WILLIAM ALEXANDER v WILLIAM COUPER (Court of Session)

The petitioner pleaded, the operations complained of are unwarrantable operations on the subject let to the petitioner, and a violation of the respondent's implied obligations to the petitioner.

The respondent pleaded, that he was not acting in emulationem vicini in the uses to which it was proposed to turn his property; that the present opposition from a tenant in one part of a property, with reference to another part, was totally incompetent and unprecedented, the operations not touching any part of the property tenanted by him; and that all that he could ask was a passage or entrance, which was not denied him.

The Sheriff-substitute, (16th September 1840,) ‘Finds, that the operations and arrangements of the defender, executed or proposed, do not interfere with the pursuer's use or enjoyment of the premises let to him, in such a manner as to entitle him to challenge them, and therefore assoilzies the defender: Finds the pursuer liable in expenses,’ &c.

On appeal, the Sheriff, (28th September,) ‘having visited and inspected the premises,’ adhered .

Alexander brought an advocation; and, on the 18th of November, the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor: ‘Having heard the counsel for the parties, inspected the premises, and considered the closed record, advocates the cause, recalls the interlocutors complained of, grants interdict as craved, in so far as relates to the use, during the advocator's lease, of the opening in the passage complained of, and prohibits, discharges, and interdicts accordingly : Finds the advocator entitled to expenses, both in the inferior, and in this Court, but subject to modification .’