| 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. |
| Bruce v. Davidson |
1791
|
Valuation, Feu duties, Sasine, Process, Security, Property |
Colonel Andrew Bruce, pursuer, led proof by James Ferrier, writer to the signet, against defender Harry Davidson to the effect that the proof should proceed as agreed by both parties and commissioners. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Colebrooke v. Hamilton |
1802
|
Teind, Estate, Sale, Valuation |
In 1749, the Earl of Selkirk, then titular and patron of the parish of Crawfordjohn, sold his lands and teinds of Gilkerscleugh to James Hamilton. At the time, the two wrote up informal documents outlining the current teinds' value. Daniel Hamilton inherited these lands from his grandfather, but was concerned that the teinds had never been formally set at the value stated at the time of the initial sale. He brought the matter to court, asking that the teinds be officially valued at the amount stated in the old documents, which the court granted. George Colebrooke, the current titular of the teinds, opposed this result, and subsequently petitioned that the decision be overruled on the grounds that the original agreement between the Earl and James Hamilton had only constituted a sale of the lands and teinds, and was not meant to permanently establish the value of the teinds. He petitions that the past value of the teinds should not stand for all future teind duties because the agreement had "fallen asleep," or the statute of limitations had passed, and also because the original agreement was a contract of sale, and not a formal valuation. |
| Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell |
1797
|
Teinds, Valuation, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment |
|
| 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. |
| Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 |
1793
|
Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
| Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead |
1789
|
Disposition, Infeftment, Freeholder, Liferent, Feu duties, Valuation |
Ilay Ferrier, Esquire, Colonel of the late Scotch Brigade, petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' rejection of his claim to be enrolled as a freeholder of Stirlingshire, which William Morehead of Herbertshire opposed by alleging that Ferrier's liferent infeftment was nominal, fictitious, and subservient to Sir Archibald Edmonstone's political design. The parties exchanged replies, answers, and condescendences regarding the validity of the land descriptions, valuations, and the genuineness of the qualification, with Ferrier responding to claims of illusory price and interference in vassal arrangements. Ferrier subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Morehead answered maintaining that the superiorities were illusory and the enrollment improper. |
| James Lockhart v. John Cathcart |
1832
|
Lease, Rent, Valuation, Possession, Adjudication, Debt |
James Lockhart, as pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against John Cathcart, defender. 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 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. |
| McBrayne v. Arthur |
1786
|
Contract, Copartnership, Sale, Possession, Valuation, Tack |
Donald M'Brayne sought suspension against Arthur to prevent the partners from altering business affairs following the expiry of their contract, alleging breach of the Sixth Article which required an offer of assets. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Mitchell v. Douglas and Baillie 1 of 2 |
1796
|
Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Valuation, Heritor, Statute |
Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elisabeth Baillie of Lamington, defenders, petitioned the Court to alter its 1793 interlocutor modifying the minister's stipend in victual. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Mrs. Weatherstone and Others v. Marquis of Tweedale and Others |
1813
|
Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Reduction, Heritor, Interlocutor |
Mrs. Weatherstone and others, as reclaimers, sought relief for over-payments made in the process of locality of the Parish of Channelkirk against the Marquis of Tweedale and others, as respondents. The respondents contended that the claimants were barred from recovering such over-payments unless they could prove the payments had been made by themselves or their direct predecessors. They further argued that the Teind-clerk's accounting practices for heritors lacked fixed principles and that equitable considerations must be applied to the claim. |
| Ramsay v. Moray, et al |
1794
|
Heritor, Succession, Glebe, Valuation, Thirlage, Inhibition |
John Clerk petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor against the heritors of his parish, which suspended his right to dig and sell marl from his glebe. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Rev. Peter Brydie v. James Johnstone and Others |
1832
|
Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Feu duties, Process, Heritor |
The Reverend Peter Brydie pursued James Johnstone, Alexander Drysdale, Adam Drysdale, Thomas Drysdale, David Drysdale, and John Reid regarding the surrender of teinds for the stipend of the United Parishes of Fossaway and Tullibole. The defenders, represented by Robert Wilson, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton. |
| Scott and Cruikshank v. New College of St. Andrews |
1793
|
Tack, Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Rent, Lease |
The New College of St. Andrews defended an action by Scott and Cruikshank regarding deductions from rental, arguing that deductions based on old improvements and tenant accommodations were not legally or reasonably justifiable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Sir Alexander Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule |
1794
|
Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter |
|
| Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity v. Sir David Carnegie of Southesk |
1795
|
Valuation, Charter, Disposition, Commissioners of Supply, Proof, Succession |
Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity pursued Sir David Carnegie of Southesk and other freeholders regarding their refusal to inroll him on the roll of freeholders for the county of Forfar in respect of the lands of Baldovan. The dispute centered on whether Ogilvie had sufficiently established the lands' valuation at £386:5:8 Scots through cess-book entries and receipts to qualify for the roll, or whether the freeholders had properly rejected his proof as insufficient. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies debating the adequacy of the valuation evidence and the applicability of precedents. |
| 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. |
| Sommerville v. Home |
1784
|
Valuation, Teinds |
In a proceeding to determine a minister’s stipend, certain heritors of the parish of Westruther (which includes the former parish of Gordon), objected that the rent assigned to John Somerville of Evelaw was too low. The court allowed a proof of the rent of Sommerville’s lands, and Somerville protested on two grounds. First, he argued that he had a right to the teinds warranted to be free of any augmentation. Second, he argued that there had already been a valuation of the rents of his lands. |
| The Earl of Home, and other Heritors of the Parish of Eccles v. The Earl of Marchmont, &c |
1777
|
Valuation, Seat in a Church, Heritor |
In 1774, the parish kirk of Eccles was rebuilt and the heritors of the parish disagreed over the division of the seating areas of the church. In short, the Earl of Marchmont and others argued that the seats should be allocated to both heritor and their tenants at once, with order of preference given to those heritors with the highest valuation. On the other hand, the Earl of Home and others argued that such a procedure would force the lower-value heritors to be placed "in the inferior seats of the church ; that is, either in the back-galleries, or in the long seats below, under the galleries ; and thus give place, not only to the meanest tenant, but to the cottars and tenants servants on the lands of the six heritors of highest valuation ; a thing in itself altogether unreasonable and indecent . . ." Rather, they argued that the seats of heritors and their tenants should be allocated separately, in order to prevent the mingling of the classes. The case was brought before the Sheriff of Berwick, who found "that each heritor's share must be allocated and set apart by itself." Lord Gardenstone remitted the cause without qualification, and the Court adhered to Gardenstone's interlocutor, with some extra provisions. |
