itself cannot be known from former valuations," the commillioners are empowered " to value of new again, provided no alteration be made of the total fum imposed on the fhire." Nominal and ficti tious votes. § 2. AT WHAT BUT these re-valuations became ftill more frequent from political zeal, which put landholders upon the device of fplitting their valuations, with the view of creating nominal and fictitious votes. II. THE commiffioners cannot divide a valuation, unless CAN A VA- either on the day of their first meeting, named in the act, or at a meeting of adjournment, or at a regular meeting LUATION BE DIVID ED? fummoned by the convener. But if a divifion, made by a private meeting, be confirmed or homologated by a fubfequent legal meeting of the commiffioners, it will be thereby validated. In one particular cafe, a divifion of valuation was fuftained, though made at a meeting held on neither of these days". $4. PROCED III. THE application is made by a petition, ftating the amount of the total, or cumulo valuation, and praying for a URE. © 6th March 1754, Campbell against Stirling and others. 2 b Wight, p. 193. 21st Feb. 1753, on the 4th of June, though the printAbercrombie against Leslie. ed act had not then come down. The court of feffion, however, deemed the printed act the proper legal intimation, as it was reckoned abfurd that the neglect of publishing the act should be productive of a confequence fo violent as that of freedom. from the land tax; and they did accordingly repel the objection. d A divifion of valuation was made by a decree of the commiffioners of supply, and one of the parts being valued at 400l. Scots, the proprietor thereof was enrolled at the Michaelmas head court. This, enrolment was complained of, on the ground that the decree was pronounced by an irregular meeting, being neither the first meeting appointed by the act, nor a meeting by adjournment, nor a meeting appointed by the convener. There was, however, a specialty. The land tax act of 1751 had appointed the 4th of June that year for the first meeting of the commiffioners. That day was paffed before the act came down; and, as soon afterwards as poffible, the sheriff convened the commiflioners. The complainer replied, that what paffes in the house of commons is prefumed to be known to all the lieges, and that the commiffioners, therefore, had authority to meet up "I was not," fays lord Kames, "fatisfied. The land tax is a debt which, in all events, ought to be levied; and if it cannot be done in the regular way, another method must be fubftituted. The extraordinary powers of the commiffioners are to be confidered in a different light. No meeting is empowered to split a valuation, but what is regular, in terms of the ftatute. And if fuch a mecting cannot be had, there is no such neceflity in this cafe, as in the former, to apply a remedy. No lofs enfues, fave only a year's delay in fplitting the valuation." Innes of Sandfide againft Sutherland of Swinzie, 26th June 1753. Kames Rep. V. iii, p. 56. $ 3. PROCED URE. Proof allowed. Taken. divifion of it among the different lands to which it is applicable, in order that the particular valuation of each may be separately stated in the cefs books. The commiffioners upon this allow a proof of the real rents of the feveral lands, and grant their warrant for fummoning witneffes to appear at an after meeting, to which they may adjourn. If witneffes decline appearing, an application may be made to the judge ordinary, who grants warrant of course. On that diet they proceed to take the proof, after which they generally remit it to their clerk to fplit the valuation accordingly; and, approving of his report, they set forth in their decree Infertion in the feparate value of each parcel, and order the fame to be ftated in the cefs book, and the cefs, i. e. land tax, to be levied accordingly in time to come. Sometimes the commiflioners appoint a committee of their own number to take the proof, and to give in a report to a fubfequent meeting. Decree. the cefs books. Who must be called in In a process of valuation, it is neither neceffary to call an action of the tenants, even although, by their tacks, they may be bound damages. to pay the cefs; nor the fuperior, although his political intereft may be ultimately affected f; nor the vaffals, even although they pay the land tax 8. $4. PROOF RE QUISITE. THIS fubftantial intereft of the latter, however, entitles them to bring an action for setting afide the valuation on the ground that it is wrong and illegal. IV. THERE are three methods of dividing a cumulo valua tion. First, the real rent of the feveral parcels at the time Three forts. when the valuation was made. Secondly, the use of paying the cefs. Thirdly, the prefent rent. e Wight Election Law, p. 184. & Dec. 6, 1780, fir Walter Montgomery Cunningham against Hamil, ton of Sundrum. THE firft is undoubtedly the most accurate method, and is always to be preferred where evidence can be had. When the land rent in Scotland was valued, in order to lay on the cess, the cumulo valuation of each man's property within a parish was undoubtedly afcertained from a view of the rent paid by each farm, and, confequently, each farm bore a part of the cumulo valuation in proportion to the rent then paid. If, at a distance of time, it becomes impracticable to ascertain the original rent, the commiffioners must then recur to one of the other methods. § 4. PROOF, OF PAYMENT. THE next rule is, the use of paying the cefs, which, if of use of a long standing, is prefumptive evidence of the original rent, because the use of payment is commonly afcertained from the real rent. THE most exceptionable method is the prefent rent, which is a very uncertain rule by the fluctuation in the value of eftates h V. It was mentioned above, that, at one period, the most h Put the cafe, (fays lord Kames), of two farms of the fame extent and original rent, which, belonging to the fame heritor at the time of valuation, were valued in cumulo at 800l. Both farms are feued out, and each feuar undertakes, as he ought to do, cefs corresponding to 400l. valuation, One of thefe feus, in procefs of time, is greatly improved, the other not at all, by which means the prefent rent of these two feus is very unequal, The fuperior difpones the fuperiority of the feu which is improved; and if the present rent were to be the rule of divifion betwixt the vender and purchaser, the former would have no vote, because so much as the purchaser's feu is valued above 4001. $5. REVIEW OF |