Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In 1635 the Sub-Commissioners of the Presbytery of Perth valued the stock and teind of the whole lands within the parish of Cambusmichael and the parish of St Martins. Among the said lands were the “town and lands of Byris,” which, in the report of the Sub-Commissioners (dated August 25, 1635), were valued under the generic name of “Byres,” as follows, viz., “The town and lands of Byres, with the pertinents lyand in the said parochine, pertaining heritably to Patrick Inglis of Byres, occupiet by himself, has payit of before, is worth presentlie, and may pay in time coming of constant zeirly rent in stock and teind, fyve clialderis victual, twa pint meal, thrid part bear, and thrie punds vicarage.”

“These lands were acquired in 1802 by an ancestor of the present Earl of Mansfield, who now brought in the Teind Court a process of approbation of the sub-valuation. It appeared that at a very early period, and long before the date of the sub-valuation, part of the lands of Byres were known as Dirragemuir,” and that a pendicle of the land was known as “Ranniewhistle,” but neither of these subjects was mentioned by name in the sub-valuation; and it was not until a comparatively recent period that they were introduced into the title-deeds of the estate of Byres. In the summons it was sought to have the report approved by the Court in so far as concerned the pursuer's “land of Byres and Dirragemuir, comprehending Ranniewhistle with the manor place of Byres, with the teind sheaves and pertinents of the said lands.”

The fact that the lands of Dirragemuir and Ranniewhistle was at first disputed by the Crown and the minister, both of whom were called as defenders to the action; but the identity was ultimately admitted. The defenders stated several other objections to the approbation — one being founded on alleged dereliction of the sub-valuation, but the objections were all repelled. The only objection requiring to be noticed here is one to the effect that it was not competent in a process of approbation to declare that the sub-valuation applied to lands not specified by name in the report of the sub-commissioners, and that “the pursuer is not entitled to any decree in this process beyond a simple approbation of the report of the Sub-Commissioners, in the terms of the report.”

Marshall for the Earl of Mansfield.

Kinnear for the Crown.

Watson for the Minister.

At advising, The Court unanimously repelled the objection, holding it to be both competent and reasonable to explain in a decree of approbation what the precise lands are in regard to which the sub-valuation is being approved of.