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 >>
Thomas Fotheringham-Ogilvie of Powrie, v Alexander Bower, and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Methie. [1774] Mor 14815 (13 July 1774)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1774/Mor3414815-027.html Cite as:
[1774] Mor 14815
Thomas Fotheringham-Ogilvie of Powrie, v. Alexander Bower, and Others, Heritors of the Parish of Methie
Date: 13 July 1774 Case No. No. 27.
After two parishes have been long united, Whether they are to be considered as one in localling an augmented stipend?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The parishes of Methie and Inverarity, in the county of Forfar, were united, quoad omnia, by proper authority, above a century ago, and have ever since had only one church and one Minister.
The patronage of Inverarity belongs to Mr. Fotheringham of Powrie, who has also a separate right to the teinds of his whole lands, which compose the old parish of Inverarity, by charters from the Crown.
The kirk and teinds of Methie anciently belonged to the Abbacy of Cupar, and came to the Lord Cupar, as Lord of Erection of that Abbacy. Mr. Bower and others are heritors of the parish of Methie, and possess their teinds in virtue of tacks flowing from the Abbacy of Cupar, which, since the Reformation, were confirmed by Lord Cupar, the Lord of Erection, and prorogated by the commissioners, having powers for that purpose.
Powrie is also proprietor of some lands in the parish of Methie, to the teinds of the parish of which he has no right.
A process of augmentation, modification, and locality, was lately brought by the present Minister of these united parishes. After some procedure, a decree of augmentation was pronounced by the Court. Nothing remained but to have that augmentation duly localled upon the heritors.
The parties above named offered two opposite schemes of locality; and Mr. Bower, &c. in support of their scheme, founded upon a decree given by the Court, in a similar case, in the year 1718, Maxwell of Tinwall against the Officers of State, Charteris of Amisfield, &c. (not reported) as a determined point in their favour. See Appendix.
The Court having had an extract from the teind-record of the case of Tinwall laid before them, resolved to follow that precedent, and adopted the precise words of the judgment there given; and, accordingly,
“Found, that the parishes of Jnverarity and Methie being under different patronages, the stipend modified is to be divided equally betwixt the parishes, effeiring to their rentals proven; and that each patron has only right to allocate his proportion thereof within his own right.”
Act. D. Rac.Alt. Nairne.Teind Clerk.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 30. Fac. Coll. No. 125. p. 337.
