LAW RELATING TO TREES, WOODS, AND PLANTATIONS. 335 
came before Lord Kincairney in the Outer House on arst 
November 1903 (JVeilson vy. M‘Nabd), reported in the Scots Law 
Times, vol. xi. p. 387. The complainer asked for interdict 
against the respondent cutting down the growing wood on 
the estate of Calderwood, in the immediate neighbourhood of 
Calderwood Castle and avenues or entrances thereto, so as to 
depreciate the value of the estate, and reduce the value of the 
security held by the complainer, and “in particular from cutting 
down the growing wood” on a specified area, until it should be 
fixed by the Court whether any, and, if any, what part of the 
said wood is ripe and fit for cutting, and not necessary for the 
residential character and comfort of the said Calderwood Castle, 
etc., and can otherwise be cut consistently with the just interests 
of the complainer as heritable creditor. 
Lord Kincairney, in giving judgment, pointed out that where 
a heritable creditor becomes dissatisfied with his security he has 
various remedies— 
(1) He can call up his bond; 
(2) He can enter into possession ; 
(3) He can sell under the powers of sale in his bond; 
(4) Raise an action to prevent by interdict the 
dilapidation of the estate. 
Then he goes on to say, “I think it clear that the Court will not 
interfere with the proprietor so long as he confines himself to 
legitimate management. . . . He may manage his woods, and 
sell his trees for immediate profit when he sees occasion. 
Certainly his discretion will not be lightly interfered with at the 
instance of a heritable creditor. But I assume, without deciding 
the point, that a proprietor who has burdened his estate may be 
prevented from cutting the trees on it wantonly and recklessly, 
or even for present profit, if he thereby unduly reduces the 
capital value of the estate, and reduces or endangers the security 
of a creditor.” It was argued for the respondent that the Court 
will not interfere with an owner on application of a heritable 
creditor, unless he can show that his security is being destroyed 
or imperilled ; and his Lordship remarks, “that principle appears 
to be established by the English authorities referred to (Bewas 
on Waste, 1894: Hampton v. Hodges, 1803, 8 Ves. 105 ; Hippesley 
v. Spencer, 1820, 5 Maddox, 422; King v. Smith, 1843, 2 Hare, 
239). The complainer referred to Harper, 15th May 1886, 54 
