1796–1797
TackTeindsInterlocutorStipendHeritorPatronageColonel 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Moray v. Heritors of Blackford — Petition, 2 Feb 1796February 2, 1796 Petition of Colonel Charles Moray asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Heritors — Answers, 1 Mar 1796March 1, 1796 Answers by the Heritors of Blackford to the petition of Colonel Charles Moray, responding to his contention that the locality of teinds is erroneous
- Colonel Charles Moray of Abercairney v. Heritors of the Parish of Blackford — Replies, 15 Nov 1796November 15, 1796 Replies for Colonel Charles Moray of Abercairney to the Answers for the Heritors of the Parish of Blackford, arguing that his teinds are not inferior to bishops' teinds and should be allocated pari pas…
- Moray — Duplies, 17 Jan 1797January 17, 1797 Duplies of the Heretors of Blackford, responding to the replies of Colonel Charles Moray, arguing that the teinds in question are not bishop's teinds and thus not exempt from augmentation.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Dr. Robert Hay Drummond, of Cromlix — Party
- Sir William Stirling, of Ardoch, Baronet — Party
- Mr. Haldane, of Gleneagles — Party
- Robert Freebairn — Named in case documents
