Teinds were found due parocho, notwithstanding the King's gift.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander Ferguson having obtained a presentation from the King, as one of the prebendars of the chapel-royal, and thereupon a decreet conform, and having charged Stuart of Askeoge, he gives in his special charge, that the parish of Inchgarth, which is now annexed to Rothesay, belonged to his prebendary, as being a part of the patrimony of the chapel royal. It was answered for Askeoge, That he bruiks the teinds by virtue of a tack granted by Mr Ninian Stuart minister of Rothesay, whereof this kirk now annexed is a part, and that there is nothing appears to instruct that these teind were ever mortified to the chapel royal, or that the chapel-royal was in possession thereof. The pursuer answered, That seeing he had the King's gift and decreet conform, it was sufficient, unless the defender would allege, that the said Mr Ninian Stuart had a better right, or was in possession; for the King being the common author and fountain of rights, his Majesty's gift is sufficient against any that show not a better right; and as for the tack produced, it is null, being for 19 years, without consent of the patron. The defender answered, That albeit both parties were in acquirenda possessione, yet decimæ debentur parocho, ejusq. præsumuntur nisi aliter appareat; and therefore unless these teinds have been transmitted from the parson of the parish, by long possession or mortification, they are his, and the King's gift alone cannot take them from him; but here the parson has been in possession, by setting the tack produced, which is sufficient as to possession, albeit it were null by exception, as it is not; and the nullity thereof is only competent to the person of the granter, and not to this pursuer.
“The Lords found the King's gift and decreet conform, with institution and collation was not sufficient, unless either the mortification of these teinds or the prebendar's possession were instructed.
