Presbytery, which, from that time, has continued to be the established religion of Scotland. Presbytery being thus established, those Presbyterian ministers who had been expelled from their churches in 1661 were ordered to be replaced; and the church government is declared to be in their hands, and in the hands of the ministers and elders chosen by them, or whom they may thereafter choose: a general assembly is appointed, with directions to settle all the disorders of the late times, and a confession of faith is recognised.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Presbytery.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Presbytery |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brown v. Heritors of Falkland | 1796 | Aliment, Presbytery, Contract, Glebe, Interlocutor, Manse | |
| Dickson v. Irving | 1796 | Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract | David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition. |
| Farquhar et al, Heritors in Brechin v. Garie | 1798 | Church of Scotland, Succession, Presbytery, Agent, Heritor, Ministers | Farquhar and the other heritors in Brechin, as pursuers, challenged defender Mr James Garie’s ordination and parish eligibility, citing his lack of Scottish theological training and his dissenting ordination by non-Presbyterian bodies. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Graham et al v. Macfarlane | 1766 | Education, Presbytery, Aliment, Defamation, Mala Fides, Sequestration | This case involved the efforts of heritors in the parish of Port of Mentieth (Port) to deprive the parish schoolmaster, James Macfarlane, of his office. The heritors claimed that Mcfarlane neglected his schoolmaster duties while operating a side business as a merchandiser, beat the school children under this tutelage, along with other accusations. The Pursuers first complained of Macfarlane to the Sheriff of Perth in 1752, but Macfarlane was allowed to continue. Starting in 1763 and again in 1764, forty heritors and heads of families in Port exhibited a complaint against Macfarlane to the presbytery stating that Macfarlane was unfit to be a school teacher due to neglect of duty while he operated his merchandising business and abusive treatment of students. The Presbytery found Macfarlane unfit to serve as schoolmaster in Port. Macfarlane appealed to the synod of Perth and then to the Court of Session. Macfarlane argued that since the salaries of schoolmasters in parish schools were so low, it was common occurrence for schoolmasters to serve as merchandisers for the goods in demand in their parishes. He acknowledged that he had attended fairs in Stirling and Gartmore to sell lint-seed and trade other goods, but he argued that he was only gone for two days and that it was the custom of the parish to close school on these days because many children were absent to to assist with the bear seed. He outlined his measures of discipline as schoolmaster and claimed that they were not severe as the Pursuers had claimed. Case documents provide details of the day-to-day happenings in the Port school house and Macfarlane's interactions with students. |
| Heritors and Patrons of Lochell and Cushny v. Gordon and Reverend of Alford | 1794 | Teinds, Heritor, Stipend, Presbytery, Succession, Manse | The heritors and patrons of Lochell and Cushny pursued an action against Gordon and the Reverend of Alford seeking to annex the parish of Lochell to Cushny, arguing that the union was necessary to relieve their financial burden and provide adequate stipend and accommodation for the minister. The proprietor of the lands of Linturk maintained that the proposed annexation should not impose immediate expense upon him without future equivalent. The dispute presented the question of whether the annexation could proceed without subjecting individual proprietors to such immediate burdens. |
| M'Culloch v. Allan | 1792 | Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Teinds, Advocation, Interlocutor | M'Culloch, as pursuer, argued that the trial and censure of schoolmasters belonged to the civil courts rather than ecclesiastical presbyteries. He subsequently maintained that sentences of presbyteries regarding schoolmasters were subject to review by ecclesiastical courts alone. Allan, as defender, contended that the presbytery's jurisdiction over schoolmasters was subject to review only in superior Church judicatories and not in the Court of Session. |
| Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen | 1791 | Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Heritor, Aliment, Statute | The Reverend Mr M'Culloch pursued William Allan, schoolmaster of Bothwell, regarding a Synod sentence that had found Allan unqualified for his office. Allan petitioned the Court to remit the sentence, and M'Culloch responded with information arguing that sentences of Presbyteries on schoolmasters were subject to review by superior ecclesiastical courts. |
| 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. |
| Paisley v. David Erskine | 1770 | Right to dispose a Parish, Appointment of Patrons, Patronage, Presbytery, Representation, Disposition | In January 1769, the parish of Erskine, in the presbytery of Paisley became vacant, by the death of the Reverend Mr James Lundie. Mr. David Erskine alleged to have acquired the right to the patronage from Lord Blantyre, the patron of the parish, who was in Italy by the time the vacancy occurred. The Presbytery took some procedure in the church courts and appointed someone for the position, but it was not accepted. The Presbytery then brought a declaratory action to review and declare that the right had fallen to them. The defender invoked cannon law to claim that the Presbytery right was proscribed after the six months. |
| Porteous v. Isat and Others | 1781 | Defamation, Ministers, Aliment, Adultery, Libel, Presbytery | This was a case about defamation. It stemmed from an ecclesiastical proceeding in which parishioners of Gorbals accused their minister, William Anderson, of adultery. The ecclesiastical case advanced to the General Assembly, where Rev. William Porteous gave a speech defending Anderson and attacking the complainants. A version of the speech was subsequently printed in certain Edinburgh and Glasgow newspapers, with Porteous’s assistance. The complainants published a rebuttal in a Glasgow newspaper, accusing Porteous of calumny and abuse, and threatening to expose his own “curious tete-a-tetes.” Porteous sued the complainants for defamation. However, the complainants argued that they were merely responding to Porteous’s provocation. |
| Robert Forsyth v. Hon. Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates | 1790 | Faculty, Jurisdiction, Presbytery, Trial | Robert Forsyth petitioned for admission to trial, and Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates responded that his ecclesiastical status disqualified him. 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 Parish of Lentrathen v. James Smith [Church of Scotland Case] | 1771 | Right to dispose a Parish, Presbytery, Patronage, Disposition, Heritor, Aliment | The Parish of Lentrahern (Lintrathen) lying in the presbytery of Meigle belonged to the family of Airly. Walter Ogilvy granted a settlement in favor of Mr. Edward over this parish as possessor of his father's estates. Mr. Smith challenged Ogilvy's right to patronage. |
Documents discussing this subject (88)
- Allan M'Lean v. John Sutherland — Answers, 27 May 1812
- Allan Maclean v. Earl of Elgin — Answers, 28 May 1812
- APPENDIX. I.—SUMMONS in the former Action of Declarator, &c.
- APPENDIX. Minutes of the Presbytery of Stirling relative to the Glebe of Dollar, 9th December 1761, and 2d March 1762.
- APPENDIX. No. I. MINUTES of pro re nata Meeting of Presbytery, held on 24th July 1828 ; containing also MINUTES of Meeting of Heritors, held 27th June 1828.
- Archibald Galbraith and Others v. James Smith and Others — Interlocutor, 17 Jan 1837
- Charles Hay Carnegie, Esquire of Pitforthie, and Others, Heritors of Brechin v. James Speid and Charles Will — Case, 19 Mar 1846
- David Balfour Hay, Esq. of Leys and Randerston, and his Curators v. Thomas Erskine, Esq. of Cambo, and others, Heritors of temporal lands in the Parish of Kingsbarns — Answers, 12 Feb 1799
- David Johnston and others v. Andrew Brown — Information, 12 May 1796
- David Johnston of Lathrisk, Esq; Captain Mungo Law of Pittullock; Captain David Lindsay of Kirkforthar, Tutor for Miss Carmichael of Balinblae; Michael Lunden of Drums; William Kilgour of Wester Gla v. Rev. Mr Andrew Brown — Answers, 24 May 1792
- Dickson — Petition, 4 Feb 1796
- Donald Campbell v. Presbytery of Kintyre — Note
- Donald Gordon v. Ministers' Widows' Fund — Statement of Facts, 28 Feb 1835
- DUP.—EARL of ELGIN & Others, TO THE REP.—Rev. ALLAN MACLEAN. Thos. Scotland, W. S. Agent for Respᵗˢ. Ad. Rolland, W. S. Agent for Petr. Mr MACKENZIE, Clerk. DUPLIES FOR, The Right
- EUL0279 doc0018
- EXTRACT JUDGMENT of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the CHURCH of SCOTLAND, in the Case of the Rev. John Hunter.
- Fox Baron Panmure and Others v. Presbytery of Brechin and Others — Summons
- Fox, Baron Panmure; James, Earl of Southesk; John Inglis Ch v. Reverend Andrew Halkett and Others — Answers
- George Trail v. Thomas Lyell — Petition, 25 Nov 1766
- Graham et al v. Macfarlane — Petition, 18 Dec 1766
- Henry Erskine and Others v. James Beatson — Information, 5 Sep 1793
- II.—REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for the Pursuers; WITH REVISED DEFENCES thereto for the Rev. Andrew Halkett and the Rev. Alexander Gardner. III.—STATEMENT of FACTS for the Rev. Andrew H
- Isat — Petition, 21 Dec 1781
- James Corbett Porterfield v. George Gardner — Answers, 15 Dec 1829
- James Corbett Porterfield v. George Gardner — Bill of Suspension, 15 Dec 1829
- James Corbett Porterfield v. George Gardner — Bill of Suspension, 1829
- James Fairlie, John Samson and Robert Howie v. James Robertson — Memorial, 20 Jun 1805 [2]
- James Farquhar, John Fife, George Sime, William Souter, John Farquhar, William Neish, Robert Nicol, James Wood, John Souter, James Greig, David Shepherd v. Mr James Garie — Complainers' Case, 22 May 1798
- James Graham of Leitchton, Walter Graham of Montdowie, and others, heritors in the parish of Port v. Mr James Macfarlane, late schoolmaster at Port — Memorial, 26 Apr 1766
- James Lindsay Carnegy v. George Robertson Scott — Petition and Complaint, 12 Jan 1796
- James Macfarlan v. James Graham of Leitchtown and Walter Graham of Mondowie — Memorial, 26 Apr 1766
- John Duke of Atholl v. John Robertson — Information, 19 Feb 1791 [2]
- John Ifat, James Baird, John Shiells, Robert Corbet, John Mann, John Black, Andrew Hozie, Malcolm Macleod, James Pollock, and Peter Tait v. William Porteous — information, 12 Nov 1781
- John Learmonth, Esq. and others v. The Magistrates of Canongate — Replies, 19 Jan 1789
- John Sutherland v. Allan M'Lean — Answers, 17 Dec 1805
- Lord Panmure and Others v. The Presbytery of Brechin and Others — 27 Jan 1860
- Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Linlithgow v. Neil, Earl of Roseberry and other Heritors; and James Dobie — Memorial, 19 Sep 1801
- Magistrates of Edinburgh v. Reverend John Hunter — Answers, 1 Jun 1831
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Information, 26 Apr 1792
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Memorial, 13 Dec 1792
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen — Petitionand Complaint, 21 May 1791
- Ministers of Kingbarns v. Hay, et al — Answers, 6 Sep 1798
- Ministers of Kingbarns v. Hay, et al — Petition, 29 Jan 1794
- Mr Frederick M'Laggan v. The Heritors of the Parish of Melrose — answers, 4 Feb 1780
- Mr James Smith of Balharrie v. Walter Ogilvy, Esq; of Clova — Respondents' Case, 1771
- Mr Robert Forsyth v. The Hon. Henry Erskine of Newhall, Dean, and the remanent Members of the Faculty of Advocates — answers, 15 Dec 1790
- Mrs C. Macleod or Macqueen v. The Trustees of the Ministers' Widows' Fund — Summons, 21 May 1836
- Nisbet — Petition, 29 Jun 1773
- No VIII. BILL OF SUSPENSION and INTERDICT for John Bulloch, John M'Murrich, and Mungo Paton, three of the Managers of the Associate Congregation at Kilpatrick.
- No XIX. EXTRACT JUDGMENT of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the CHURCH of SCOTLAND, in the Case of the Rev. John Hunter.
- No. 12 of Process. IV.—STATEMENT of FACTS for the Rev. ALEXANDER GARDNER ; WITH No. 10 of Process. ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuers.
- No. I. Copy PETITION for John Sutherland of Northfod. THE PETITION of John Sutherland of Northfod, Merchant in Dunfermline;
- Paisley v. David Erskine — Information, 27 Jun 1770
- Petition and Complaint — P. & C.—Will. Allan
- Petition M'Culloch, 31 May 1793
- Petition — First Minister of Dunfermline, to Apply a Judgment of the House of Lords
- Petition — Hon. W. Maule against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — Jo. Sutherland for Leave to give in Replies
- Petition — Lord Rollo against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — Magistrates of Irvine against Lord Polkemmet's Interlocutor
- Petition — Mrs
- Petition — Rev. Mr Mich. M'Culloch against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Petition — The Synod of Merse and Teviotdale
- Presbytery of Paisley v. David Erskine — Answers, 6 Aug 1770
- Presbytery of Paisley v. David Erskine — Information, 28 Jun 1770
- Rec. Note—Chas. H. Carnegie & Others, (Heritors of Brechin,) against Lord Ivory's Interlocutor
- RECORD. NOTE OF SUSPENSION for CHARLES HAY CARNEGIE, Esq. of Pitforthie, and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Brechin, (named and designed as in the prefixed Reclaiming Note, and
- Reverend Dr David Johnston v. Heritors of North Leith — Decreet, 13 Nov 1810
- Reverend Dr James Wilson and the Presbytery of Linlithgow v. William Forbes, Esq of Callander — Information, 10 Mar 1807
- Reverend James Smith v. Archibald Galbraith — Condescendence, 3 Jun 1836
- Roderick M'Neil v. Alexander Nicolson — Answers
- Sir Ralph Abercromby of Tillybody v. John Francis Erskine of Mar — Answers, 17 May 1797
- Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, Baronet, John Lumsden, Esq. of Cuthny, George Gordon, Esq. of Hallhead v. Adam Gordon, Esq. of Linturk, and the Reverend Moderator and Presbytery of Alford — Memorial, 10 Jun 1794
- Smith v. Galbreath and Others — Appendix, 9 Mar 1839 [2]
- State of the Process — A Ii.—Interlocutors pronounced by the Lord Ordinary and the First Division of the Court disposing of the said action
- STATEMENT of FACTS for the DEFENDERS—Advocators; AND ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuers—Defenders.
- The Minister of the Parish of Falkland v. David Johnston and Others — Petition, 12 May 1792
- The Parish of Lentrathen v. James Smith [Church of Scotland Case] — Petition
- The Rev. Dr David Johnston, the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and Kirk-Session of North Leith v. Trinity-House of Leith — Information, 16 Apr 1812
- The Reverend Dr Andrew Brown v. David Johnston of Lathrik and others — Information, 12 May 1796
- Thomas Cranstoun, Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles v. Miss Elliot and Others — Petition, 8 Jul 1799
- Thomas Hislop v. James Walker and Others — Appendix, 12 Dec 1820
- Thomas Hislop v. John Nairne — Condescendence
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Answers, 10 Oct 1793
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Answers, 10 Oct 1793 [2]
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Memorial, 1 Dec 1792
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Memorial, 1 Dec 1792 [2]
- William Porteous v. John Izat — answers, 31 Jan 1782
