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 >>
Douglas v The Heritors of the Parish of Mannor. [1695] Mor 8501 (6 December 1695)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1695/Mor2008501-012.html Cite as:
[1695] Mor 8501
Who are entitled to a manse. Who are liable to build and repair a a manse. Minister's claim for house rent.
Douglas v. The Heritors of the Parish of Mannor
Date: 6 December 1695 Case No. No 12.
Repairing the manse during the vacancy is a real burden affecting all vacant stipends, and the manse must be repaired out of the same, the parishioners proving it was a sufficient manse at the death of the last incumbent.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the double poinding about the vacant stipends of the church of Mannor, between Lord William Douglas, patron, who, with concourse of the Privy Council's act, had destinate the same for building a bridge within the parish; and the heritors and presbytery, on the other hand, who had made an allocation of the same towards repairing of the church and manse, and alleged against the patron's destination, That he had lost the same, because by the act 18th, Parl. 1685, anent vacant stipends, patrons were bound to make the application yearly, which he had not done, but suffered four years to run on before he made his nomination; Answered, By the late act 1690, c. 23. abolishing patronages, he is not restricted to a yearly application. The Lords found, since he was not interpelled by the heritors or presbytery to apply, but had made the first application himself, and that to an incontroverted pious use within the parish, the one half of the bridge lying within the same; therefore they preferred his nomination. But as to the second point, they found the repairing the manse during the vacancy was a real burden affecting all vacant stipends, by the 21st act of Parl. 1663; therefore the manse behoved to be repaired out of the same; the parishioners proving it was a competent, sufficient, and habitable manse at the death and removal of the last incumbent; for if it was deteriorate in his time, then his representatives were bound to make it up in as good condition as he got it; and found no necessity to burden the heritors to prove it was declared a free manse by an act of the presbytery, but it was sufficient to prove by witnesses that it was in a good condition at the beginning of the vacancy; and appointed a visitation by tradesmen how much it will now require to make it as sufficient a manse as it was then. See Patronage.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 566. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 684.
