Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an advocation from the Sheriff Court of Aberdeenshire. The advocator, Mr Mitchell of Thainston, applied by petition to the Sheriff to have the respondent, George Adam, who was his tenant, interdicted from selling and disposing of or removing from the ground of his farm, during the currency of his lease, the straw and fodder raised and grown on the farm or any part thereof. The ground of the application was that the tenant was bound to consume the straw and fodder grown and raised on the farm in conformity with the rules of good husbandry, and not to sell it, which he threatened to do. The defence was that as there was no steading and offices on the farm whereby the grain might be manufactured and the fodder consumed, the application for interdict was unwarranted. The Sheriff-Substitute (Watson) refused the petition. In his note he observed:—

“The petition prays that the respondent may be interdicted from selling or removing, or allowing anyone to carry away or remove, the straw and

Page: 248↓

fodder raised on the farm of Shangiemuir, of which he is tenant under a thirty years' lease. The farm appears to have been heath, and brought under cultivation by the respondent. There is no house or steading upon it, and no means, therefore, of separating the grain from the straw or consuming the fodder.

It is said in the condescendence that the respondent is tenant of an adjoining farm on which there is a steading; and it seems to be inferred that the respondent may carry his crop to that farm, thrash it, and consume the fodder there, and cart the manure back to Shangiemuir. But the prayer of the petition, if granted, would prevent this; and the respondent by his lease was only bound, after improving the land, to keep it in good heart and condition, and under a regular system of rotation and cropping. It is not said that this has not been done; but it is alleged that by the rules of good husbandry the tenant is bound to consume the straw and fodder raised on the farm. This is true in the ordinary case, but how is it to be done when there is neither barn or byre on the place? The respondent has never been asked to do it till now; and as it cannot be done, the prayer of the petition must be refused.”

The Sheriff (Davidson) on appeal adhered, and the Court to-day, after hearing Mr Clark for the landlord, refused an advocation of the Sheriff's interlocutors.