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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Elliot and Others v. Hunter [1867] ScotLR 4_180 (12 July 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/04SLR0180.html Cite as: [1867] SLR 4_180, [1867] ScotLR 4_180 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 180↓
A manse had been built in 1840, and occupied by the then
Page: 181↓
minister till 1857, and by the present minister down to 1866, without objection to its competency, but had never been declared a free manse, nor accepted by the Presbytery. The Presbytery then ordered the heritors to make certain repairs and additions. The heritors were willing to make the repairs, which were of trifling amount, but declined to make additions. Held (1) that as there was no structural defect, and the manse might be repaired at a small cost, the heritors were not bound to make additions or alterations; (2) that the manse must be held to be a competent manse from the implied acquiescence of the Presbytery and ministers, though it had never been declared such nor accepted by the Presbytery.
The respondent, the Reverend George Hunter, minister of the parish of Kirkton, applied to the reclaimers, Sir William F. A. Elliot arid others, who are the principal heritors of the parish, to build an addition to his manse, and a stone and lime wall round a new garden beside the manse; and on their refusal to make these additions and repairs, he brought his demand before the Presbytery of Jedburgh. The Presbytery accordingly met at Kirkton on 1st August 1866, and had In attendance Mr Robert Falla, who examined the manse, &c., and made the following verbal statement, which was embodied in the minute of The meeting of Presbytery:—“Garden appears to be small, and at present surrounded with a hedge and partly with an upright railing, the latter fallen into decay. Tire garden should be enlarged and surrounded by a wall. There is only one good bedroom in the manse and two small ones; at least another requisite. I suggest the women-servants' bedroom be removed, part of it put into the present lumber-room, and it turned into a bedroom, the remainder being made into a bath-room adjoining the water-closet; and, to make up for the servants' room, I would suggest building an addition to the north, containing washing-house, larder, milk-house, coal-cellar, and servants' water-closet (all of which are wanting), and a women-servants' bed-room, &c., above, with a stair for access to them.” The meeting of Presbytery was adjourned to the 29th of August, when the heritors intimated that they were willing to execute the whole repairs reported by Mr Falla as necessary, but that they declined to make the proposed additions to the manse, and to inclose the new garden with a stone and lime wall. The offer was rejected by the Presbytery, who thereupon pronounced the following deliverance:—“The Presbytery believing that the additions to and repairs upon the manse and offices, as reported upon by Mr Falla, are necessary to render the manse a suitable and sufficient residence for the minister, decern in terms of that report, and order, as additional erections, one bedroom, a servants' bedroom, washing-house, larder, milk-house, and coal-cellar. They also find that the manse garden requires to be inclosed with a wall of the usual kind and dimensions; and in the whole premises decern and decree accordingly; and appoint the heritors to procure the necessary plans, specifications, and estimates for the said works, to be laid before The Presbytery at their meeting to be held in the Parish Church here on 5th October next.”
At the Presbytery meeting on 5th October the heritors tendered specifications of the repairs which were suggested by Mr Falla, but declined to build the additions to and alterations on the manse, or to erect the new garden wall. The Presbytery then ordered Mr Falla to procure plans, &c., for the erection of the works.
Against these findings of the Presbytery the heritors presented this note of suspension and interdict, and pleaded—(1) The deliverances of the Presbytery complained of, ordaining the complainers to build the additions to and make the alterations on the manse specified in the said deliverances, are ultra vires of the respondents; are illegal; and ought to be suspended, in respect that the same are unnecessary, and that the manse merely requires certain moderate repairs in order to render it thoroughly habitable and sufficient; and that the complainers are willing and have repeatedly offered to execute the same. (2) The said deliverances, in so far as they ordain the complainers to erect the wall round the small garden above referred to, are ultra vires of the respondents, and illegal, and ought to be suspended, in respect the said garden is not the manse garden, and that the proper manse garden is surrounded by a wall, which the complainers are willing and have offered to put in complete repair. (3) The proceedings of the respondent, in so far as complained of, are unwarranted, and the complainers are entitled to have the same suspended, and the interdict declared perpetual, in respect that the manse is a sufficient and competent manse for the minister of the parish of Kirkton; and that the same, when repaired according to Mr Falla's report to the Presbytery and specifications, ought to be declared by the Presbytery a free manse.
The respondents pleaded—(1) The minister of the parish of Kirkton is entitled to be provided with a suitable manse and offices. Not being so provided, and the heritors refusing or delaying to interfere, the Presbytery are entitled to proceed as they did; (2) The manse and offices of Kirkton being in a state of great disrepair and insufficiency, the Presbytery were entitled, on the heritors' refusal and delay, to decern for the necessary repairs and additions; (3) The repairs and additions or accommodations reported by Mr Falla, and decerned for by the Presbytery, being indispensable for the comfort and accommodation of the minister, the decree is unobjectionable, and the suspension should be refused; (4) The manse never having been declared a free manse, and never having been accepted by the Presbytery, and the manse, offices, and garden never having been completed, but being in fact still imperfect and incomplete, the Presbytery were entitled to decern for the reasonable completion thereof, and their decree is unobjectionable.
The Lord Ordinary ( Kinloch), before answer, remitted to Mr Matheson to report—1st, What is the fairly estimated cost of the repairs proposed on the manse, as specified in Mr Falla's report, and the deliverance of the Presbytery? 2d, What is the fairly estimated cost of the additional erections specified in said report and deliverance? 3d, What is the condition of the garden, and how the same is enclosed, and the fairly estimated cost of inclosing the same as far as unenclosed? The Lord Ordinary, in n note to his interlocutor, explains that the heritors of the parish moved to allow a proof under the Evidence Act, but that he considered it more advisable to make the usual remit to a marl of skill. The inquiry in the first instance was not historical, but statistical.
Against this remit the heritors reclaimed.
A. R. Clark and John Marshall for reclaimers.
Page: 182↓
Cook and Spens for the respondent.
The heritors, in reference to the leading point in dispute, maintain that there is no room for an order to enlarge and add to a manse which is in a state capable of being put into a sound condition by an inconsiderable outlay on repairs; and they say that such is the state of this manse. The minister affirms that where it is necessary to make a manse sufficient and suitable for the residence of The minister, the heritors are liable, unless when the manse has been declared free and The structure remains, and is in a sound condition at the time of the application. The parties are agreed as to the extent of repairs required, and these are to be taken separately from the question of additions. The repairs are capable of being executed at a small cost. It is obvious that there is no essential defect in any important part of the building, that the structure is not unsound, that no renovation of any part of the building is required. Cement, slates, refitting of window fastenings, repairs of plaster, relaying of front steps, are what are required. On the other hand, the extent of accommodation is, according to the ministers averments, such as must, I think, be admitted to be more limited than the proper requirements of a manse exact. The number of rooms is not such as that, if a manse were to be built de novo, it would satisfy the demand of a Presbytery. The suggestions of additions bear no trace of extravagance about them. If it be relevant to say that heritors must in every case, irrespective of the sound condition of the manse, and where the manse has not been declared free, make additions as shall render the manse suitable and sufficient as a proper residence for the minister, there is certainly enough in the present case to justify inquiry. The obligation of heritors in reference to manses is to be found in the Act 1663, c. 2. The heritors are to build competent manses; when built, they are to put them in repair; when built and repaired, the incumbent is to maintain them. There is nothing in the statute as to any process or declaration of free manses, but the custom has prevailed, and is necessary to be observed, when the heritors propose to throw the burden of maintenance on the incumbent. The process has this transferring the onus of repairs in view. I am not able to perceive any authority for holding that the heritors are to apply to the Presbytery when they have built a manse, to have a finding of the Presbytery on the subject of the sufficiency of accommodation contained in it. The application, if made with a view to the transfer of the burden, may have the effect of bringing the matter under the Presbytery's consideration, and so save all question on the point. But I desiderate authority for holding that, if the heritors shall build a manse, of which the incumbent has taken possession, and which manse has been used and regarded for many successive years as the manse of the parish, the heritors are under a continuous obligation, which is to subsist until it shall please the Presbytery to express themselves satisfied with the extent of accommodation. In my view, if a building has been constructed as a manse, taken possession of without objection by the incumbent, to which the Presbytery do not object at the time of its occupation, or for a long course of years subsequently, the heritors will be held to have erected a suitable manse. Any other view would render the non-observance of what is not enjoined by statute, nor held as requisite by civil and recognised custom as a source of very serious and lasting obligations. It might not be a very easy finding to obtain. The Presbytery are under no obligation that I can see to grant and record any such certificate of opinion. If the expression or non-expression of their opinion were to be attended by consequences so serious, and if, by withholding what they are under no obligation to grant, they could from time to time decern for additions in conformity with the varying views of suitable clerical residences, they would secure a very large power not hitherto considered to be vested in them.
The manse was built in 1840: certainly at no great cost, but after litigation in the Court of Session, and after a report had been made by a very eminent architect of the day, Mr G. Graham. The then incumbent, who possessed up to 1857, lived in it without complaint. The present incumbent, Mr Hunter, applied to the heritors for and obtained repairs from time to time, and I do not see that additions were demanded till 1866. Viewing the manse as a building erected by the heritors, and accepted for sixteen years or so as their manse, I cannot regard the absence of any formal acceptance by the Presbytery as constituting any material distinction between this and other cases. I hold it to have been accepted as a suitable manse at the time. If so, there only remains for consideration, whether the heritors can be called upon to add to the manse in order to render it a suitable residence without the manse being in any condition of structural defect or substantial disrepair.
Page: 183↓
As to the garden wall, I hold that, in offering to repair the walls of the proper manse garden, the heritors have made a sufficient offer in law. I was, in the course of the discussion, disposed to have held that the heritors, by getting the site of manse changed, may be held to have impliedly changed The site of the garden. But, upon consideration, I do not think that the one change implies the other. The manse garden certainly, in so far as regards vegetables and fruit, does not require to be immediately adjacent to the manse; and as to a flower garden or plots for flowers, a wall is not required or desirable.
The other Judges concurred.
Agents for the Heritors— Maconochie & Hare, W.S.
Agent, for the Minister— D. J. Macbrair, S.S.C.
