tified for the support of the minister of a parish, it was found, that although not thereby barred from pursuing an ordinary process of augmentation, yet the incumbent was bound to show that he was not suitably provided; and it appearing that the rent of the mortified lands was a suitable provision, an augmentation from the teinds of the parish was, in the circumstances of the case, refused. Rev. George Allan v. King's College of Aberdeen, 23d Jan. 1811.

26. What is understood to be sufficient warrandice, not only from the payment of present, but from all future augmentations of stipend. Earl of Hopetoun v. Sir Alexander Jardine, Bart., 3d July 1811.

27. In modifying an augmentation, the Court will not take the value of the glebe into consideration, where it does not appear to have been intended to form part of the benefice. Rev. Thomas Kennedy v. Richardson, 9th Dec. 1818.

28. A clause of warrandice to a vassal in a feu-contract, in order to carry relief from future augmentations of stipend, must be express to that effect. Trustees of the Earl of Hopetoun v. Copland, 8th Dec. 1819.

29. An obligation of relief from payment of any teinds and ministers' stipends in all time coming, found to extend to future augmentations, the lands having been previously conveyed to the grantee without the teinds. Low v. Bethune, 31st Jan. 1821. Vide Kerr, 21st Nov. 1821, Shaw's Teind Cases, 12 and 37.

30. An obligation in a feu-disposition, where a price is stipulated for the lands with a feu-duty and a fixed duty for the teinds, to defend against "all stents, taxationes, and impositiones quhatsomever; als weel not named as named, imposed, or to be imposed upon the personag and vicarag teinds of the lands, be any personne or personnes quhatsomever, at any time hereafter, and at the handes of the minister present or to come, or any utheris having, or pretending to have, entres thairto," found not to relieve from future augmentations of stipend. Hamilton v. Calder, &c., 13th June 1823.

31. The patron of a parish having acquired a tack of

all the teinds of the parish, which was subsequently prorogated; and having assigned part of the teinds so held by him to a third party, who was to bear the burden of future augmentations, &c. according to an equal proportion with the rest of the teinds of the parish, and thereafter the patron having acquired right by the statute 1690, c. 23, to the teinds of the parish, not heritably disponed, and an augmentation having been subsequently granted to the minister; held (remitting with special findings to the Court of Session) that in a question with the patron and cedent, the assignee was only liable to be allocated in proportion to the other teinds of the parish, and that the patron could not insist on the teinds so assigned by him being entirely allocated primo loco. E. of Seafield v. Abercromby, 16th July 1823, Shaw's Appeals, 485.

V. MISCELLANEOUS CASES.

1. Long possession alone found to entitle the minister to the stipend. Herries v. Lockerby, 4th July 1661, Dict. 7948.

2. Stipend is not debitum fundi, and the heritor is not liable as long as there is a liferenter who intromits with the whole rents. Menzies v. Lord of Glenorchy, 24th June 1663, Dict. 14,788.

3. Found, That a minister's assignation to a tack duty being fortified with seven years' possession, whatever were the defects thereof, was sufficient to maintain his right of the stipend, and to infer decerniture against the heritors. Fergusson v. Agnew, 11th Jan. 1666, Sup. I, 517.

4. A bishopric cannot be burdened since the late restitution, unless it can be alleged that the stipend craved, or any part thereof, was paid by the bishops before the year 1637. Kennedy v. Bishop of Orkney, 1st July 1668, Sup. I, 569.

5. A bishop presenting a minister to a kirk and local stipend thereof, if it be not expressed, but only bear to be modified stipend, will be only interpreted to the modified stipend before thirty-seven years, albeit there were

one modified thereafter, but before this late restitution. Swinton v. Bishop of Edinburgh, 12th June 1669. Sup. I, 584.

6. Stipend due, although the lands out of which it is payable have been wasted by the calamity of war. Stevenson v. Earl of Tweedale, June 1673. Sup. III, 11.

7. Term of payment of stipends, being victual, though it is not paid at Martinmas, it is receivable on Candlemas day; and an offer made when part was receiving, to deliver the rest, was found sufficient, so as time was allowed to measure victual, and to bring horse to carry it away; but that neither being demanded nor offered, the price was not sustained according to the Lammas fiars, when the price rose to the double, nor according to the Candlemas fiars, but the Lords modified betwixt the two. Gray v. Laird of Cockburn, 16th June 1675. Sup. II, 186, Dict. 3150.

8. Act 1584, c. 132. What sufficient cause for deprivation of a minister. Stewart v. Marquis of Athol, &c. 28th Dec. 1692. Sup. IV, 35.

9. Churchmen possessing houses in Canongate, found liable for annuity for the stipend of the minister. Jackson v. Archbishop of St. Andrews, 24th Feb. 1699. Sup. IV, 442.

10. Act 1690, c. 2, and c. 5. Turnbull v. Heritors of Dalmeny, 18th Dec. 1701. Sup. V, 5.

11. Decennalis et triennalis possessor. Act 1690, c. 23. Minister of Lethendie v. Officers of State, 5th Dec. 1716. Sup. V, 8.

12. Found that the 9th act 1669, anent the prescription of minister's stipends, extends to those stipends during a vacancy, as well as when there is an incumbent. Gloag v. M'Intosh, 3d July 1753, Elch. h. t. 8, Dict. 11,063. 13. Where a minister's stipend is modified, though he lose part of it by the negative prescription, he can acquire nothing beyond it by the positive. It is like a bounding charter. Blair v. Inhabitants of Clayhole, 16th Nov. 1762. Sup. V, 521.

may

14. Annexation quoad sacra found not to subject the heritors of the lands annexed, in payment of stipend to the

minister of the parish whereto they are annexed. Knor v. Hunter, &c., 22d July 1772, Dict. 14,802.

The exception in the act 1690, c. 28, along with possession by the minister of an annual duty and services out of lands formerly holden of the vicar of the parish with that reddendo, found to give the minister a preferable right both to the feu-duty and personal services in question, with the patron, now become proprietor of the lands. Wallace v. Earl March, &c. 29th June 1773, Dict. 14,812. Hailes, 531.

Application of the stipend of a suppressed parish. Elliot v. Ministers of Abbotrule, 19th Feb. 1777, Dict. App. h. t. 1.

Certain heritors of a parish pursued the minister for repetition of the money for communion-elements for twelve years, during all which time he had omitted to administer the holy sacrament. Urged in defence, the money for communion-elements is to be considered as a part of the minister's stipend, of which he cannot be deprived, unless he is previously deposed from his function by the proper ecclesiastical court. The Lords found no claim of repetition competent. Hay, &c. v. Williamson, 14th July 1780, Dict. 14,817 and 2,492.

18. When a joint feu-duty is payable for stock and teind, the portion paid for the latter is free teind. Dundas v. Baikie, &c., 13th Feb. 1793, Dict. 14,820.

19. Where the teinds are exhausted, the court cannot award an allowance for communion-elements out of the stock. Wilkie v. Heritors of Cult, 13th Feb. 1793, Dict. 14,821 and 2,493.

20. Temple-lands are not exempted from payment of stipend. Leslie v. Heritors of Rayne, 14th Jan. 1800, Dict. App. h. t. 2.

21. Lands which originally formed the vicar's glebe are not liable to stipend. Cranstoun v. Elliot, &c., 12th Feb. 1800, Dict. App. h. t. 3.

22. A minister is entitled to the selling prices of the victual due as bygone stipend. Wright v. Binning, 8th Dec. 1801, Dict. 14,833.

23. Although the teinds of a parish be surrendered,

y

the victual stipend is fiars of the county. Don, 2d June 1813.

still to be paid according to the Sir John Maxwell v. Rev. D.

24. Lands formerly belonging to the Cistertian monks, but erected into a temporal lordship in 1587, and granted 66 cum decimis inclusis," are not exempted from the payment of stipend, unless it clear y appear that they were either novatio or labanes. College of Glasgow v. Henry Monteith, &c., 16th June 1813.

25. Where there is no surrendering of teinds by the heritors, but where the whole teinds of a parish are modified by decreet of court as stipend to the minister, the court is not entitled to authorize the minister to draw his stipend in kind, but must ordain the stipend to be paid by the fiar prices of the county, in terms of the 11th section of the 48 Geo. III, c. 138. Rev. Dr. Smith v. Duke of Portland, &c. 22d June 1814.

26. Victual stipend converted into money according to the county fiars, is payable by the Linlithgow measure, without any regard to the measure of any particular county where the parish is. Minister of Rothsay, petitioner, 24th May 1820.

Vide Cases in Practical Account of Teind Court, p. 407.