Glebe. Manse. By the law of England, the incumbent is bound to preserve the benefice, and to transmit it unimpaired to his successor. Thus, he must keep the houses belonging to the benefice in sufficient repair; and if he refuse to do so, the bishop may sequester the profits of the benefice for that purpose. He must not destroy the woods, trees, &c., nor cut timber, except for necessary repairs. Such dilapidations may even be the ground of deprivation.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Glebe.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Glebe |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brown v. Heritors of Falkland | 1796 | Aliment, Presbytery, Contract, Glebe, Interlocutor, Manse | |
| 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. |
| Duff v. Chalmers | 1769 | Aliment, Succession, Statute, Jurisdiction, Teinds, Glebe | Archibald Duff of Drummuir answered the petition of Alexander Chalmers, Minister of Cairny, responding to the argument that the presbytery possessed authority to designate moss for peats beyond the minister's immemorial privilege. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Laidlaw v. Elliot | 1797 | Aliment, Sequestration, Feu, Tack, Glebe, Manse | To provide the minister of Peebles with a grass glebe, the presbytery appropriated a small field that was held in feu by the pursuer, William Laidlaw. The field was part of a tract commonly understood to have been the vicar’s glebe before church lands fell to the sovereign at the Reformation. While not contesting the appropriation of his land, Mr. Laidlaw claimed that certain statutes entitled him to relief from the heritors of all other church lands within the parish. However, Ann Elliot argued that only heritors of the vicar’s glebe were required to contribute. The court found that Act 1594, c. 202, provided a general right of relief from heritors of church lands in the parish. |
| Logan and Others v. Reid | 1799 | Property rights, Liferenter, Aliment, Succession, Teinds, Glebe | Reid, the minister of the Parish of New Cumnock, life on lands owned by Logan. The previous minister had planted trees surrounding his Glebe lands and they were admired by the community, but when the Minister died and Reid succeeded him, Reid began to chop down the trees. Logan, as the owner of the land, sued to stop the further removal of the trees. |
| MacLaggan v. Heritors of Melrose | 1780 | Aliment, Heritor, Reduction, Glebe, Suspension, Interlocutor | Digitization in Progress |
| McLean v. McArthur | 1787 | Aliment, Proof, Sequestration, Tack, Glebe, Interlocutor | Allan M'Lean of Drimnin, Suspender, alleged the unlawful seizure of the Killean estate for glebe and manse on the false claim that the lands were church-lands, asserting that records showed Crown ward status and that the parish's centrality was disputed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Documents discussing this subject (68)
- Alexander Chalmers v. Archibald Duff — Answers, 22 Feb 1769
- Alexander Nicolson v. Roderick M'Neill — Minute, 21 Jan 1829
- Allan M'Lean of Drimnin v. Patrick M'Arthur — Information, 13 Nov 1787
- Allan Maclean v. Earl of Elgin — Answers, 28 May 1812
- Allan Maclean v. Thomas Earl of Elgin and others, Heritors of the Parish of Dunfermline, and John Sutherland of Todbank — Replies, 9 Jun 1812
- Allan MacLean v. Thomas, Earl of Elgin and John Sutherland of Fodbank — Memorial, 8 Oct 1812
- APPENDIX. EXCERPTS from the Records of the Presbytery of Ayr.
- 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. Extract MINUTES of the PRESBYTERY of MULL.
- Bruce v. The Heritors of Lerwick — Reclaiming Petition, 19 Jun 1858
- David Balfour Hay v. James Thomson and Alexander Monypenny — Answers, 6 Sep 1798
- David Balfour Hay v. James Thomson — Information, 16 Jan 1798
- 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
- Dr. Robert Auld v. The Heritors of the Town and Parish of Ayr — Information
- Duke of Argyll v. Rev. John Watson — Information, 1 Jul 1807 [2]
- 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
- Gleig v. Stephen — Memorial, 21 Jan 1794
- Henry Erskine and Others v. James Beatson — Information, 5 Sep 1793
- Heritors of Bourtie v. The Rev. Mr William Smith — Petition, 22 May 1798
- Heritors of the Parish of Ardnamurchan v. Alexander Campbell — Answers, 14 Nov 1797
- II.—REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for John Bruce, Esq., of Sumburgh, AND REVISED ANSWERS FOR
- 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
- James Beatson v. Henry Erskine, Methven Erskine, John Bell, and others — Information, 10 Sep 1793
- James Thomson and Alexander Monypenny v. David Hay Balfour — Information, 4 Jan 1798
- John Duke of Atholl v. John Robertson — Information, 19 Feb 1791 [2]
- John Ramsay of Barra, Alexander Anderson of Bourtie, John Niven of Thornton and Andrew Simpson of Collichill v. William Smith — Replies, 13 Nov 1798
- John Ramsay, Alexander Anderson, John Niven and Andrew Simpson v. Reverend Mr W. Smith — Replies, 13 Nov 1798
- Logan and Others v. Reid — petition, 28 May 1799
- Lord Panmure and Others v. The Presbytery of Brechin and Others — 27 Jan 1860
- MacLaggan v. Heritors of Melrose — petition, 21 Jan 1780
- Minister of Dunfermline v. Heritors — Report, 19 Nov 1812
- 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
- Mrs Douglas Maclean Clephane v. Rev. Donald MacArthur — Answers, 18 Apr 1822
- No. 12 of Process. IV.—STATEMENT of FACTS for the Rev. ALEXANDER GARDNER ; WITH No. 10 of Process. ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuers.
- Petition — Dr. Robert Auld against Inner House Interlocutor
- Petition — First Minister of Dunfermline, to Apply a Judgment of the House of Lords
- Petition — First Minister of Dunfermline, to Apply a Judgment of the House of Lords [2]
- Petition — Rev. Donald Macarthur against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
- Petition — Teinds. Pet. Heritors of Bourtie against the Rev
- Ramsay v. Moray, et al — Petition, 25 Feb 1794
- Ramsay, et al v. Smith — Petition, 22 May 1798
- RECLAIMING NOTE, The Reverend ALEXANDER GARDNER, AGAINST Lord Ardmillan's Interlocutor. C. Douglas, W.S., Agent for the Defender and Reclaimer the Rev. Mr Gardner. Graham Binny, W.
- Reclaiming Note, the Reverend Andrew Halkett against Lord Ardmillan's Interlocutor
- Reverend Dr David Johnston v. Heritors of North Leith — Decreet, 13 Nov 1810
- Roderick M'Neil v. Alexander Nicolson — Answers
- 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
- State of the Process — A Ii.—Interlocutors pronounced by the Lord Ordinary and the First Division of the Court disposing of the said action
- The Master and Assistants of the Trinity-House of Leith v. The Minister, Kirk-Session and Heritors of North Leith — Information, 10 Sep 1812
- The Minister of the Parish of Falkland v. David Johnston and Others — Petition, 12 May 1792
- 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
- The Reverend Mr Thomas Campbell v. Sir John Scott of Ancrum, Baronet, and others — Memorial, 9 Jan 1798
- The Reverend Mr William Smith v. John Ramsay of Barra, Alexander Anderson of Bourtie, John Niven of Thornton, and Andrew Simpson of Colliehill — Duplies, 11 Dec 1798
- The Reverend Mr William Smith v. John Ramsay of Barra, Alexander Anderson of Bourtie, John Niven of Thornton, and Andrew Simpson of Colliehill — Duplies, 11 Dec 1798 [2]
- The Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, the Provost, Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Dunfermline, and the other Heritors of the Parish of Dunfermline v. The Rev. Mr Allan Maclean — Memorial, 8 Oct 1812
- Thomas Cranstoun, Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles v. Miss Elliot and Others — Petition, 8 Jul 1799
- Trinity-House of Leith and its Members v. Dr Johnston and Others — Bill of Suspension, 10 Oct 1811
- William Laidlaw v. Ann Elliot of Peebles — Memorial, 4 Sep 1800
- William Laidlaw v. Ann Elliot — Report, 28 Nov 1797
- William Laidlaw v. Miss Anne Elliot of Peebles — Answers, 1 Jun 1797
- William Maule v. David Trail — Answers, 6 Oct 1814
- William Shaw, Lord Cathcart and John Francis Erskine of Marr v. Robert Moodie — Answers, 14 Jan 1795
