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.
Documents in this case (5)
People involved
- Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch and 5th Duke of Queensberry — Pursuer
- John K. Anderson — Pursuer
- Dr. Henry Grieve, Reverend — Pursuer
- Dr. Alexander Carlyle, Reverend — Pursuer
- Dr. Joseph Maccormick, Reverend — Pursuer
- Robert Hay, Esq. — Defender
- John Davidson, of Stewartfield and Haltree — Agent
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Pursuer
- Archibald Campbell Jr., Lord Succoth, 2nd Baronet of Succoth — Advocate for Pursuer
- Alex. Youngson, W.S. — Agent
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Defender
- William Robertson, Lord Robertson — Advocate for Defender
- H. Warrender, W.S. — Agent
- David Ross, Lord Ankerville, 3rd of Inverchasley — Lord Ordinary
- Sir Francis Scott, of Thirlestane — Named in case documents
- Walter Scott, Lord Scott of Buccleuch — Named in case documents
- Francis Scott, Earl of Buccleuch — Named in case documents
- Robert Murray, of Kirkhouse — Named in case documents
- Robert Potts — Named in case documents
- Sir Robert Scott, of Thirlestane — Named in case documents
- Mr. Paton — Named in case documents
- John Home — Named in case documents
- Mr. Fisher — Named in case documents
- Charles Stewart, Earl of Traquair — Named in case documents
- Alexander Murray, Lord Elibank — Named in case documents
- Hugh Scott, Baron of Harden — Named in case documents
- James-Raymond Johnstone, of Alva — Named in case documents
- John Murray, of Philiphaugh — Named in case documents
- William Russell, of Ashiestiel — Named in case documents
- Francis Napier, Lord Napier — Named in case documents
- William Carstairs — Named in case documents
- Adam Bellenden — Named in case documents
- Mr. Scott, of Tushielaw — Named in case documents
- James Burnett, Lord Monboddo — Lord Ordinary
Places
- Ettrick (principal)
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.