BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Minister of Kilwinning v Glasgow. [1745] 1 Elchies 172 (3 January 1745) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1745/Elchies010172-003.html Cite as: [1745] 1 Elchies 172 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1745] 1 Elchies 172
Subject_1 GLEBE.
Minister of Kilwinning
v.
Glasgow
1745 ,Jan .3 .
Case No.No. 3.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The question was anent the L.20 Scots payable to Ministers for their grass by the 21st act 1663. There were in this parish about 200 heritors of kirk-lands, and great disputes which was nearest the manse, and which nearest the glebe, and whether the lands nearest the manse or nearest the glebe are primarily liable; 2dly, Where the land nearest the manse or glebe are all arable whether the L.20 ought to be assessed only on the proprietor of those nearest lands or on the whole heritors of kirk-lands; In this case the Presbytery had laid the L.20 wholly on Glasgow, and he brought the question before us. Several of us thought that the L.20 Scots is due even when there are no kirk-lands; 2dly, That where the L.20 is due instead of grass, it ought not to be allocated allenarly on the heritors of the nearest lands but upon the whole heritors. Of this opinion were Arniston and Tinwald; and others thought the relief was only against heritors of kirk-lands, and therefore the L.20 should only be allocated upon the heritors of kirk-lands where there are such,—and of this opinion, were the President and Kilkerran. And others of us thought, that where there were no kirk-lands there could neither be designation nor L.20 by the act 1663 whatever might be due by custom since the rescinded acts 1644 and 1649,—and of this opinion were the President and I. The Lords found all the heritors whether of kirk-lands or temporal lands liable, in which I did not vote, and the Court were much divided. The Court were much divided as to the second question proposed, whether by the act the heritors of temporal lands have relief of the heritors of kirk-lands, and argued
it long. They were much divided till I observed that that question could not properly be determined here betwixt the Minister and only one heritor;—and therefore we went no further, but suspended the decreet.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
