| Clark v. Stuart |
10 Mar 1779
|
Bonds, Sist, Maryland |
In August 1770, Hugh Macbride, Charles Philipshill, and the petitioner Peter Clark granted a bond for £150 sterling to Elisabeth Macbride. Charles Philipshill was the receiver of the money while the petitioner cosigned the loan at the request of Marion Philipshill and James Stewart. Both Marion Philipshill and James Stewart signed a promissory document, certifying they would indemnify Clark £75 each should repayment be requested. In June 1777, the heirs of Elisabeth Macbride called in the loan and Peter Clark paid her the money. The other two signers of the loan having relocated to Maryland. Marion Philipshilll reimbursed Clark her half of the loan but James Stewart did not. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that Stewart should pay Clark, but Stewart brought action to the Court of Session. In a previous judgment Lord Stonefield pronounced that the case be put on hold until the principal debtor, Charles Philipshill, be sued for repayment. Peter Clark then petitioned the court to have this decision overturned. On March 3, 1779 the Court remitted the cause to the Magistrates of Glasgow. Stewart then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia on this document indicates that the Court refused Stewart's petition. |
| William Cunninghame and Co. v. James Craig of Baidland |
1778
|
Aliment, Maryland |
In July 1769, John Craig, son of James Craig of Baidland, contracted with Cunninghame and Co. to serve for five years as an indentured servant in "any of their stores in Virginia or Maryland." Towards the end of his contract, he allegedly became gravely ill. Cunninghame and Co. advanced money to cover his medical bills. Cunninghame & Co. brought action against Craig of Baidland for repayment of this debt, claiming that they had extracted a guarantee from his son to accept the bill provided they released him from his contract. The cause came before Lord Ankerville, who assoilzied (absolved) the defender. The pursuers then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that it was the "natural obligation" of parents to pay for their children's support. Furthermore, the pursuers claimed that they had been obliged to advance the money in question as a result of the "duty incumbent on every man to save his neighbour's life." In his answer, James Craig wrote that he could not afford to cover the expenses of his adult son who had supported himself for years. Furthermore, Craig noted that after settling in North America his son "acquired habits of dissipation and extravagance" and that most or all of the sum advanced by the pursuers was likely to sustain this spendthrift lifestyle, and not to cover medical bills. After all, “It may likewise be observed, that if the assistance may not be had, of the most skilled, even for a less sum than the salary due to John Craig, very miserable must be the situation of numbers, both in America and elsewhere.” Craig's answers concluded by asking what would happen if every parent were compelled to accept the bills of their children who, living in far-off lands, made unverifiable claims of sickness as the cause of their debt. |
