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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Crawfurd v The Laird of Prestongrange. [1664] Mor 15716 (1 July 1664)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1664/Mor3615716-100.html Cite as:
[1664] Mor 15716
The Lords found that the old privilege of the Cistertian order of being exempted from paying teinds, was not altogether so personal to the monks, but that it ought to be extended to the Lords of erection of their lands.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Traquair being tacksman of the teinds of the parish of Innerlethem, and having assigned the valued duty of the vicarage of the lands of Lethenhops to Thomas Crawfurd, merchant, he pursues the Laird of Preston-grange, heritor, for payment of the valued duty. It was alleged, That the lands of Lethenhops were of old a part of the abbacy of Newbattle, erected in a temporality in favours of Mark, thereafter Earl of Lothian, from whom Preston grange has right by progress to the said lands, and to the teinds to be possessed by him as of old; likeas, there is a protestation for him in the decreet of valuation, that it should not be prejudicial to his right, whensoever the lands should be plenished with his own goods, not set to tenants, at which time no teind is payable therefore, which, by the Canon law, was a privilege granted to the monks of the Cistertian order, whereof Newbattle was an abbacy; likeas, the abbots continually enjoyed that privilege, and since then, the Lords of erection, and the defender and his father, as often as the lands were in their own hands. It was answered, That by the canon law, that privilege was only personal to the monks themselves, and not to any singular successor, as appears by the D. D. Panorm. &c. and therefore it cannot belong to the defender. Replied, That the privilege is notour, and by a decreet in foro recovered before the Commissaries of Edinburgh in anno 1569, it was found, That the privilege did belong to the Lord of erection, and has ever been enjoyed since syne.
The Lords found the allegeance and reply relevant.
