||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.
|Earl of Rothes v. Shepherd
||Landlord and tenant, Rent
||Alexander Shepherd, a tenant farmer, rented land in Begg from the Earl of Rothes. After failing to pay a year's rent, Shepherd sought a bill of suspension from the court to avoid getting evicted, claiming that the time and money that he had invested in enclosing the land with hedges and ditches, at the Earl's encouragement, had rendered it impossible to pay his rent. The Earl of Rothes argued that Shepherd was not the industrious farmer and improver that he claimed to be.
|Fleshers of Glasgow v. Magistrates of Glasgow
||15 Jun 1802
||Tax, Rent, Duty (Tax), Magistrate
||In 1744, the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow erected a slaughterhouse for the city's butchers use, and an act of council decided that those who used the slaughterhouse would pay a rate proportionate to the amount of cattle slaughtered. In 1755, public markets were erected for the butchers to use, and the Magistrates made regulations that rents and duties should be paid by those who used these markets. In 1799, the Magistrates raised the dues of the beef and mutton markets one-third more than the former rate, and reserved the right to themselves to adjust this rate after a year's time. The Incorporation of Fleshers brought a case against the Magistrates, and the case was decided in their favor, holding that the Magistrates of a royal burgh have no right to impose a tax upon the inhabitants without the consent of the Legislature--they have as little right to increase any duties that have been previously imposed, and as the Sovereign himself has no power of levying such taxes, any reservation of such a right in the articles of the Union is altogether meﬁectual. (Scot's digest)
|Officers of State v. Thomas
||12 Nov 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.
|Sir Robert Pollock v. Thomas Paton
||29 Jul 1777
||In 1770, Sir Robert Pollock of Pollock let the lands of Floak and Floakside to Thomas Paton, a tenant of some years. The missives of the new agreement contained an additional clause that if Paton were to plough any land in addition to what he had ploughed the previous year, he would pay £100 Scots for each additional acre. After Paton had quit Floak and Floakside, Pollock brought action before the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, requesting the requisite payment on a newly-ploughed acre and a half. The sheriff-substitute initially ruled in Pollock's favour, however after consulting with the sheriff-depute he declared the extra provision to be a penalty that must correspond with real damages. Sir Robert, the pursuer, then applied to the Court by bill of advocation, claiming to have undertaken many costly improvements of his land, which would come to nought should tenants such as Paton be allowed to plough a meadowland of rich soil. He pointed out that Paton had been under no obligation to enter into the tack, and under no obligation to plough the extra land. The defender, on the other hand, stated that Pollock was severely exaggerating the quality of the land in question; he described it as a bare moor farm whose sole improvement was a stone dike on the common march. Furthermore, he claimed that in previous years he had been allowed to plough the land in question at no additional cost. The Court found in favour of the pursuer, determining the money asked for to be a form of rent.
|Trail v. Maule
||12 Dec 1799
||Trail was the minister in the parish of Panbride, which sat on Maule's land. Trail sought an increase in his stipend from Maule, arguing that Maule had raised Trail's rent so severely that his stipend was no longer adequate. Maule countered that any further increase in Trail's stipend would place him in a better position than his fellow ministers on Maule's other lands.