Now, that is entirely in accordance and in harmony with the view afterwards expressed by Lord Cranworth in the case of Hay , and which humbly appears to me to be in accordance with the justice of the case in determining a question of this kind.
I do not think it necessary to consider again in detail the decisions upon which the Lord Ordinary has proceeded, because I entirely agree with your Lordship's observations on these cases. I think none of them is directly applicable to the question we have to consider. If it were held that any of them may have established exemptions which are not altogether in accordance with the views which I have expressed—I do not say that any of them have—but if it were so, the only consequence would be that exemptions from the statute ought to have been provided for in it, and that new cases must be decided according to the just construction of the statute which we are considering.
I only add that throughout the argument, and in the course of the observations which I have made, no distinction was taken between the obligation for the burden of building and repairing churches and those with which we are now concerned—the repairing of manses. I think these burdens rest upon different statutory foundations altogether. I think that the argument in the abstract was rightly conducted, because the practice since 1572 is entirely in harmony with that following on the Act of 1663. Both burdens are laid upon the heritors in the sense which I have explained. I therefore agree with your Lordship.
The Court recalled the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, found and declared in terms of the declaratory conclusions of the summons, and granted decree for the sum sued for.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Balfour, Q.C.— Blackburn. Agents— Dundas & Wilson, C.S.
Counsel for the Defenders— Ure, Q.C.— Clyde. Agents— Simpson & Marwick, W.S.