Decimae Debentur Parocho. The meaning of this maxim is, that teinds belong to the minister of the parish, where the subject from which they arise was produced; and that, consequently, he cannot be deprived of them by any species of alienation; which is to have a permanent effect to his prejudice.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Teinds.” Public domain.
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| Maxwells v. Kirkpatrick | 1793 | Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Debt, Teinds | Heirs of Sir Robert Maxwell petitioned the court regarding title to Kirkcudbright Castle and its lands, challenging a 1793 interlocutor by claiming through Maclellane heirs and a 1664 contract with Sir David Dunbar and arguing that unfulfilled conditions invalidated Dunbar’s claims. William Kirkpatrick, trustee for Robert Maxwell, defended his title under a 1740 deed and 1762 trust. The heirs subsequently resisted Kirkpatrick’s eviction attempt by asserting rights through prescription and prior appraisings. |
| 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 Kingbarns v. Hay, et al | 1793 | Glebe, Heritor, Teinds, Succession, Charter, Presbytery | The ministers of Kingbarns, by the Reverend James Beatson, pursued David Balfour Hay of Leys and Randerston and other heritors concerning the designation of glebe lands for the parish. The heritors initially argued that glebe must be drawn from church lands rather than temporal lands, which they claimed were exempt from such burdens, while Beatson contended that temporal lands adjacent to the kirk and manse could properly be designated. Following an adverse interlocutor, Beatson petitioned for its alteration, and subsequent pleadings saw Hay insist that glebe must be designed from Fallside lands before Newton lands under statutory order, the College of St Andrews defend Fallside's exemption based on parliamentary charters of 1587 and 1693, and both the ministers' representatives and other heritors submit answers addressing the liability of temporal lands and the validity of the Presbytery's designation. |
| 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. |
| Neilson, et al v. Sinclairs | 1786 | Feu duties, Teinds, Wadset, Reversion, Disposition, Intromission | George Neilson, Benjamin Sinclair, and other creditors of Robert Manson-Sinclair of Bridge-end pursued Mrs Henrietta Sinclair, Janet Sinclair, and their husbands regarding debts owed by the debtor, petitioning the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor of 9 August 1786. The defenders answered the petition, responding to the creditors' claims against Robert Manson-Sinclair. |
| 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 | |
| Petition of Alexander Carre and Archibald Jerdon | 1800 | Notice, Teinds | 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 Henry v. William Watt and Others | 1831 | Succession, Disposition, Entail, Liferent, Teinds, Jus Crediti | Robert Henry pursued a claim to the Woodend estate against William Watt and others, who defended by asserting that the entail’s conditions protected the heirs of Robert Watt rather than the Crown and that Henry could not enforce the restrictions against them. The defenders subsequently lodged a reclaiming note requesting that the Court alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Corehouse. |
| Scott and Cruikshank v. New College of St. Andrews | 1793 | Tack, Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Rent, Lease | The New College of St. Andrews defended an action by Scott and Cruikshank regarding deductions from rental, arguing that deductions based on old improvements and tenant accommodations were not legally or reasonably justifiable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Sir Alexander Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule | 1794 | Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter | |
| Sir James Boswell v. Alexander Hamilton | 1830 | Succession, Burgh, Aliment, Teinds, Feu, Parish | |
| 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. |
| Skirving and Young v. Vernor | 1796 | Tack, Lease, Rent, Teinds, Interlocutor, Heritor | Skirving and Young, as tenants of Monktonhall lands under the Earl of Wemyss, claimed a proportional share of the church seats in Inveresk parish against Vernor, who asserted that his title to the aisle derived from a direct and express missive of 1763. The pursuers sought to compel a division of the seats, while the defender argued that they possessed no legal right to enforce such a partition. The case turned on whether tenants could claim proportional seating against an express title and compel division of the church accommodation. |
| Solicitor of Tithes v. Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings | 1776 | Teinds | 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 | 1784 | Valuation, Teinds | 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. |
| Stevensons v. M'Gruther | 1791 | Tack, Lease, Rent, Possession, Teinds, Aliment | John and William Stevensons, tacksmen of Blairinroir and Longside, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor suspending their lease of the Hill of Longside, claiming entitlement to a disputed meadow as part of their three-fifths share of the hill under the lease terms and historical proportion. Janet Millar, relict of Duncan M'Gruther, and others answered that the meadow had never been connected with the hill but was held by the tenants of Straid, Cruitack, and Carnock prior to the Stevensons' leases. The parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies debating whether the meadow formed part of the common muir of Longside or constituted separate grounds. |
| 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. |
| Sutherland & Gower v. Officers of State | 1797 | Teinds, Tack, Teind, Prescription, Lease, Possession | |
| The Deans of the Chapel Royal and their Lessees v. Hay and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Ettrick | 1796 | Teinds | The Duke of Buccleuch, J. E. Anderson of Tushielaw, and Doctors Henry Grieve, Alexander Carlyle, and Joseph M'Cormick, as lessees of the Deans of the Chapel Royal, petitioned the Court to alter its 1787 interlocutor fixing the locality of teinds in the parish of Ettrick. Hay and the other heritors of the parish opposed the petition, pleading res judicata and arguing that heritable teind rights precluded any re-litigation of the scheme. |
| The Deans of the Chapel Royal and their Lessees v. Robert Hay and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Ettrick | 1795 | Teinds | 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. |
| 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. |
| The Minister of the Parish of Falkland v. David Johnston and Others | 1792 | Teinds, Contract, Heritor, Glebe, Presbytery, Manse | The Minister of the Parish of Falkland, represented by the Reverend Mr Andrew Brown, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding a manse-glebe exchange originally concluded in 1650. David Johnston, Captain Mungo Law, and their co-defenders answered, resisting the petition and maintaining the validity of the exchange, which had been upheld for more than a century. |
| The Reverend David Brown v. Walter Hunter | 1795 | Teinds, Tack, Aliment, Prescription, Stipend, Succession | The Reverend David Brown, minister of Crailing, pursued Walter Hunter of Polmood regarding the vicarage teinds of Crailing, maintaining that his predecessors had historically drawn these teinds in kind and seeking restoration of that right, including tithe of hay from sown grass. Hunter moved to stay the action until Robert Scott of Trabrown, his author, was made a party to the suit. Brown thereafter petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Hunter answered, specifically contesting the demand for tithe of hay from sown grass. |
| Thomas Cranstoun, Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles v. Miss Elliot and Others | 1799 | Teinds, Heritor, Representation, Stipend, Augmentation, Glebe | Thomas Cranstoun, as Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles, pursued Miss Elliot and others regarding the liability of lands known as the Vicar's Glebe to pay teind. He petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor by Lord Dunsinnan, and subsequently sought to overturn an Inner-House interlocutor that had upheld an exemption from teind for the lands. |
