AI-transcribed

Salary of the clergy in lieu of tithe. It varies according to the price of grain in each year, determined by the fiars, q. v.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Stipend

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews 1798 Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty.
Anderson v. Izat 1781 Ministers Stipend, Rent, Stipend, Sasine, Teinds, Patronage This case was about a dispute over a minister's stipend in the newly formed parish of Gorbals.
Baird and Kerr v. Heritors of Stobo and Ministers of Drummelizier and Broughton 1794 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Augmentation, Prescription Baird and Kerr pursued an action against the heritors of Stobo and the ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton regarding portions of the teinds of Stobo. The ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton claimed a radical and clear prescriptive right to those teinds based on nearly two centuries of enjoyment. The pursuers countered that the teinds had been erroneously paid to the ministers and that they were entitled to evict them.
Balfour v. M'Kenzie 1794 Teinds, Tack, Succession, Stipend, Prescription, Heritor Balfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
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.
Campbell v. Scott 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Parish, Glebe Minister Thomas Campbell, as pursuer, sought augmentation from the teinds of the annexed parish of Longnewton, contending that historical precedent and the sole burden of serving both parishes supported his claim. Sir John Scott of Ancrum and the other heritors defended against the action, maintaining that Campbell’s existing stipend was ample and that the circumstances of the parish did not warrant an increase.
Chalmers v. The Duke of Gordon 1786 Stipend, Teinds, Interlocutor, Rent, Jurisdiction, Augmentation The Reverend Alexander Chalmers pursued the Duke of Gordon and the heritors of Cairney and Bottary for augmentation of his stipend, memorializing that the existing provision was inadequate to the weight of his charge. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor in the teind-cause, Chalmers petitioned for its alteration to secure a competent sum, and the heritors replied, contesting the Court’s authority to modify stipends already decreed.
Darling v. Landells 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor, Aliment Darling pursued Landells regarding the stipend of the parish minister of Coldingham. The defenders submitted information arguing that the stipend as modified by the Court's interlocutor was suitable and equitable given the parish's rental and living expenses. The petitioner subsequently petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor modifying the stipend.
Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor, Augmentation, Succession The Reverend Thomas Mitchell answered the petition of Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elizabeth Baillie, arguing that the Court could grant victual augmentation despite the teinds having been valued in money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell 1797 Teinds, Valuation, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment
Dundas v. Baikie and others 1792 Feu duties, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Feu Sir Thomas Dundas petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had ordered the allocation of teind-duties before those to which heritors held heritable rights. Robert Baikie of Tankerness and other heritors of the United Parishes of St Andrews and Deerness answered the petition.
Earl of Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple 1795 Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
Earl of Mansfield v. The Duke of Queensberry, and other Heritors of the Parish of Dornock 1797 Teinds, Stipend, Interlocutor, Heritor, Valuation, Augmentation During a process of locality in the parish of Dornock, the Earl of Mansfield initiated a legal proceeding to obtain a heritable right to his teinds. This case examined whether he could obtain such a right during the process of locality, so as to affect the order of allocation.
Elliot and Others v. Dickieson 1793 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Reduction, Augmentation Elliot and Others raised a process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree concerning teinds valuation against the Reverend Mr Benjamin Dickieson, seeking to have that valuation declared binding and perpetual. Dickieson defended by memorial, alleging that the process was vitiated by intrinsic nullities and defective adminicles. The pursuers replied, insisting upon the decree's validity and adducing evidence of its draft, handwriting, and prior references from 1736.
Fergusson v. Mosman, et al 1796 Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Roup, Stipend William Fergusson sought abatement of a retained sum from the sale of the Arrochar estate on the ground that unvalued teinds had been evicted following the purchase, arguing that this undisclosed burden warranted equitable relief. Hugh Mosman and John Anderson, common agents for the Macfarlan creditors, answered, asserting that the teinds had been exhausted and that no deduction from the price was therefore due. The dispute turned on whether the post-sale eviction of unvalued teinds entitled the purchaser to abatement where the burden had not been disclosed, or whether the exhaustion of those teinds precluded such relief.
Fleming v. Montgomery 1794 Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered.
Forfar v. Oliphant 1796 Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Valuation, Teinds, Feu duties James Oliphant of Over Kinnedder answered the petition of the Reverend William Forfar, Minister of Saline, responding to the claim for white oats in lieu of gray horse corn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gleig v. Stephen 1794 Stipend, Teinds, Heritor, Augmentation, Parish, Act of Parliament Gleig pursued Stephen to determine whether lands situated in the parish of St. Vigians were liable for stipend to the minister of that parish or subject to augmentation for the minister of Arbroath. The memorialists argued that the lands were liable to the St. Vigians minister and could not be subjected to augmentation for Arbroath, while the memorialist responded that lands locally situated in St. Vigeans but paying stipend to Arbroath belonged to that parish quoad stipend.
Gordon et al v. Abell 1792 Teinds, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor The Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chapelton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend George Abell answered, arguing that the augmentation granted to him did not prejudice the heritors' rights.
Graham v. Pate 1798 Teinds, Heritor, Prescription, Teind, Tack, Stipend Catharine Pate, John Dickson, and Robert Dickson petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, arguing that bygone teinds were cut off by quinquennial prescription. Lady Christian Graham, Executrix, answered through her Commissioner and Factor, responding to this prescription argument.
Heritors and Patrons of Lochell and Cushny v. Gordon and Reverend of Alford 1794 Teinds, Heritor, Stipend, Presbytery, Succession, Manse The heritors and patrons of Lochell and Cushny pursued an action against Gordon and the Reverend of Alford seeking to annex the parish of Lochell to Cushny, arguing that the union was necessary to relieve their financial burden and provide adequate stipend and accommodation for the minister. The proprietor of the lands of Linturk maintained that the proposed annexation should not impose immediate expense upon him without future equivalent. The dispute presented the question of whether the annexation could proceed without subjecting individual proprietors to such immediate burdens.
Heritors of Ardnamurchan v. Campbell 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Tack The Heritors of Ardnamurchan, represented by Sir James Riddell, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the stipend of the Reverend Alexander Campbell, alleging that the allowance was excessive and improperly distributed. Campbell answered, defending the stipend against these claims.
Heritors of Bourtie v. Minister of Bourtie 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor The heritors of Bourtie petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor augmenting the stipend of their minister, the Rev. William Smith, contending that the sum awarded was excessive. Smith answered, defending the augmentation, and subsequently lodged duplies also requesting alteration of the interlocutor.
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.
Heritors of Kirkton v. Dickieson 1793 Rent, Lease, Stipend, Teinds, Tack, Augmentation Benjamin Dickieson, defender, argued that the Heritors of Kirkton's process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree was invalid due to defective adminicles and intrinsic nullities. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heritors of Lessudden v. Inner-House Interlocuter 1793 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Tack, Communion Elements, Heritor The Duke of Buccleugh and other heritors of Leffudden petitioned the Court to reserve power to restrict the stipend in the event that the parish of Maxton was annexed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Sutherland v. Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland 1773 Teinds, Wadset, Disposition, Aliment, Succession, Stipend James Sutherland pursued Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland and her Tutors regarding wadset lands of Pronsie and Evelicks, disputing whether the lands had been redeemed, whether the wadsetting of Evelicks was lawful, and whether the wadset contracts were valid. The Countess and her Tutors filed answers responding to the pursuer's petitions on each of these grounds.
Lamont v. The Heritors of Urr 1796 Teinds, Augmentation, Stipend, Ranking and Sale, Heritor, Interlocutor The Reverend Dr. David Lamont pursued the heritors of the parish of Urr to remit an interlocutor approving their scheme of locality, asserting that he held a proper heritable right to the teinds. The heritors petitioned the court, arguing that Lamont’s right had been acquired pendente lite and was therefore protected by the principle of nihil innovandum. Lamont answered their petition, contesting this argument.
Lockhart v. Douglas 1792 Tack, Teinds, Contract, Stipend, Aliment, Succession Sir James Lockhart of Lee pursued the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon regarding teinds in Stonehouse, claiming entitlement under a 1673 contract and arguing that the Duke’s right had expired in 1751. The Duke maintained that Lockhart could claim no additional teind-bolls beyond those settled in the 1673 contract. Lockhart subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor concerning the allocation of teind bolls and augmentation burdens under that agreement.
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.
Minister of Lochgoilhead v. The Ministers of Inveraray 1791 Teinds, Stipend, Parish, Heritor, Augmentation, Aliment The minister of Lochgoilhead sued the ministers of Inveraray regarding the allocation of 38½ bolls of meal annually from the teinds of Glenshira lands, which the Lochgoilhead minister claimed were reserved for his stipend by a 1650 decree notwithstanding the lands’ annexation to Inveraray. Heritors including the Duke of Argyll and Lieutenant-General John Campbell petitioned the Court to revise the December 1790 interlocutor that had allocated the stipend to Lochgoilhead, seeking to avoid double payment and retroactive augmentation from 1787, while the Inveraray ministers likewise petitioned to alter the interlocutor in their favor. The Lochgoilhead minister replied that the annexation was only quoad sacra and did not discharge the lands from liability for his stipend, and the parties disputed whether any augmentation should run from the date of summons or the interlocutor.
Ministers of Marykirk v. King's College of Aberdeen 1792 Succession, Teinds, Aliment, Stipend, Ministers, Augmentation The Ministers of Marykirk pursued King's College of Aberdeen for augmentation of teinds, and the Principal and Professors of the College argued that the College held its teinds by ecclesiastical titles distinct from other titulars and not subject to augmentation claims by the parish minister. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mitchell v. Douglas and Baillie 1 of 2 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Valuation, Heritor, Statute Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elisabeth Baillie of Lamington, defenders, petitioned the Court to alter its 1793 interlocutor modifying the minister's stipend in victual. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mitchell v. Society of Writers in Ayr 1798 Teind, Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Aliment, Interlocutor The Society of Writers in Ayr petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor imposing a share of the minister's augmented stipend upon their fishings, arguing that only vicarage-teind was due from such property and claiming abatement on account of a reduced boat count. Mitchell resisted, maintaining that customary payment and proportional liability attached to the fishings. The case concerned the proper extent of teind burden chargeable against the fishings and the validity of the proposed reduction.
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.
Moray, et al. v. Scott 1795 Teinds, Stipend, Communion Elements, Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor Moray and his co-petitioners petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville Ordinary's interlocutor allocating communion elements upon their lands, arguing that the allocation violated established law and the Court's own decree. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs. Weatherstone and Others v. Marquis of Tweedale and Others 1813 Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Reduction, Heritor, Interlocutor Mrs. Weatherstone and others, as reclaimers, sought relief for over-payments made in the process of locality of the Parish of Channelkirk against the Marquis of Tweedale and others, as respondents. The respondents contended that the claimants were barred from recovering such over-payments unless they could prove the payments had been made by themselves or their direct predecessors. They further argued that the Teind-clerk's accounting practices for heritors lacked fixed principles and that equitable considerations must be applied to the claim.
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.
Ogilvy v. Dawson 1800 Stipend, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Teinds, Interlocutor 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.
Patrick Cunninghame v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh 1800 Aliment, Stipend, Sequestration, Teinds, Patronage, Debt The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh resolved to make St. Andrew’s Church a collegiate charge and to appoint the Reverend David Ritchie as second minister. Pursuer Patrick Cunningham, a dissenting council member, presented a bill of suspension against the resolution, arguing that the City could not afford the measure and that the appointment was unnecessary. The Defenders answered that the new appointment was proper and necessary.
Ramsay, et al v. Smith 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment, Interlocutor John Ramsay, Alexander Anderson, John Niven, and Andrew Simpson, heritors of the parish of Bourtie, presented a second reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend William Smith answered the petition, and subsequently lodged duplies in which he also asked the Court to alter the interlocutor. The parties thus submitted successive pleadings regarding the alteration of the interlocutor.
Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham, and Others 1766 Factor, Stipend, Feu duties, Tack, Rent, Teind 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.
Rev. Peter Brydie v. James Johnstone and Others 1832 Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Feu duties, Process, Heritor The Reverend Peter Brydie pursued James Johnstone, Alexander Drysdale, Adam Drysdale, Thomas Drysdale, David Drysdale, and John Reid regarding the surrender of teinds for the stipend of the United Parishes of Fossaway and Tullibole. The defenders, represented by Robert Wilson, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton.
Robert Coldstream v. William Duncan of Stonnywind and Katherine Thomson 1783 Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Proof, Sasine, Tack Robert Coldstream pursued William Duncan of Stonnywind and Katherine Thomson in a dispute over the thirlage of the lands of Stonywind to the Parkmill for malt grinding and multure payment, with proof taken by John Graham of Greigston on 10 January 1783. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Skene v. Hogg 1796 Valuation, Teinds, Heritor, Rent, Augmentation, Stipend Skene, as pursuer, argued that the Court of Session lacked authority to lay victual augmentation upon teinds or to modify victual to a minister where the teinds had been valued in money. He submitted successive memorials contending that the commutation to a fixed monetary payment precluded any subsequent augmentation or modification in grain.
Sommerville v. Home 1784 Valuation, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Rent In a proceeding to determine a minister’s stipend, certain heritors of the parish of Westruther (which includes the former parish of Gordon), objected that the rent assigned to John Somerville of Evelaw was too low. The court allowed a proof of the rent of Sommerville’s lands, and Somerville protested on two grounds. First, he argued that he had a right to the teinds warranted to be free of any augmentation. Second, he argued that there had already been a valuation of the rents of his lands.
Stewart v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1798 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Stipend, Sequestration, Teinds William Stewart presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Storie v. Burn 1795 Arrestment, Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Creditor, Heritor Andrew Storie, as factor for the representatives of James Aitken, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Monboddo regarding whether creditors could attach a minister’s stipend. The respondent maintained that the stipend was alimentary in nature and therefore immune from attachment.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 268)