Page images
PDF
EPUB

defamatory sermon, although the preaching of it was held to be justified by the conduct of the pursuers. Snodgrass v. Wotherspoon, Jan. 1776, Sup. V. 573.

STIPEND.

I. NATURE OF STIPEND.

1. Found that a compriser of a right to teinds, though never entering into possession, was liable to the minister for his stipend. Minister of Crailing v. Ker, 20th Dec. 1622, Dict. 14783.

2. An intromitter with teinds will be found liable to pay the minister his modified stipend in solidum, for the whole quantity of his intromission, if it extend to so much as will pay the minister's stipend, notwithstanding that the rest of the parish intromitted also, and the suspender had no relief to get but from the granter of his tack, who was a dyvour. Balfour v. Ker, 20th June 1623, Dict. 14784.

3. Stipend is, debitum decimarum, a burden upon the teind, and a minister may take himself to any of the heritors, in so far as he has teind, without prejudice of that heritor's relief against the other heritors. Hutchison v. Earl Cassillis, 3d December 1664, Dict. 14788; Morton v. Scott, 6th July 1625, Dict. 14784; Keith v. Gray and Carmichael, 21st March 1633, Dict. 14786. Sup. I. 197.

4. A minister, conform to his right, pursuing the parish for their respective proportions of their teinds, and one of them suspending, upon this reason, that he had only taken the grass of a room from the heritor for summer pasturage of some goods, and had paid the duty before the charge given by the minister; the Lords found, in this case, that although the heritor had right to the teinds of the lands, both great and small, yet the minister might still seek payment of that proportion laid upon the teinds of the lands from the suspender, seeing the teinds, and intromitters therewith, were, by decreet, subject to the mi

nister; he proving that the suspender possessed the land the year controverted, and that the small teinds of the goods which he pastured thereon extended that year to a much as the sum wherewith he was charged, because had his relief against the heritor, the payment to whom wa found not to relieve himself against the minister's charge Kirk v. Gilchrist, 19th Feb. 1629, Dict. 14786. Sup I. 170.

5. A merchant having bought an heritor's crop ips corpora, before the teind was drawn, was found liable fo the stipend as intromitter with the teind; though he a leged that he made bona fide payment to the heritor d the full price. Vernor v. Allan, 24th June 1662, Dic 14788.

6. A lady's liferent lands found liable for stipend, see ing it was modified out of the whole barony, reserving her relief. Gall v. Lady Kinfauns, 15th Dec. 1693

Sup. IV. 102.

7. The Lords found, that where ministers pursue fora locality before the commission for plantation of kirks, the patron may make an allocation; but that in a process before the session, it was not receivable; but that the minister might distress any to the value of their teinds, until his stipend were settled. Coupar v. Earl of Re burgh, 26th Feb. 1696, Dict. 14791 and 12411.

8. An appriser, who only had possessed one of th rooms apprised, leaving the other for the common debitor who was necessitous, being pursued by the minister fo the stipend out of both; the Lords, however this migh militate against the appriser, that he suffered the commo debitor to uplift part of the rents, if a co-creditor wen pursuing him to account; yet they considered that ministers had action against none but intromitters with the teinds; therefore they sustained the defence, and found him liable only for what he possessed. Malcolm v. I. vine, 7th July 1697, Dict. 14791.

9. A creditor having poinded corns standing in the stoucks, and carried a rip of them to the mercat-cross, which was all he could do in that case, and the minister for his stipend, and some preceding rests, poinding the

same corns before they were thrashed, and carrying away as much as would answer to the teinds; the Lords found, that the minister had committed no spuilzie, but that he had right to retain, in so far as extended to the common debitor's proportion of a year's stipend, but not for any bygones, and that he must restore the superplus. Cathcart v. Paton, 22d Dec. 1698, Dict. 14792 and 10524.

10. The minister's right to a suitable stipend is paramount to all other claims upon the teinds of his parish. Johnstone v. Heritors of St Cuthberts, 3d March 1802, Dict. 14834.

II.-WHAT GIVES RIGHT TO STIPEND.-VACANT STIPEND.

1. Found, that a minister being presented by a patron, but not having obtained collation and institution, the stipend does not belong to him, but may be disposed of as a vacant stipend. Thomson v. Viscount Haddington, 7th Nov. 1611, Dict. 14783.

2. Found, that a stipend of a suspended minister did not vaque, the suspension being only interpreted to be ab officio, non beneficio. Ker v. Steedman, 26th July

1661, Dict. 12528.

3. A minister presented before Whitsunday has right to the half of the stipend payable at Whitsunday, though his institution and collation may be after that term. MacGill v. Lord of Cassillis, 3d Dec. 1664, Sup. I. 501.

4. A minister being presented, and serving the cure till his admission, the same was drawn back to the presentation, quoad hoc, to give him right to the stipend ; and the heritors, notwithstanding his intromission and the act of parliament, are liable to repair his manse, the stipend not being repute vacant. Minister of Forgandenny v. Parishioners, 20th June 1668, Sup. I. 567.

5. A minister serving till March, and transplanted to be a stipendiary minister, will get that half-year's stipend. Macqueen v. Pearson, 26th January and 26th February 1670, Sup. I. 604 and 610.

6. A minister being presented to the parsonage teinds, jure devoluto, by the bishop, cannot pursue for bygones

a

since his entry, if the patron was in use to agree for t modified stipend with former ministers; but prejudice to e pursue for time coming. Minister of Auchterhouse v E Hay, 29th June 1670, Sup. I. 617.

7. A minister being presented, and serving the cure by the bishop's order until his admission, it will be drawn back to the date of his presentation; so that the years in the interim are not due as vacant stipends. Crawford v. Beatton, 1st July 1673, Sup. I. 688.

8. In transportation of ministers, it is not the date of the presentation or collation that makes the kirk vacant from which the translated minister comes, but his institution in the church to which he goes, so that the institution stops the vacancy of the church ad quem, and in lieu thereof, the vacancy of the church a quo begins, unless it be also filled ex incontinenti. Scrogie, Feb. 1676, Sup. III. 58.

9. Vacant stipend found to be due to a college in right of the patronage, although the kirk had been a mens one. College of Aberdeen v. 8th Feb. 1676, Dict

14789.

10. The Lords found, That the presentation of an ac tual minister before the term gave not a complete right to the stipend, unless there had been a warrant for his transportation. College of Glasgow v. Parishioners of Jeburgh, 12th Dec. 1676, Dict. 14790.

11. Stipend not due to a minister for terms after de position by a synod. The College of Aberdeen v. The Earl of Aboyne, 10th Jan. 1679, Dict. 14791.

12. Vacant stipend. College of Edinburgh v. Hep burn, 23d Feb. 1681, Sup. III. 396.

13. A church found not vacant, though the minister had desisted to preach, seeing he was neither deprived by the council nor by any church judicature. Scrymgeour v. Wemyss, 10th Jan. 1694, Sup. IV. 201.

14. The act 1685, anent the disposal of vacant stipends, does not apply where the minister has been thrust out by the rabble. College of Glasgow v. Wilson, &c. 6th Feb. 1694, Sup. IV. 143.

15. In a pursuit by a minister for his stipend, it being pleaded in defence that he had not qualified himself by

Eaking the oaths conform to the act 1694, he was found entitled to the stipend, (the certification of the act not having yet been applied by the sentence of any court,) on finding caution to refund, in case it should be found that he had no right to it. Gordon v. Cruickshanks, 16th Feb. 1694, Sup. IV. 169.

16. A minister found entitled to stipend, having served for it by order of the commission of the General Assembly, though he was not an actual ordained minister, and so could not administer the sacraments. Stewart v. M'Lean, &c. 21st Feb. 1694, Sup. IV. 159.

17. A minister having been deposed by the presbytery in April, the Lords would not decern for that year's stipend, though the sentence was only in absence and for contumacy, and he had appealed. Wood v. Thomson, 20th July 1694, Sup. IV. 197.

18. The attestation of the presbytery anent the service of a minister in a parish, found sufficient probation to entitle him to the stipend, without further instruction. Lauder v. Douglas, &c. 5th Feb. 1695, Sup. IV. 260.

19. A minister pursuing the heritors for payment of stipend as paid to his predecessors, found, 1mo, That it was not competent for the heritors in this process to state an objection to his right to the benefice, on the ground that he was presented by the presbytery instead of the patron. 2do, That it was not competent for them to object that the pursuer had not taken the oath of abjuration. 3tio, That it was competent to the minister to sue in the Court of Session for arrears of stipend, and for payment, according to former use, in time coming, until a constant modified stipend be allocated to him by the Teind Court. M'Bean v. Mackenzie, &c. 19th Feb. 1714, Sup. V. 103. Dict. 7841.

20. Found, that a judgment of the church, loosing the relation of a minister to his parish, or depriving him of his charge, did not deprive him of his right to the stipend, as what could only follow as a consequence of deposition. Campbell v. M'Donald, 26th Feb. 1741, Dict. 14795.

21. A minister admitted upon a presentation from the patron last in possession, found entitled to the stipend

« PreviousContinue »