during his incumbency, although another was afterwas found to have a preferable right to the patronage. Kins Advocate v. Dick, 2d March 1753, Dict. 9954. R versed on appeal.

III.-PROCESS OF MODIFICATION AND LOCALITY.

1. A minister may take him either to the heritor or the possessor of the room for payment of the teind-dut Kirk v. Gilchrist, 19th Feb. 1629, Sup. I. 170, Die 14786.

2. A decree of locality being reduced, found that th reduction could not strike against years prior thereto; b that these years behoved to be paid conform to the the standing decreet of locality. Scrymgeour v. Moncrief, 15th Feb. 1695, Sup. IV. 268.

3. A minister having a decree of locality for so muc money and victual out of a barony, without any division upon particular rooms, is entitled to affect the who rent of any tenant, and is not restricted to the teinds d that room. Lawrie v. Cunninghame, &c., 14th Feb. 1710

Sup. IV. 792.

(1.) A parish being disjoined, the stipend formerly modified upon the whole is allocated upon the original re maining parish, notwithstanding the use of payment ha remained for fifty years, and the same after the disjunc tion as before.

(2.) It was not necessary to call the heritors of the new parish as parties.

(3.) It was no sufficient defence, that the stipend still remaining was above the minimum settled by act of par liament.

4. A stipend is objected to as above the maximu of 1633, c. 19, but the stipend is allocated and decreed to be paid. Lord Blantyre, &c., v. Currie, 1st June 1714, Robertson, 88.

5. If an heritor, upon whose lands the stipend is lo called, is personally liable to the minister? Campbell v. Murray, June 1726, Dict. 14792.

6. A charge upon a decree of locality, though against

a person not named in the decree, viz. a tenant, cannot be suspended but upon consignation. Found, because of the former practice, though the Lords thought it not founded on the words of the act 1669. M'Garroch v. Scott, 22d July 1740, Elch. h. t. 2, Dict. 15160.

7. A decree of locality subjects the heritor personally to the stipend localled upon his land, and upon that medium it was found that the minister may charge any of the tenants for payment of the sum localled; and that the tenant is liable to the extent of his rent, stock, and teind, so far as the rent is in his hands. Minister of Eskdalemuir v. Scot, 30th July 1742, Dict. 14795.

8. A minister on his decreet of locality may charge a tenant for his stipend, not only to the extent of the fifth part of the rent, but of the whole rent, if it be still in the tenant's hands. Mr James M'Garroch v. Scott, 30th July 1742, Elch. h. t. 4.

9. To what period a locality draws back. Gordon v. Dunbar, July 1752, Elch. Teinds, 33.

10. Whether a patron may pursue a process of modification and locality. v. Minister of Areskine,

27th Feb. 1754, Sup. V. 812.

11. A decree of locality, in respect it has been pronounced in absence, and that an error had been fallen into, and a wrong done, reduced. Wallace v. E. of

Stair, 4th Dec. 1771, Dict. 1223. 12213.

they

Hailes, 456.

Dict.

12. After two parishes have been long united, whether are to be considered as one, in localling an augmented stipend. Ogilvie v. Bower, &c., 13th July 1774,

Dict. 14815.

13. In localling a minister's stipend, those possessing the teinds of their lands by tacit relocation from the crown, as coming in the place of a bishop, are considered as having an heritable right. Heritors of Kirkliston v. Wright, 17th Dec. 1788, Dict. 15326.

14. Teinds vested in the crown, in right of the bishops, cannot be allocated in payment of stipend, till those heritably possessed by the proprietors of the lands are ex

hausted.

Skene, &c. v. Officers of State, &c., 3d Jur 1795, Dict. 14822.

15. Teinds belonging to a college are not liable f« stipend till those heritably disponed to the proprietors the lands are exhausted. The Heritors of Portmoak Douglas, 19th Dec. 1795, Dict. 14823.

16. Where part of the lands in a parish are subse the rent paid by the principal lessee, and not that which he receives from the subtenant, is adopted as the rule fo ascertaining the burden to be imposed on them in a pr cess of augmentation and locality. Earl of Cassillis Finlay, 16th December 1795, Dict. 14826.

17. In an united parish, where the teinds of the p rishes of which it is composed belong to different tite lars, an augmentation of stipend must be allocated a them, in proportion to the proven rental of each parish Maxwell v. Earl of Hopetoun, 5th Dec. 1798, Dict 14832.

18. When there are two titularities in a parish, the bu den of augmentations of stipend is borne by them according to the proven rental of the lands in each; and separate schemes of locality are made up, subdividing the burde among the heritors in each, according to the ordinary rules. Duke of Hamilton, &c. v. Lord Dundas, &c., 23 Jan. 1799, Dict. 14833.

19. An heritor's raising an action of valuation and sales, during the pendency of a locality, will not prevent his tithes from being allocated proportionally with other not heritably disponed, if the competition arises between him and the titular of the tithes, who is also an heritor in the parish. Earl of Mansfield v. Duke of Queensberry, 21st May 1800, Dict. App. Teinds, 9.

20. Found not competent, in a process of locality, to adjust overpayments by heritors upon interim schemes of locality. Common Agent v. Abernethy's Heritors, 8th Dec. 1819.

IV. PROCESS OF AUGMENTATION.

1. A minister found entitled to pursue an augmenta

tion, though he had promised to his parishioners that he would never seek an augmentation. Minister of Tillicoultry v. Nicolson, 21st Nov. 1677, Sup. III. 198.

2. A second minister established by private agreement, not entitled to an augmentation. Marshall v. The Town of Kirkaldy, 7th July 1738, Dict. 14795, h. t. 1.

3. Minimum of stipend. Pollock v. Heritors of Kilallan, 19th Nov. 1740, Elch. h. t. 3.

4. In what case competent for a second minister to pursue for an augmentation. Fairnie v. Heritors of Dunfermline, 14th June 1749, Dict. 14796. Elch. h. t. 6.

5. Augmentation of stipend. Beattie v. Heritors of Marytown, 4th July 1753, Elch. Teinds, 36.

6. Augmentations may be given out of teinds belonging to bishops and universities. College of St Andrews, 2d July 1755, Sup. V. 833.

7. Defenders in a process of augmentation of stipend bound to produce all grants from the crown, or from private persons, towards the minister's subsistence. Ministers of Edinburgh v. The Magistrates, 20th July 1763, Dict. 3969.

8. Minimum of a stipend. Reid v. Heritors of Beith, July 1766, Hailes, 74.

9. Augmentation of stipend refused, in respect of an augmentation, by a decree in 1709; but the subsequent decree of locality not pronounced till 1715, and localling the whole stipend in money, in place of a former locality of victual in part, found no bar to a rectification in that particular; and a small addition also made to the former allowance for communion-elements. Williamson v. Heritors of Arngask, 25th Nov. 1772, Dict. 14808.

10. The value of teinds, in a question with the minister, can be ascertained only by a proper decree of valuation of the proper court. Hence the proceedings in a prior action of modification, now founded on as importing a valuation, found no bar to a new process of augmentation at the minister's instance, on the ground of the valued teind being exhausted. Knox v. The Heritors of Slamannan, 23d June 1773, Dict. 14809.

11. No new augmentation of stipend to be given where

one had been obtained since the Union. Milligan" Heritors of Kirkden, 4th August 1779, Dict. 14816 Reversed on appeal.

12. If a minister's stipend has been already augmente posterior to the Union, it is not competent to claim ano ther augmentation. Mitchell v. Heritors of Tingwa 23d Dec. 1786, Dict. 14817. Reversed on appeal.

13. Those bishops' tithes alone are exempted from the burden of augmentations which belonged to that rank the clergy at the Reformation. Officers of State Christie, 16th July 1788, Dict. 14818.

14. When the teinds are valued in money, an augmen tation cannot be modified in grain. Gordon v. Earle Fife, &c. 27th Feb. 1793, Dict. 14821.

15. Where part of the lands in a parish are sublet, the rent paid by the principal lessee, and not that which he re ceives from the subtenant, is adopted as the rule for as certaining the burden to be imposed on them in a proces of augmentation and locality. Earl of Cassillis v. Finlay 16th Dec. 1795, Dict. 14826.

16. An augmentation of stipend may be given in grain, although the teinds of the parish should be valued in money. Mitchell v. Douglas, &c. 24th Jan. 1798, Dict. 14827.

17. The minister of a parsonage is not barred from bringing an augmentation of his stipend by his having previously granted a tack of the teinds of the parish in favour of the patron. Stewart v. Earl of Fife, 14th May 1800, Dict. App. h. t. 4.

18. An obligation granted by the minister of a parish to the heritors, that on withdrawing their opposition to a former augmentation of his stipend, he should not bring another during his incumbency, does not prevent him from again applying for one. The Earl of Kelly, &c. v. Heri tors of Carnbie, 9th March 1803, Dict. 15710.

19. A minister is entitled to interest upon his augmented stipend from the date of a charge upon his decree of modification, although the locality had not then been adjusted. Andersons v. Urquharts, 31st Jan. 1805, Dict.

14836.