Waddell v. Howat

Subject_1 Process Subject_2 Bill Chamber Subject_3 Suspension and Interdict Subject_4 function of Bill Chamber in Dealing with Note of Suspension and Interdict. Facts: Where the Lord Ordinary on the Bills had determined the merits of a question raised in a note of suspension and interdict and refused the note, the Court, in respect that it was not the the function of the Bill Chamber to try the merits of questions suitable for trial in the Court of Session, recalled the interlocutor and remitted the case to the Bill Chamber in order that the note might be passed for trial.

Robert Waddell, West Morham, East Lothian, brought a note of suspension and interdict in the Bill Chamber against (1) David Erskine Howat, Edinburgh, and Thomas Elder, farmer, Stevenson, Haddington, and (2) the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, to restrain the respondents from proceeding under or acting upon a nomination of arbiter by the Board under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1923 in a claim for compensation under that Act at the instance of the respondent Howat against the complainer.

The complainer pleaded—“The relation of landlord and tenant never having existed between the complainer and the respondent David Erskine Howat, the complainer is entitled to interdict and interim interdict as craved.”

The respondents pleaded, inter alia —“2. The determination of the validity of the said claim being a matter for the decision of the said arbiter, the note should not be passed. 3. The said claim being a competent and valid claim against the complainer the note should not be passed. 4. The complainer having admitted the competency of the said claim is barred from maintaining that the said claim is incompetent.”

On 6th February 1923 the Lord Ordinary on the Bills ( Murray ) dismissed the note.