Patronage. A patron is one who enjoys, along with other rights of less importance, the right of presenting a parochial minister to a vacant charge. It would appear that patrons were originally merely the guardians of the temporal property of particular churches; and that the rights afterwards attached to patronage were at first conceded by the Church only to those who endowed particular churches, with a view to encourage the practice. Afterwards, however, similar rights, in reference to other churches, were assumed by persons of influence in the neighbourhood; and while the Roman Catholic religion prevailed, the Pope, and since the Reformation the Crown, have claimed to be considered patrons of all churches in regard to which no right of patronage could be shown by individuals.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Patronage.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Patronage |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balfour v. Earl of Moray | 1796 | Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament | Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Campbell v. Officers of State | 1784 | Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend | General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription. |
| Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor | 1787 | Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance | Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Mary, &c Stewarts v. Sir John Scott and Others | 1795 | Teinds, Stipend, Patronage, Charter, Possession, Heritor | Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued Sir John Scott for a conveyance of the teinds of Ancrum upon payment of six years' purchase, contending that Scott held the teinds only as patron under the Act 1690 and thus could be compelled to convey. Scott defended on the ground that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds, not merely patronage. |
| Maxwell v. Earl of Hopetoun | 1798 | Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage, Parish, Augmentation | James Earl of Hopetoun petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor, arguing that teinds from lands belonging to Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, Baronet, should be allocated for a ministerial stipend despite free teinds remaining in the parish. Maxwell answered the petition, resisting the Earl's claim that his teinds should be appropriated while unallocated teinds were still available elsewhere in the parish. |
| Moray v. Heritors of Blackford | 1796 | Tack, Teinds, Interlocutor, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage | Colonel Charles Moray petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor concerning the locality of teinds, arguing that his teinds were not inferior to bishops' teinds and ought to be allocated pari passu. The Heritors of Blackford answered, contending that the locality was erroneous and that the teinds were not bishop's teinds. Moray replied, reiterating his claim regarding the status of his teinds, and the Heritors duplied, maintaining that the teinds were not exempt from augmentation because they were not bishop's teinds. |
| Officers of State v. Skene | 1796 | Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Charter | The Officers of State pursued Messrs Skene and Elmslie regarding the tithes of Daviot parish, contending that the teinds belonged to the Bishop of Aberdeen as a mensal church rather than to the minister as parsonage, and asserting the Crown's right to allocate augmentation ultimo loco. The defenders maintained that the teinds of their lands were payable to the minister of Daviot as parsonage teinds, rejecting the claim that the church was mensal to the bishop. The parties exchanged memorials presenting these opposing arguments on the destination of the teinds and the Crown's consequent augmentation rights. |
| Ogilvie v. Scott | 1792 | Teinds, Patronage, Charter, Heritor, Debt, Parish | |
| Stewarts v. Scott | 1794 | Teinds, Charter, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Tack | Miss Bien and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued an action against Scott regarding bygone teinds in the parish of Ancrum. They petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Henderland Ordinary on the matter. Scott defended his title by memorial, maintaining that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds rather than mere patronage. |
| The Heritors of Portmoak v. Mrs Anne Jean Douglas. | 1795 | Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Lease, Heritor, Patronage | Mrs Anne Jean Douglas defended her teinds’ exemption from ministerial allocation against The Heritors of Portmoak, citing her lease from St Andrew's College and equitable precedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
