Turpis causa. - Sale to a White Bonnet at a Roup. - Obligation not to oppose reduction of a Verdict of Fatuity. - Transacting a Crime. - Transacting Church Penance. - British Subject purchasing a Captured British Ship. - Combination of Offerers at a Sale. - Combination to raise the rate of Wages. - Combination against receiving Money of a particular Coinage. - Pactum contra utilitatem.
Lewis Alexandee Duff v. Sir Archibald Grant
Date: 20 February 1799 Case No. No 105.
A parochial schoolmaster holds his office ad vitam aut culpam, and an obligation taken from him by the heritors, to remove from it at their pleasure, is not binding.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The parochial schoolmaster of Monymusk, on his appointment in 1782, wrote a letter to the late Sir Archibald Grant, the sole heritor of the parish, in which he admitted, that he had been taken on trial till the next term, and was afterwards to hold the office at the pleasure of Sir Archibald. He at the same time renounced all views of becoming a clergyman.
On his voluntarily resigning the office in 1792, the minister of the parish wrote to Sir Archibald, then in England, soliciting him to appoint his son, Lewis Alexander Duff, to the school. In consequence of rhe answer received, (which was not afterwards produced,) Mr Duff entered to the duties and emoluments of the office.
In 1795, he had become a preacher, and he was summarily expelled from the school by the present Sir Archibald Grant, in consequence of orders from his father, upon an allegation of misconduct.
He afterwards brought an action against the late and present Sir Archibald Grant, concluding to have his right to the office declared to be ad vitam aut culpam, and for damages.
The defence was, that the pursuer had never been regularly elected, but had been taken on trial, and during pleasure, like his predecessor, and must submit to the condition of his appointment.
Answered; The pursuer was admitted with the concurrence of the sole heritor and minister of the parish. There was, therefore, no occasion for a formal minute of election. His appointment was unconditional; and the burden of proving the contrary lies with the defender, who has produced no evidence of it.
Besides, a parochial schoolmaster is a public officer, who holds his office ad vitam aut culpam, and is subject only to the jurisdiction of the presbytery for his deportment. Any stipulation exacted from him, making him dependent on the heritors, would be disregarded as illegal.
The Lord Ordinary reported the cause on informations.
The Court were clearly of opinion, that the pursuer's plea was well founded, both in fact and in law. It was at the same time observed, that though heritors cannot effectually stipulate, that a parish schoolmaster shall be removable at their pleasure, this will not preclude the competency of their taking one for a few months on trial.
The Lords “found, that the pursuer is parochial schoolmaster of the parish of Monymusk, and entitled to hold that office, and to all the emoluments thereof, ad vitam aut culpam;” and therefore found the defender liable in damages and expenses.
Lord Ordinary, Glenlee.Act. W. Robertson.Alt. G. Ferguson.Clerk, Menzies.
Fac. Col. No. 114. p. 259.
