Tithes.
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: Teind |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bank of Scotland v. Chalmers | 1796 | Debt, Adjudication, Teind, Sequestration, Infeftment, Ranking and Sale | The Bank of Scotland, pursuer, and William Ramsay reported on the state of debt and entitlements in the division of the estates of George Chalmers, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Borthwick | 1802 | Rent, Teind, Property rights | The petitioner, John Borthwick of Crookston, challenged a locality that apportioned liability for the minister's stipend in the parish of Stow. |
| Colebrooke v. Hamilton | 1802 | Teind, Estate, Sale, Valuation | In 1749, the Earl of Selkirk, then titular and patron of the parish of Crawfordjohn, sold his lands and teinds of Gilkerscleugh to James Hamilton. At the time, the two wrote up informal documents outlining the current teinds' value. Daniel Hamilton inherited these lands from his grandfather, but was concerned that the teinds had never been formally set at the value stated at the time of the initial sale. He brought the matter to court, asking that the teinds be officially valued at the amount stated in the old documents, which the court granted. George Colebrooke, the current titular of the teinds, opposed this result, and subsequently petitioned that the decision be overruled on the grounds that the original agreement between the Earl and James Hamilton had only constituted a sale of the lands and teinds, and was not meant to permanently establish the value of the teinds. He petitions that the past value of the teinds should not stand for all future teind duties because the agreement had "fallen asleep," or the statute of limitations had passed, and also because the original agreement was a contract of sale, and not a formal valuation. |
| Condie of Strowie v. United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard | 1796 | Rent, Proof, Teinds, Tack, Teind, Valuation | Thomas Condie of Strowie, as pursuer, sought valuation of the teinds of Strowie and Pitquhanatrie against the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, disputing the defenders' higher valuations which rested upon hypothetical grass cultivation unsuited to the local conditions. The defenders maintained that the annual value of the teinds should be set at ninety-nine pounds sterling. |
| Countess of Sutherland v. Officers of State | 1793 | Teinds, Lease, Teind, Prescription, Tack, Aliment | The Countess of Sutherland pursued the Officers of State to determine whether rents derived from salmon fishings were liable to vicarage teinds. The defenders argued that such rents were not teindable and that deductions ought to be denied, while the respondent maintained that salmon fishings were not subject to vicarage teinds in the absence of proof by forty years' possession and payment. The litigation turned on the criteria for establishing the teindability of salmon-fishing revenues. |
| Earl of Aberdeen v. Officers of State | 1799 | Teind, Rent, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Tack | The Earl of Aberdeen claimed a deduction on a quarter of the rent from several estates in order to reduce his teinds payment. The Officers of State objected to his activities on three grounds, 1) his deduction for use of peat on his land was unjustifiable, 2) by allowing cottagers to live on his land but pay rent to a third party meant that he did not get income directly, and 3) through patronage he claimed deductions on rent from lands outside the areas subject to those tithes. |
| 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. |
| John Aitchison v. Thomas Hopkirk and Others | 1774 | Rent, Feu, Non-Entry, Feu duties, Creditor, Teind | This case was about the feudal requirement for possessors of land to enter with the superior as a prerequisite to obtaining title. The dispute arose after John Aitcheson of Rochsolloch purchased the estate of Airdrie. A former proprietor of that estate had feued out many small parcels, which became the site of a village. Many of the feus passed to singular successors, meaning that the property rights were transferred by separate title (e.g., through a sale or gift) rather than descending to an heir as part of the ancestor’s whole estate. These singular successors disagreed with Aitcheson about the fee he was entitled to demand for entry and whether that fee was due for houses as well as land. |
| John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others | 1794 | Tack, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Teind, Rent | John Leslie of Balquhain petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor sustaining objections to his proof of teind based on rental value, while the Earl of Kintore and others argued that teind value must be calculated from current tenant rents rather than an overlease granted in 1769. Leslie replied to the defenders' answers, denying their allegations regarding the lease, grassums, and profits. The defenders maintained that the 1769 lease had been granted at below-market value to compensate a creditor and therefore ought not to govern the teind valuation. |
| John Scott and Others v. The College of Glasgow | 1792 | Teinds, Valuation, Heritor, Teind, Tack, Thirlage | John Scott of Heatherieknow and others pursued the Principal and Professors of the College of Glasgow regarding the payment of valued teinds in victual. The College petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor on 28 May 1792, submitting a reclaiming petition, and Scott and others answered on 11 October 1792, responding to the demand for payment. |
| 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. |
| Officers of State v. Thomas | 1802 | Teind, Rent, Improvement, Property | The Officers of State represent a renter who lived on the property of the Earl of Selkirk. The renter claimed that he had made improvements on the land, and was thus entitled to a deduction in his rental teinds because of the expenses he incurred in making these improvements. The Earl of Selkirk argued that only permanent improvements should be entitled to deductions, and that improvements such as laying manure for crops and adding lime to the soil were temporary and were paid off in the profits yielded by a higher crop. Marginalia on the front page of the first document notes that the court found that the pursuer was not entitled to any deduction in the rental teinds. |
| 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. |
| Sutherland & Gower v. Officers of State | 1797 | Teinds, Tack, Teind, Prescription, Lease, Possession | |
| William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others | 1771 | Teind, Evidence, Fiar, Reduction, Court of Session, Interest | Pursuers William Knox and Henry Knox, merchants in Dunbar, supplied barley to brewers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Knox and Knox alleged that defender William Law, the sheriff of the county of East Lothian, had set the fiar (fixed price) of barley too high. An Act of Sederunt in 1723 established the process by which a sheriff of a given county in Scotland would set friars. The Act required the sheriff to appoint a jury of at least eight landowners in the county, with knowledge of the good at issue, to set the price. According to the pursuers, the sheriff's responsibilities were purely ministerial, setting a price agreeable with the verdict of the jury. Knox and Knox alleged that Law did not comply with the 1723 Act when he set the fiar for barley. |
Documents discussing this subject (57)
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0017
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0024
- Alexander Leslie v. John Gordon — Answers, 21 Jun 1799
- APPENDIX PRINTED BY THE OBJECTORS, I.—OBJECTIONS for the Heritors and Common Agent, in the Locality of Kinnoull, TO THE RECTIFIED LOCALITY, prepared by the Teind Clerk, and craved
- APPENDIX. WRITS produced by the Pursuer, and referred to in the preceding Information. I. ORIGINAL CHARTER of the TEIND-FISH of KILRENNY, in favour of John Betoune of Balfour, date
- Case — Additional, 7 Jun 1833
- Case — Revised, 19 Jun 1833
- Condie of Strowie v. Principal and Masters of the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, in St. Andrews — Memorial, 21 Jun 1796
- David Brown v. Walter Hunter — Answers, 2 Jan 1796
- David Johnston v. James Chalmers — Information, 1 Jul 1780
- David Johnston, Minister, and the Kirk-Session of North-Leith, and Robert Strang and Son Merchants v. James Chalmers and John Watson — Information, 22 Apr 1780
- David Thomson v. Sir Thomas Dundas of Kerse, Bart. — Answers, 14 Jan 1794
- Dundas v. Baikie and others — Petition, 20 Nov 1792 [2]
- Earl of Airlie and Hon. Donald Ogilvy v. Rev. William Ogilvy — Revised Case, 1 Sep 1836
- Earl of Airlie v. Rev. William Ogilvy — Defences, 24 Jan 1828
- Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland and George Earl Gower v. The Officers of State — Memorial, 24 Jan 1797
- George William Evelyn Leslie Earl of Rothes and his Administrator-in-law v. Countess Dowager of Rothes and Lady E. Leslie — Answers, 12 Nov 1824
- Gordon — Petition, 12 Jun 1792
- Heritors of Bourtie v. The Rev. Mr William Smith — Petition, 22 May 1798
- John Aitchefon v. Thomas Hopkirk and others — Minute, 11 Feb 1775
- John Hunter v. Duke of Roxburgh — Information, 9 Oct 1794
- John Leslie v. Anthony Earl of Kintore; James Horn Elphinston — Replies, 2 Dec 1794
- John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others — Petition, 4 Mar 1794
- John Lesly v. Anthony Earl of Kintore — Duplies, 24 Feb 1795
- John Scott and Others v. The College of Glasgow — Petition, 28 May 1792
- Lady Christian Graham v. Catharine Pate, John Dickson and Robert Dickson — Answers, 12 Dec 1798
- Landells — Petition, 1 Mar 1796
- Mrs. Westenra and Husband v. R. M. H. M'Neill — Minute, 27 Jan 1825 [2]
- Pate — Petition, 14 Nov 1798
- Petition — David Johnston Minister, and the Kirk-session of North Leith, and Robert Strong and Son, Merchants in Leith, their Tacksmen
- Poor Agnes Watson or Richardson v. Heritors and Parish of Ancrum — Report, 27 May 1828
- Principal and Professors of the College of Glasgow, in the University of Glasgow v. John Scott of Heatherieknow and others — Answers, 11 Oct 1792
- Reclaiming Note, William Gordon, Esq. & Others against Lord Mackenzie's Interlocutor
- Report on the Petition of the Bank of Scotland in the Division of Pittencrieff. Report in the Division of the Estates of George Chalmers, Esquire, late of Pittencrieff
- Report — Second, 24 May 1833
- Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham and others — Information, 12 Aug 1766
- Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham, and Others — Petition, 12 Feb 1766
- Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Grahame — Answers, 4 Mar 1766
- REVISED ANSWERS for the Rev. John Edward Touch, present Minister of the Parish of Kinnoull, and for the Representatives of the last Minister thereof ; TO THE REVISED OBJECTIONS for
- Robert Murdoch and Others v. William Robertson and Alexander Morrison — Additional Appendix to Reclaiming Note, 11 Jul 1829
- Sir Andrew Cathcart and Richard Alexander Oswald v. James Monteith — Duplies, 11 Feb 1813 [2]
- Sir James Maxwell of Pollock Baronet v. The University of Glasgow — Memorial
- Sir Thomas Dundas v. David Thomson — Answers, 14 Jan 1794
- Sir Thomas Dundas v. Robert Baikie — Answers, 8 Jan 1793 [2]
- Sir William Elliot of Stobs, Bart. and Others v. Rev. Mr Benjamin Dickieson — Memorial, 19 Feb 1793
- Society of Writers in Ayr v. Dr Andrew Mitchell — Answers, 4 Jan 1799
- Teind — Report, 21 Feb 1833
- The First and Second Ministers of St Cuthberts v. The Heritors of that Parish — Minute, 5 Mar 1821
- THE OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE-CLERK AND LORD NEAVES.
- The Representatives of John Armstrong v. The Representatives of Bryce Blair — Information, 11 Aug 1766
- The Reverend Mr William Smith v. John Ramsay of Barra, Alexander Anderson of Bourtie, John Niven of Thornton, and Andrew Simpson of Colliehill — Duplies, 11 Dec 1798
- The Reverend Mr William Smith v. John Ramsay of Barra, Alexander Anderson of Bourtie, John Niven of Thornton, and Andrew Simpson of Colliehill — Duplies, 11 Dec 1798 [2]
- Thomas Cranstoun v. Miss Ann Elliot and Others — Answers, 17 Oct 1799
- Wallace v. Duke of Portland — Answers, 10 Jun 1829
- William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others — Petition, 18 Jul 1771
- William Ferguson of Raith v. John Gillespie — Memorial, 25 Jun 1793
- William Pagan v. The Rev. David Macrae — Revised Case, 2 Jun 1858
