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 >> Mr Robert Mutter v The Earl of Selkirk. [1784] Hailes 946 (16 June 1784) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1784/Hailes020946-0619.html Cite as: [1784] Hailes 946 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1784] Hailes 946
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 MANSE.
Subject_3 A Minister of a Parish, partly landward, and partly consisting of a Royal Burgh, is not entitled to demand the building of a Manse, but may claim a sum for house-rent.
Date: Mr Robert Mutter
v.
The Earl of Selkirk
16 June 1784 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 244; Dictionary, 8513.]
Justice-Clerk. The minister of Kirkcudbright has no title to a manse. By comparing the different acts of Parliament together, it is plain that the legislature, in 1663, meant to give manses in landward parishes only. There is no evidence of three churches. The two, besides Kirkcudbright, were chapels, or altarages. But, supposing the case to have been different, the annexation will not give the minister of the burgh a right to a manse.
On the 16th June 1784, “The Lords suspended the charge, without prejudice to the minister's insisting for a competent house-rent.”
Act. G. Wallace. Alt. A. Wight. Reporter, Alva.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
