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 >>
The Collector of the Vacant Stipends v Parishioners of Mayboll and Girvane. [1666] Mor 1791 (10 February 1666)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1666/Mor0501791-023.html Cite as:
[1666] Mor 1791
Payment to a Person who has lost his Right; to one who is not the true Creditor; to a Creditor denuded. Bona Fide Payment must be actual and real Payment.
The Collector of the Vacant Stipends v. Parishioners of Mayboll and Girvane
Date: 10 February 1666 Case No. No 23.
Payment to ministers who had fallen from their right, not having obtained presentation and collation, was sustained, because, notwithstanding, they were allowed to preach, and the heritors were not interpelled by the collector of the vacant stipend.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Collector of the vacant stipend, having charged the heritors of May boll and Girvane, for the stipend due by them the year 1663; they suspend, and produce the minister's discharges who served these years, and alleged they made payment bona fide before this charge.—It was answered, They were in mala fide by the act of the last session of Parliament, declaring the places of ministers, entered since 1649, to be vacant, if they had not obtained presentation and collation conform to the act.—It was answered, That the foresaid act was not simple, but conditional, if they had not obtained presentation and collation; and there was nothing obliging the parishioners to inquire, whether they had done that, which, by the law, they were obliged to do; but seeing there was no charge against them by the collector of the vacant stipends, and that the patron, or ordinary, did not present another, but suffered the then incumbents to preach all that year, they were in bona fide, to think that they might pay them for the time they served.—It was answered, There was a decreet produced against the same ministers, for the year 1662, and therefore they could have no right to the year 1663.
The Lords found the reason of suspension relevant and proven, notwithstanding of the answer; because the decreet was not against the heritors, and was but obtained in 1664, after they had made payment of the year 1663.
