Churches, and other things destined to sacred purposes, are held to be extra commercium, and cannot be applied to uses of private property; yet, from expediency, it frequently happens that the situation of churches is changed, church bells and communion cups are disposed of, and new ones purchased in their place; and the parishioners also acquire a quasi property in the seats or area, for the special purpose of attending divine service. In a judicial division of the area of a church amongst the heritors, they are preferred, both with regard to priority and extent of choice, according to the amount of their valued rents. The burden of upholding parish churches and the walls of the churchyard is, by long usage, imposed on the heritors of the parish; and where the parish is partly within burgh, and partly in the country, the expense must be borne by heritors and proprietors of houses, in proportion to their real rent.
Legal Subject: Church |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moir v. Harlaw | 1801 | Feu, Church, Construction | In the parish of Peterhead, the church had fallen into disrepair. The landowners in Peterhead advocated for building a new church, with expenses for its construction being dispersed across the population of the parish. Renters in the town, or feuars, believed this approach to be unfair given that they would be the ones bearing the majority of the cost of construction. Instead, they claimed that the landowners had decided to build a new church in order to put the financial burden on the feuars. Since the landowners owned the old church exclusively, they would have been responsible for financing all repairs made to it, and so the feuars believed that the landowners purposely pronounced the old church unsafe rather than making repairs to it in order to avoid paying more. Marginalia notes that the case was reversed on June 24, 1802 with the holding that the expense of building a new church in a parish with both heritors and feuars should be divided between them based on their respective populations. |
Documents discussing this subject (8)
- Andrew Dempster v. James Brown — Answers, 6 Feb 1828 [2]
- APPENDIX. No I. From the London Gazette.
- 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 Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff — Replies, 12 Apr 1792
- Officers of State v. Skene — Memorial, 26 Jan 1796
- Petition — Lord Rollo against Inner-House Interlocutor
- 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
- STATEMENT of FACTS for the DEFENDERS—Advocators; AND ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuers—Defenders.