Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This note of suspension and interdict was presented by the Glasgow Shipowners Association, and by certain shipowners in Glasgow, the chairman and members of the association, as such, and also as individuals, against the trustees of the Clyde Navigation. The complainers craved that the respondents should be interdicted from executing any works for the lengthening or extension, towards the centre of the river Clyde, of the piers or slipways on both sides of the river at the East Ferry at Erskine.

Answers were lodged for the respondents, in which, inter alia, they stated that the operations complained of were being undertaken by them in obedience to an interlocutor of the First Division of the Court of Session, pronounced on 14th March 1883, affirmed by the House of Lords on 24th March 1884, ordaining them to execute the works complained of, for the extension of the Erskine ferry slips towards the centre of the river. These interlocutors were pronounced in an action of declarator, &c. at the instance of Lord Blantyre v. Clyde Trustees, not reported upon this point. In that action the Clyde Trustees resisted, but unsuccessfully, a demand by Lord Blantyre that the ferry slips should be extended. Delay having taken place in the execution of the works ordained to be executed by the Clyde Trustees, Lord Blantyre brought the

Page: 375↓

matter again before the Court, and on 14th July 1884 an interlocutor in the following terms, inter alia, was pronounced—“Of new ordain the defenders to execute the works specified in the interlocutor of 14th March 1883, at sight and to the satisfaction of Sir John Coode; and remit to Sir John Coode accordingly to see the said works executed and completed, with special instructions to him to require the defenders to proceed with and complete the said works with all possible despatch, and to report to the Court if any unnecessary delay occurs.”

The respondents pleaded, inter alia—“(2) All parties not called. (4) The works complained of being authorised by statute and ordained by judgment of the Court of Session, affirmed in the House of Lords, the respondents are entitled and bound to execute them, and the interdict should be refused, with expenses.”

On 6th January 1885 the Lord Ordinary on the Bill Chamber granted interim interdict after hearing counsel. The respondents reclaimed, and when the case appeared in the Single Bills, the Court, on their motion, ordered intimation of process to be made to Lord Blantyre, and sent the case to the Summar Roll.

A minute was lodged for Lord Blantyre stating that the minuter “being proprietor of Erskine Ferry, had a substantial interest in the cause, viz., that the works at the said ferry which the trustees were ordained to execute by interlocutor of the First Division of 14th March 1883, affirmed by judgment of the House of Lords of 21st March 1884, and which they were of new ordained by interlocutor of the First Division of 4th July 1884 to execute at sight of Sir John Coode with all possible dispatch, should be completed without delay, and that the present application for interdict should be refused.” The minuter therefore craved the Court to sist him as a respondent in the cause, with or without ordaining him to lodge answers as the Court might think proper.

The complainers objected to the competency of sisting in a process of suspension and interdict a party against whom the application was not directed, founding on Laing's Sewing Machine Company v. Norrie & Sons, 5 R. 29.

Counsel for Lord Blantyre was not called upon.

At advising—