United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Archibald, Duke of Hamilton & Brandon v. Rev. John Scott, Minister of the Parish of Avondale [1808] UKHL 5_Paton_224 (30 June 1808)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1808/5_Paton_224.html
Cite as: [1808] UKHL 5_Paton_224

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 224↓

(1808) 5 Paton 224

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, FROM 1753 TO 1813.

No. 27

Archibald, Duke of Hamilton & Brandon, Appellant

v.

Rev. John Scott, Minister of the Parish of Avondale, Respondent

House of Lords, 30th May 1808.

Subject_Augmentation of Stipend — Jurisdiction of Court of Teinds. —

Held that the minister was entitled to a second augmentation of stipend; and the Court, as a Commission of Teinds, had power to grant such.

This case involves precisely the same question of law raised and decided in the Prestonkirk case, p. 210.

The facts here were, That the respondent obtained a decree of augmentation of his stipend in July 1786, whereby the stipend, computing meal and barley, at the increase but still moderate rate, of £1 per boll, was brought up to £151.

In 1804 he brought a second process of augmentation. Whereupon the appellant stated the same objections to the want of power in the Court, as a Commission of Teinds, to grant such augmentation, precisely as argued in the Prestonkirk case.

Feb. 26, 1806.

The Court pronounced this decree; “Having advised the scheme of the rental, and prepared state, and being satisfied therewith, and with the haill steps of procedure in this process, well and ripely advised, they modify, decern,

Page: 225↓

and ordain the constant stipend and provision of the kirk of Avondale, to have been, for the crop and year of God 1803 yearly, since syne and in time coming, six chalders meal, four chalders of barley, payable in money, according to the highest fiar prices of the county, and £50 sterling money for stipend, with £8. 6s. 8d. money foresaid, including therein £5 sterling mortified by Anne, Duchess of Hamilton, for furnishing the communion elements; and decern and ordain the same to be yearly paid to the pursuer, and his successors in office, ministers serving the cure of the said kirk and parish, by the titulars and tacksmen of the teinds, heritors and possessors of the lands and others, intromitters with the rents and teinds of the said parish,” &c. By this decree the total stipend was made to amount to £258 per annum, exclusive of manse and glebe.

Feb. 27, 1805.

Besides, pending these proceedings, a locality of the stipend was going on ever since 1787, in which, of this date, the minister obtained an interim decree.

July 2, 1806.

The appellant brought a suspension of the above decree of augmentation, which, after full consideration, the Court refused.

Against this interlocutor the present appeal was brought. While a cross appeal was also brought by the respondent against the rule of augmentation allowed by the Court in the second decree of augmentation.

After hearing counsel deliver the same argument as in the Prestonkirk case,

It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be dismissed, and that the interlocutors complained of be, and the same are hereby affirmed.

Counsel: For Appellant, A. Colquhoun, Wm. Adam.
For Respondent, Wm. Alexander, Sir Sam. Romilly.

Note.—Unreported in the Court of Session.

1808

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010