|Petition of Alexander Carre and Archibald Jerdon
||An action of locality was dormant from 1797 to 1800, when the common agent moved to “awaken” the case. After conducting further proceedings, the court approved an interim locality. However, Petitioners Alexander Carre of Caverse and Archibald Jerdon of Bonjedward were not made aware that the case had resumed. Further, Mr. Carre, who succeeded to his interest during the pendency of the case, was never made a party. For these reasons, Carre and Jerdon sought to have the case remitted to the Lord Ordinary to prepare a new scheme of locality.
|Solicitor of Tithes v. Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings
||This case was about the right to teinds on lands that the York Building Company purchased from the Barons of Exchequer. The lands, as part of the estate of Southesk, had been forfeited to the Crown after their owner participated in the Jacobite rising of 1715. The York Building Company then purchased the estate from the public. In the 1770s, a dispute arose over teinds on a portion of the estate in the parish of Leuchar. According to the Solicitor of Tithes, the York Building Company only possessed these teinds by tacit relocation (i.e., by holding over on a lease), and was required to get a new lease; the Solicitor eventually brought an action for payment of tithes. The Company claimed a right to the teinds based on a 1744 disposition from the Barons of Exchequer. Additionally, it claimed to have purchased the lands in reliance on a rent-roll that did not include a deduction for teinds. The Solicitor argued that the teinds were never part of the forfeited estate, and therefore could not have been sold to the Company.
|Sommerville v. Home
||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.
|The Deans of the Chapel Royal and their Lessees v. Hay and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Ettrick
|The Deans of the Chapel Royal and their Lessees v. Robert Hay and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Ettrick
||11 Dec 1799
||This case was about the allocation of a minister’s stipend in the parish of Ettrick—and more specifically, about how to allocate the stipend between two districts that had different historical ties to the parish. The first district belonged to the old parish of Ettrick. Lord Napier was the titular, and all the heritors there possessed heritable rights to their teinds. The second district was annexed from the parish of Yarrow to the parish of Ettrick in 1650. The teinds from this land formed a portion of the revenues of the Chapel Royal, which were given by the king to three chaplains known as Deans of the Chapel Royal. These teinds were let in tack to the Duke of Buccleuch. When the minister of Ettrick obtained an augmentation of his stipend, the entire augmentation was allocated to the teinds of the Chapel Royal, as opposed to those within the old parish, based on the rule that teinds held in lease must be allocated prior to those held under heritable titles. On appeal, the petitioners argued that because the teinds of the Chapel Royal were for a pious use, they should be allocated after any teinds belonging to lay titulars in the same parish. Moreover, they claimed that because there were two titularities in the parish, the minister’s stipend should be allocated proportionally between them.