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 >> Henry Miller, Minister of the Gospel at Neilston, v Thomas Craig. [1769] Hailes 329 (18 December 1769) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1769/Hailes010329-0155.html Cite as: [1769] Hailes 329 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1769] Hailes 329
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 MANSE.
Subject_3 Found not lawful to assess Tenants for the expense of leading materials to be employed in building a Manse; it being held that the burden of building the Manse lay entirely upon the Heritors, which term does not include Tenants.
Date: Henry Miller, Minister of the Gospel at Neilston,
v.
Thomas Craig
18 December 1769 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The manse of Neilston having become ruinous, the heritors assessed themselves for the purpose of building a new one; and they also assessed the tenants and possessors of land within the parish to lead the materials for building the manse, in proportion to their respective possessions or valuations. The heritors also appointed a committee of their number, with power to compound with the tenants for the carriages at proper rates. To these proceedings the presbytery interposed their authority. Thomas Craig, a tenant in the parish, being charged to pay a certain sum, as the assessed value of his proportion of the burden laid on the tenants, presented a suspension of the charge, on the ground that the burden of building the manse lay upon the heritors, under which term tenants were never held to be included.
“The Lords suspended the letters, and found expenses due.”
The following opinions were delivered:
Hailes. Here an attempt to impose a new burden on tenants. Tenants are in use of assisting the heritors in leading the materials for building the manse, but they are not bound to assist. Great pains has been taken to prove that, by heritors, the law meant tenants. The minister ought to have remembered the Act 1690, which vests the power of choosing a minister in the eldership and heritors. No one ever imagined that the Act comprehended tenants. There are statutes in the reign of Charles II. which make heritors liable for their tenants. The words are totally distinct: as much as heritable and moveable.
Auchinleck. The misfortune of the charger's plea is, that it is not only without law, but contrary to law. The law would never have imposed such a constant burden on persons having an uncertain and temporary possession. Expenses ought to be given to the suspender.
On the 18th December 1769, “The Lords suspended the letters, and found expenses due;” adhering to Lord Elliock's interlocutor.
Act. D. Dalrymple. Alt. J. M'Laurin.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
