Decimae Debentur Parocho. The meaning of this maxim is, that teinds belong to the minister of the parish, where the subject from which they arise was produced; and that, consequently, he cannot be deprived of them by any species of alienation; which is to have a permanent effect to his prejudice.

Definition source

Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Teinds.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Teinds

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews	1798	Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription	Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty.
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.
Balfour v. Earl of Moray	1796	Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament	Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Balfour v. M'Kenzie	1794	Teinds, Tack, Succession, Stipend, Prescription, Heritor	Balfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
Bayne v. Wallace	1796	Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration	Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender.
Budge v. Lord Henderson's Interlocutor	1794	Teinds, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Succession, Feu duties	Budge, as petitioner, submitted a memorial arguing that she and her predecessors had acquired an heritable right to the teinds of Toftingall by positive prescription, despite the lack of infeftment or charter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Officers of State	1784	Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend	General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription.
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.
Campbell v. Stuart	1794	Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment	Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Christie v. Cowans, et al	1794	Rent, Tack, Lease, Teinds, Warrandice, Damages	David Halket, David Robertson, and Laurence Robertson petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor concerning salmon fishings in the River of Leven. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
College of Glasgow v. Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling	1793	Feu duties, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Factor, Intromission	The College of Glasgow petitioned against Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling, challenging a June 1792 interlocutor that limited overpayment offsets to cautionary branches and arguing for proportional application across all revenue branches. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Countess of Sutherland v. Officers of State	1793	Teinds, Lease, Teind, Prescription, Tack, Aliment	The Countess of Sutherland pursued the Officers of State to determine whether rents derived from salmon fishings were liable to vicarage teinds. The defenders argued that such rents were not teindable and that deductions ought to be denied, while the respondent maintained that salmon fishings were not subject to vicarage teinds in the absence of proof by forty years' possession and payment. The litigation turned on the criteria for establishing the teindability of salmon-fishing revenues.
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.
David Wight v. William Inglis	1798	Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Heritor, Teinds	David Wight pursued William Inglis, Alexander Inglis, Elizabeth Inglis, Margaret Inglis, Marion Inglis, and James Hay to have them assoilzied from the burdens of the 1774 settlements. The defenders maintained that the provisions in those settlements were not payable to them as heirs of provision, and Wight subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor. The defenders answered, asserting a claim to 12,000 merks Scots legacy payable to their mothers' issue under the will of Andrew Simpson.
Davidson v. Officers of State	1793	Rent, Teinds, Evidence	The Officers of State objected to deductions claimed by Duncan Davidson of Tulloch, disputing the inclusion of non-monetary casualities in rent deductions. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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
Dunbar v. Dunbars, et al	1798	Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Debt, Teinds	Sir Benjamin Dunbar, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its interlocutor of 2 February 1799, which had assoilzied him from the conclusions of his action against the defenders, the Dunbars, et al. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dundas v. Baikie and others	1792	Feu duties, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Feu	Sir Thomas Dundas petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had ordered the allocation of teind-duties before those to which heritors held heritable rights. Robert Baikie of Tankerness and other heritors of the United Parishes of St Andrews and Deerness answered the petition.
Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2	1793	Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor
Dundas, et al v. Cameron	1794	Succession, Debt, Tack, Rent, Teinds, Aliment	Dundas and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to remit to the Lord Justice Clerk the case of Donald Cameron of Lochiel against the defender Alan Cameron concerning a disputed disposition and sasine of lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Earl of Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple	1795	Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor	1794	Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds	Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Morehead	1790	Freeholder, Disposition, Teinds, Charter, Sasine, Assignation	George Edmonstone, a minister, petitioned the Court to overturn the Stirlingshire freeholders' refusal to admit him to the electoral roll, while William Morehead of Herbertshire defended the decision by challenging Edmonstone's qualification. Edmonstone submitted replies and duplies addressing objections to his qualification, and his agent William Craig filed answers to Morehead's condescendence. The pleadings repeatedly referenced parallel litigation involving Edmonstone's brother Charles Edmonstone and another freeholder, Mr. Cheape.
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.
Fleming v. Montgomery	1794	Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor	Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered.
George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence	1832	Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses	George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions.
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.
Graham v. E of Hopetoun.	1796	Succession, Aliment, Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Rent	Lady Christian Graham, Sir Richard Bempde Johnstone, and Charles Johnstone pursued James Hope Johnstone, Earl of Hopetoun, regarding whether expenditures made by the Earl as legal curator of the Marquis of Annandale's estate affected rights of succession to Scots funds. The pursuers argued that the curator's payments did not impair succession rights, while the Earl maintained he was entitled to credit for his administrative expenditures and petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently answered the petition, responding to the seventh article concerning management charges.
Graham v. Pate	1798	Teinds, Heritor, Prescription, Teind, Tack, Stipend	Catharine Pate, John Dickson, and Robert Dickson petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, arguing that bygone teinds were cut off by quinquennial prescription. Lady Christian Graham, Executrix, answered through her Commissioner and Factor, responding to this prescription argument.
Henry v. Russell	1794	Succession, Entail, Disposition, Sasine, Tailzie, Teinds
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.
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 Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle	1790	Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack	The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme.
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.
Hunter v. Roxburgh	1794	Tack, Teinds, Lease, Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor	The pursuer Hunter petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, seeking a finding that he was entitled to the ipsa corpora of the vicarage-teinds specified in his libel, or alternatively requesting letters of incident diligence for further evidence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others	1794	Tack, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Teind, Rent	John Leslie of Balquhain petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor sustaining objections to his proof of teind based on rental value, while the Earl of Kintore and others argued that teind value must be calculated from current tenant rents rather than an overlease granted in 1769. Leslie replied to the defenders' answers, denying their allegations regarding the lease, grassums, and profits. The defenders maintained that the 1769 lease had been granted at below-market value to compensate a creditor and therefore ought not to govern the teind valuation.
John Murray v. James Scott	1794	Feu duties, Teinds, Interlocutor, Feu, Sasine, Assignation	John Murray petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against James Scott. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Scott and Others v. The College of Glasgow	1792	Teinds, Valuation, Heritor, Teind, Tack, Thirlage	John Scott of Heatherieknow and others pursued the Principal and Professors of the College of Glasgow regarding the payment of valued teinds in victual. The College petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor on 28 May 1792, submitting a reclaiming petition, and Scott and others answered on 11 October 1792, responding to the demand for payment.
John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar	1792	Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt	John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims.
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.
Landale v. Carmichael, et al	1792	Debt, Adjudication, Interest, Teinds, Creditor, Security	David Landale, surgeon in Leven, sought to reduce decrees of adjudication and expiry of the legal granted against his uncle Thomas Landale, arguing that the claims contained pluris petitio and had been extinguished by intromissions made within the legal period. After Edward McCormick petitioned to alter an interlocutor, Landale renewed his challenge in 1794 on grounds of pluris petitio, informality, and extinguishment, prompting the defenders to file duplies confined to factual allegations. Landale subsequently maintained that adjudication being an articulate diligence, a pluris petitio in one article did not invalidate the entire decree.
Lockhart v. Douglas	1792	Tack, Teinds, Contract, Stipend, Aliment, Succession	Sir James Lockhart of Lee pursued the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon regarding teinds in Stonehouse, claiming entitlement under a 1673 contract and arguing that the Duke’s right had expired in 1751. The Duke maintained that Lockhart could claim no additional teind-bolls beyond those settled in the 1673 contract. Lockhart subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor concerning the allocation of teind bolls and augmentation burdens under that agreement.
Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland v. Andrew-Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines at Edinburgh	1792	Register, Teinds, Prescription, Sasine, Reversion, Statute	Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland, sued Andrew Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines, to recover authority over the sasine registers. Stuart, together with John Davidson and Andrew Steele, had claimed that a Crown commission conferred upon them lawful authority over the general Register of Seisins and custody of the particular register books. Campbell challenged the validity of that commission and asserted his own statutory authority under the 1617 Act, demanding surrender of the unmarked books.
Loughborough v. Inner-House Interlocutor	1789	Arrestment, Succession, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Teinds	Loughborough petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that dismissed arrestments on Crombie estate rents, contending that a secret agreement among creditors unjustly excluded the petitioners under jure mariti. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Macausland and Others v. Montgomery and Others, and the Magistrates of Glasgow	1792	Aliment, Advocation, Teinds, Adjudication, Interdict, Interlocutor	John MacAusland and James Burns, for themselves and in behalf of the other members of the Convenery or Trades-House in Glasgow, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. James Montgomery and others answered, contending that the petition had been given in the name of, but without the authority of, the Deacon-Convener, Collector and Trades-House of Glasgow.
Mary, &c Stewarts v. Sir John Scott and Others	1795	Teinds, Stipend, Patronage, Charter, Possession, Heritor	Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued Sir John Scott for a conveyance of the teinds of Ancrum upon payment of six years' purchase, contending that Scott held the teinds only as patron under the Act 1690 and thus could be compelled to convey. Scott defended on the ground that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds, not merely patronage.