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 >>
Heritors of the Parish of Tain, v Margaret Monro. [1754] Mor 9958 (8 March 1754)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1754/Mor2409958-036.html Cite as:
[1754] Mor 9958
When the King becomes patron of a church in consequence of the attainder of the former patron, he is not bound to apply the vacant stipend for pious uses within the parish.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The patronage of the church of Tain fell to the Crown by the attainder of the Earl of Cromarty. The Barons of Exchequer, in right of his Majesty, granted certain vacant stipends of this parish to Margaret Monro widow of the last incumbent.
Some of the heritors having been charged by her for payment of these stipends, presented a bill of suspension, and pleaded, That the gift to the charger is an illegal application of the vacant stipends, which, by law, are appropriated for “pious uses within the parish.” The act 18th, Parl. 1685, indeed declares, that this “is not to be extended to the vacancies of those churches whereof the King's Majesty is patron;” but this exception relates to patronages then acquired, not to such as might afterwards be acquired by the Crown. In this case, the King has, since the act 1685, come in right of the Earl of Cromarty; and every objection which would have been good against a gift obtained from the former patron, must be good against a gift obtained from the King.
Answered for the charger; The patron had formerly, by common law, the disposal of the vacant stipends. The act 18th Parl. 1685, ordained the vacant stipends to be applied for pious uses within the parish; but there is an exception in cases where the King is patron; that is, the King was to remain in the condition wherein all patrons were before that act, and have the incontrollable disposal of vacant stipends: This is a personal privilege in favour of the King, and must therefore be extended to patronages acquired since the act 1685, as well as to those which were in the Crown at that time.
“The Lords refused the bill of suspension.”
For the Suspenders, Lockhart.Alt. Sir David Dalrymple.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 52. Fac. Col. No 106. p. 158.
