Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Robert Greig, Robert Marshall, James Belfrage, Michael Henderson, and Others v. James Bruce Carstairs of Kinross [1775] UKHL 3_Paton_675 (24 November 1775)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1775/3_Paton_675.html
Cite as: [1775] UKHL 3_Paton_675
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 675↓
(1775) 3 Paton 675
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 126
v.
House of Lords,
Subject_Charter — Clause as to Public Bubdens. —
Charters granted by a superior contained clauses exempting the feuar from all public burdens imposed, or to be imposed. Held, that this did not exempt from the expense of repairing or building churches or manses.
The appellants were feuars, and held feu-charters, granted by the respondent's ancestors, superiors thereof, whereby they were freed “of all public burdens and impositions imposed, or to be imposed,
Page: 676↓
When a new manse was built, demand was made against these feuars for their rateable proportion of the expense. In consequence, they sought relief against the respondent, contending that the above clause in their charters exempted them from the expenses of building or repairing churches or manses as public burdens. It was answered by the respondent, that the words “public burdens” legally comprehended land-tax, ministers' stipends, and schoolmasters' salaries, the only fixed and permanent taxes on land in Scotland; but that this term, public burdens, did not include the rebuilding or repairing of churches or ministers' manses, which is of a personal nature, and uncertain in its nature, event, and amount.
July 11, 1772.
The Lord Ordinary found the appellants “had no claim of relief for any part of the expenses laid out by them in their rebuilding or repairing the church, manse, or office-houses belonging to the parish of Kinross; therefore, repel the defence founded on that claim, and refuse the desire of the representation.”
Jan. 23, 1773.
Mar. 5, — —
Apr. 13, — —
On reclaiming petition, the Lords adhered. And, on second reclaiming petition, and a third, the Court refused the prayers thereof.
Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.
After hearing counsel, it was
Ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors be affirmed.
Counsel: For Appellants,
Al. Wedderburn,
Ar. Macdonald.
For Respondents,
Henry Dundas,
Al. Forrester.