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 £5, 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 >> Anthony, Earl of Kintore v The United College of St Andrew's. [1785] Hailes 976 (20 July 1785) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1785/Hailes020976-0642.html Cite as: [1785] Hailes 976 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1785] Hailes 976
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 TEINDS.
Subject_3 In a valuation, deduction is not allowed of additional rent paid on account of exemptions from multures.
Date: Anthony, Earl of Kintore
v.
The United College of St Andrew's
20 July 1785 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Fac. Coll. IX. 394; Dict. 15,766.]
Monboddo. Twenty years ago multures were paid: now, no rent is paid for the mill at all. The additional rent has come in place of mill-rent.
Braxfield. Where a proprietor has a mill, and a rent is paid for the industry of the miller, the subject is not teindable: but when a tenant pays rent to be free from a mill, that is a rent for the lands. A value, however, ought to be put on the obligation on which Lord Kintore has become bound to keep up the mill-graith.
Eskgrove. How can I say that all the rent is payable for the lands, when it appears that part of it is mill-rent.
Swinton. The tenants are now free from the mill, just as much as if it had never existed; so the rent is for the lands.
Justice-clerk. In former times, the ideas of heritors were different from what they are now. Heritors often laid on high rents, not on account of the manufacturing of the grain, but by way of rent. The Court has determined that mill-rent should not be teindable. But, if it appear that the proprietor has taken rent instead of multures, why should not that rent be considered as the rent of lands?
On the 20th July 1785, “The Lords sustained the deduction.”
Act. A. Wight. Alt. Edw. M‘Cormick. Diss. Stonefield, Hailes, Braxfield, Swinton, Justice-Clerk, (in the chair.)
Non liquet, Henderland.
[This judgment surprised me, for the very reverse had lately been decided, after full consideration, in the noted case of Sinclair of Freswick against The Family of Sinclair of Mey.]
N.B. This judgment altered 8th February 1786—Vide Faculty Collection, and Dictionary, 15,766.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
