| Heritors of Glass v. Cruickshank |
1802
|
Stipend, Clergy |
The heritors of the Parish of Glass, James Earl of Fife and Sir William Grant, brought this petition because they believed that the minister of the parish, Reverend Cruickshank, had requested and been granted too high of an augmentation on his stipend from the parish. They believed that the amount of money granted to the reverend was extravagant compared to the rates given to ministers in surrounding parishes, and that the parish of Glass was not uniquely difficult to service. They wanted to prevent further augmentation to the reverend's stipend. Reverend Cruickshank responded that certain features of the parish, e.g. its size and the presence of a large river, caused him to incur more expenses in undertaking his work, thus meriting a higher stipend. |
| Ogilvy v. Dawson |
1 Feb 1800
|
Stipend |
The pursuer Ogilvy was Minister of the Parish of Linton, which was located on the land of William Dawson. Ogilvy sought an increase in his stipend in light of Dawson's use of some of the land to grow barley. Ogilvy believed
that he deserved a greater stipend given the profits Dawson stood to earn from his agricultural activities. |
| Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham, and Others |
1767
|
Factor, Stipend, Feu duties |
Bryce Blair served as factor of the sequestered estates of Crieve and Mossknowe from 1742 until his death in 1762. During that time, he failed to make regular court filings detailing the estate’s accounts. After Blair’s death, the estates were sold in a judicial sale, which raised enough proceeds to provide the heirs of Crieve with a reversion after the relevant debts were paid. This led to a dispute over the amount of the reversion. In particular, the heirs of Crieve disputed certain charges for a minister’s stipend, on the ground that the payments ought to have been made by tenants on the estate. The heirs also contested charges for feu duties to the Marquis of Annandale, contending that there was no proof of payment. |
