Common Agent in the Locality of Eddleston, Petitioner
Date: 4 December 1805 Case No. No. 13.
An heritor may at any time secure himself from any other payment, by surrendering to the minister his whole teind as valued.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In 1768, the stipend of the parish of Eddleston was modified to two chalders of victual and 1060 merks. In allocating the stipend, the victual was laid upon Miss Elliot and three other heritors, who had neither heritable rights nor tacks of their teinds. The allocation was (13th February 1770) approved of. These four heritors afterwards obtained a valuation of their teinds in money.
In 1795, a further augmentation was given. But only the same quantity of victual fixed by the former locality was laid on these four heritors' lands, which they paid down to 1800, when they tendered to the minister the whole of their money-teind, instead of the victual they had been in use to pay. Upon this the minister brought a new process of augmentation, when the stipend was fixed at six chalders of victual and £50.
In allocating this stipend, the common agent proposed, that the old stipend, as allocated in 1770, should continue to be paid, and the new augmentation be laid on the other heritors. On the other hand, it was contended, that no part of the old stipend could be allocated upon them, as they had surrendered their money-teind; and that as they had no interest in the locality, they ought not to be subjected to any part of the expense in allocating the stipend.
The Lord Ordinary (2d February 1802) “finds, That as Miss Anne Elliot, John Ballantyne, Elizabeth Gibson, and her husband, and John Paterson, have surrendered their full valued teinds, to be now, and in all time coming, allocated to the minister as part of his stipend; therefore none of them can be liable for, or subjected in, any part of the expenses to be incurred in this process of locality.”
The common agent reclaimed, and
Pleaded: A locality which has been long settled, cannot be set aside, or the use of payment altered by any of the heritors surrendering his money-teind in lieu of the victual-stipend allocated upon them. The consqeuence of the judgment in the case of Lamington, may very well affect and regulate future allocations : but it would be dangerous to allow it to operate, so as to alter localities previously fixed; by which, as in this case, the other heritors have acquired certain privileges, by which a proportion of victual-stipend is laid upon those who now wish to free themselves, and which burden the other heritors must now bear, if they are relieved from it. (No. 38. p. 14827.)
The court adhered to the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, by refusing two reclaiming petitions without answers; as the option given to heritors to surrender their whole teind must always be available to them, at whatever time they choose to adopt it; for the Court of Teinds never can encroach upon the stock, whether by a payment in money or grain.
Lord Ordinary, Dunsinnan.For Petitioner, Reid.Agent, Jo. Ker, W. S.
Fac. Coll. No. 226. p. 513.
*** Since this judgment was pronounced, it has often occurred, that heritors have chosen to surrender their teinds to the minister. The competency of doing so was again disputed in the case of Wallace, minister of Nenthorn, against William Roy of Nenthorn. In that case, which was decided 21st February 1810, the Court held the point to have been settled by the above report.
Jas. Moncrieff, Counsel, andBalderston and Scott, W. S. Agents, for Wallace.John Reid, Counsel, andW. Keyden, W. S. Agent, for Roy.
