AI-transcribed

A suit by a beneficed clergyman for an increase to the living to be decreed out of the tithes in the hands of lay impropriators.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Augmentation

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Baird and Kerr v. Heritors of Stobo and Ministers of Drummelizier and Broughton 1794 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Augmentation, Prescription Baird and Kerr pursued an action against the heritors of Stobo and the ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton regarding portions of the teinds of Stobo. The ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton claimed a radical and clear prescriptive right to those teinds based on nearly two centuries of enjoyment. The pursuers countered that the teinds had been erroneously paid to the ministers and that they were entitled to evict them.
Campbell v. Scott 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Parish, Glebe Minister Thomas Campbell, as pursuer, sought augmentation from the teinds of the annexed parish of Longnewton, contending that historical precedent and the sole burden of serving both parishes supported his claim. Sir John Scott of Ancrum and the other heritors defended against the action, maintaining that Campbell’s existing stipend was ample and that the circumstances of the parish did not warrant an increase.
Chalmers v. The Duke of Gordon 1786 Stipend, Teinds, Interlocutor, Rent, Jurisdiction, Augmentation The Reverend Alexander Chalmers pursued the Duke of Gordon and the heritors of Cairney and Bottary for augmentation of his stipend, memorializing that the existing provision was inadequate to the weight of his charge. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor in the teind-cause, Chalmers petitioned for its alteration to secure a competent sum, and the heritors replied, contesting the Court’s authority to modify stipends already decreed.
Darling v. Landells 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor, Aliment Darling pursued Landells regarding the stipend of the parish minister of Coldingham. The defenders submitted information arguing that the stipend as modified by the Court's interlocutor was suitable and equitable given the parish's rental and living expenses. The petitioner subsequently petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor modifying the stipend.
Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor, Augmentation, Succession The Reverend Thomas Mitchell answered the petition of Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elizabeth Baillie, arguing that the Court could grant victual augmentation despite the teinds having been valued in money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell 1797 Teinds, Valuation, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment
Earl of Mansfield v. The Duke of Queensberry, and other Heritors of the Parish of Dornock 1797 Teinds, Stipend, Interlocutor, Heritor, Valuation, Augmentation During a process of locality in the parish of Dornock, the Earl of Mansfield initiated a legal proceeding to obtain a heritable right to his teinds. This case examined whether he could obtain such a right during the process of locality, so as to affect the order of allocation.
Elliot and Others v. Dickieson 1793 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Reduction, Augmentation Elliot and Others raised a process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree concerning teinds valuation against the Reverend Mr Benjamin Dickieson, seeking to have that valuation declared binding and perpetual. Dickieson defended by memorial, alleging that the process was vitiated by intrinsic nullities and defective adminicles. The pursuers replied, insisting upon the decree's validity and adducing evidence of its draft, handwriting, and prior references from 1736.
Gleig v. Stephen 1794 Stipend, Teinds, Heritor, Augmentation, Parish, Act of Parliament Gleig pursued Stephen to determine whether lands situated in the parish of St. Vigians were liable for stipend to the minister of that parish or subject to augmentation for the minister of Arbroath. The memorialists argued that the lands were liable to the St. Vigians minister and could not be subjected to augmentation for Arbroath, while the memorialist responded that lands locally situated in St. Vigeans but paying stipend to Arbroath belonged to that parish quoad stipend.
Gordon et al v. Abell 1792 Teinds, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor The Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chapelton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend George Abell answered, arguing that the augmentation granted to him did not prejudice the heritors' rights.
Heritors of Ardnamurchan v. Campbell 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Tack The Heritors of Ardnamurchan, represented by Sir James Riddell, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the stipend of the Reverend Alexander Campbell, alleging that the allowance was excessive and improperly distributed. Campbell answered, defending the stipend against these claims.
Heritors of Bourtie v. Minister of Bourtie 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor The heritors of Bourtie petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor augmenting the stipend of their minister, the Rev. William Smith, contending that the sum awarded was excessive. Smith answered, defending the augmentation, and subsequently lodged duplies also requesting alteration of the interlocutor.
Heritors of Kirkton v. Dickieson 1793 Rent, Lease, Stipend, Teinds, Tack, Augmentation Benjamin Dickieson, defender, argued that the Heritors of Kirkton's process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree was invalid due to defective adminicles and intrinsic nullities. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heritors of Lessudden v. Inner-House Interlocuter 1793 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Tack, Communion Elements, Heritor The Duke of Buccleugh and other heritors of Leffudden petitioned the Court to reserve power to restrict the stipend in the event that the parish of Maxton was annexed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lamont v. The Heritors of Urr 1796 Teinds, Augmentation, Stipend, Ranking and Sale, Heritor, Interlocutor The Reverend Dr. David Lamont pursued the heritors of the parish of Urr to remit an interlocutor approving their scheme of locality, asserting that he held a proper heritable right to the teinds. The heritors petitioned the court, arguing that Lamont’s right had been acquired pendente lite and was therefore protected by the principle of nihil innovandum. Lamont answered their petition, contesting this argument.
Maxwell v. Earl of Hopetoun 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage, Parish, Augmentation James Earl of Hopetoun petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor, arguing that teinds from lands belonging to Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, Baronet, should be allocated for a ministerial stipend despite free teinds remaining in the parish. Maxwell answered the petition, resisting the Earl's claim that his teinds should be appropriated while unallocated teinds were still available elsewhere in the parish.
Minister of Lochgoilhead v. The Ministers of Inveraray 1791 Teinds, Stipend, Parish, Heritor, Augmentation, Aliment The minister of Lochgoilhead sued the ministers of Inveraray regarding the allocation of 38½ bolls of meal annually from the teinds of Glenshira lands, which the Lochgoilhead minister claimed were reserved for his stipend by a 1650 decree notwithstanding the lands’ annexation to Inveraray. Heritors including the Duke of Argyll and Lieutenant-General John Campbell petitioned the Court to revise the December 1790 interlocutor that had allocated the stipend to Lochgoilhead, seeking to avoid double payment and retroactive augmentation from 1787, while the Inveraray ministers likewise petitioned to alter the interlocutor in their favor. The Lochgoilhead minister replied that the annexation was only quoad sacra and did not discharge the lands from liability for his stipend, and the parties disputed whether any augmentation should run from the date of summons or the interlocutor.
Ministers of Marykirk v. King's College of Aberdeen 1792 Succession, Teinds, Aliment, Stipend, Ministers, Augmentation The Ministers of Marykirk pursued King's College of Aberdeen for augmentation of teinds, and the Principal and Professors of the College argued that the College held its teinds by ecclesiastical titles distinct from other titulars and not subject to augmentation claims by the parish minister. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mitchell v. Society of Writers in Ayr 1798 Teind, Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Aliment, Interlocutor The Society of Writers in Ayr petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor imposing a share of the minister's augmented stipend upon their fishings, arguing that only vicarage-teind was due from such property and claiming abatement on account of a reduced boat count. Mitchell resisted, maintaining that customary payment and proportional liability attached to the fishings. The case concerned the proper extent of teind burden chargeable against the fishings and the validity of the proposed reduction.
Petition of Alexander Carre and Archibald Jerdon 1800 Notice, Teinds, Adjudication, Augmentation, Interlocutor An action of locality was dormant from 1797 to 1800, when the common agent moved to “awaken” the case. After conducting further proceedings, the court approved an interim locality. However, Petitioners Alexander Carre of Caverse and Archibald Jerdon of Bonjedward were not made aware that the case had resumed. Further, Mr. Carre, who succeeded to his interest during the pendency of the case, was never made a party. For these reasons, Carre and Jerdon sought to have the case remitted to the Lord Ordinary to prepare a new scheme of locality.
Ramsay, et al v. Smith 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment, Interlocutor John Ramsay, Alexander Anderson, John Niven, and Andrew Simpson, heritors of the parish of Bourtie, presented a second reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend William Smith answered the petition, and subsequently lodged duplies in which he also asked the Court to alter the interlocutor. The parties thus submitted successive pleadings regarding the alteration of the interlocutor.
Skene v. Hogg 1796 Valuation, Teinds, Heritor, Rent, Augmentation, Stipend Skene, as pursuer, argued that the Court of Session lacked authority to lay victual augmentation upon teinds or to modify victual to a minister where the teinds had been valued in money. He submitted successive memorials contending that the commutation to a fixed monetary payment precluded any subsequent augmentation or modification in grain.
The Deans of the Chapel Royal and their Lessees v. Robert Hay and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Ettrick 1795 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment 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.
Thomas Cranstoun, Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles v. Miss Elliot and Others 1799 Teinds, Heritor, Representation, Stipend, Augmentation, Glebe Thomas Cranstoun, as Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles, pursued Miss Elliot and others regarding the liability of lands known as the Vicar's Glebe to pay teind. He petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor by Lord Dunsinnan, and subsequently sought to overturn an Inner-House interlocutor that had upheld an exemption from teind for the lands.
Trail v. Maule 1799 Augmentation, Rent 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.

Documents discussing this subject (96)