Legal Subject: Parole Evidence |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor | 1787 | Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party | Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Bowden and Gibson v. Esten and Bennett | 1794 | Contract, Parole Evidence, Debt, Arbitration, Defamation, Aliment | Bowden and Gibson, as pursuers, maintained that the pursuer was entitled to his salary for eighteen nights under his engagement with Mrs. Esten, despite Esten and Bennett's refusal to allow him to perform as agreed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Gilbert Moses v. William Craig, Robert M'Lintock, and James Clark, Trustees for the Creditors of John M'Ewan | 1772 | Parole Evidence, Bankruptcy, Inhibition, Creditor, Disposition, Debt | John McEwen (alternatively spelled McEwan), a flax-dresser in Glasgow, went into bankruptcy. Defenders William Craig, Robert McLintock, and James Clerk were named trustees for the creditors in McEwen's bankruptcy. Pursuer Gilbert Moses, a meal-merchant in Glasgow, was one of McEwen's creditors. The trustees entered into a concert of joint measures, signed by the creditors, for the payment of McEwen's debts to the creditors. In contravention of this concert among the creditors, however, Moses joined McEwen in an action of reduction to overturn the sale and division of McEwen's effects. Among other points, Moses maintained that he was not allowed to read the creditors' agreement prior to signing it. Moses also argued that a tenement of houses that he bought from McEwen prior to McEwen's bankruptcy and in partial satisfaction of McEwen's debt to Moses should remain as Moses' property, and not conveyed to the trustees in McEwen's bankruptcy. The trustees argued that, by acceding to the concert among creditors, Moses agreed to set aside any preferences he may have had to McEwen's debts, including the tenement of houses. |
| Philip Miller, Oculist in Edinburgh v. Francis Angelo Tremamondo, Master of the Academy, Edinburgh | 1771 | Obligations under contract of marriage, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Parole Evidence, Marriage | Philip Miller performed a surgery on Francis Angelo-Tremamondo, which saved his sight. They became good friends. Francis Angelo-Tremamondo convinced Miller to marry his only daughter, Mary Tremamondo-Angelo. After the marriage, Mr. Millar brought an action against Francis Angelo-Tremamondo because he breached the marriage contract. He had agreed to give to the pursuer a diamond ring, to furnish a house for the new couple, among another things. The agreement and the promises were not in writing. The pursuer tried to enforce Mr. Angelo-Tremamondo's promises. The defender maintained that since the promises alleged were given verbally they could not be substantiated by other witnesses. |
Documents discussing this subject (40)
- Alexander Dewar v. Robert Munnoch — Reasons
- Alexander Ross v. Kenneth Matheson & Son — Opinion, 19 Jun 1847
- Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor — Petition, 14 Jun 1787
- ANS.—DAVID AITKEN, TO THE PETITION for WILLIAM MURRAY, &c. ANSWERS FOR DAVID AITKEN, Tacksman at Rhives, TO THE PETITION for WILLIAM MURRAY and SON, Agents at Tain for the Commerci
- APPENDIX. Copy LETTER from Adam Rolland, Esq; W. S. to Samuel Charteris Somerville, Esq; W. S. dated 12th March 1808.
- David Scott v. John Fothringham — Reclaiming Note, 19 Feb 1858
- David Scott, James Reid and Others, and Alexander Wilson v. Alexander Morrice — Reclaiming Note, 9 Dec 1830
- Douglas v. Grierson — Petition, 20 Feb 1794
- DUPLIES FOR Roderick Macleod of Cadboll, Roderick Macleod writer in Edinburgh, Alexander Fraser of Culduthill, and Mr. William Johnstone, Advocate, Respondents; TO THE REPLIES for
- Elizabeth Walker and her Children, and Sir William Cunningham, Bart. of Robertland and the other Trustees of the said Quintin McAdam v. Alexander McAdam — Memorial, 27 Jun 1806
- George Norvell of Boghall v. John Ramsay of Kinnaltry — Petition, 27 Jan 1764
- Harriot Pye Esten and Anne Maria Bennet v. Wright Bowden — Information, 12 Nov 1794
- Hugh Rose of Glastullich v. Donald M'Leod of Geanies — Answers, 4 Feb 1824
- J Cloup, Pelissie and William Renny v. John Henry Alexander — Bill of Advocation, 30 Apr 1830
- James Lindsay Carnegy v. George Robertson Scott — Petition and Complaint, 12 Jan 1796
- John Boyd and others, Executors-Creditors of Patrick Ewing v. Hugh Crawford, James and William Aitkens, Hector Fairie, John Fisher, John Crawford, and Hugh Craig — Answers, 3 Oct 1765
- John Nairn, S.S.C. Petitioners' Agent. James Bennett, W.S. Advocator's Agent. Sir Robert Dundas, Clerk. RECL. NOTE—HUGH PRICE AND OTHERS, AGAINST LORD COREHOUSE'S INTERLOCUTOR. REC
- John Wilson, Esq. of Hallrule, James Cleghorn of Halkburn, Esq. and George Cleghorn of Weens, Esq. v. Sir William Francis Eliott of Stobs and Wells, Bart. — Answers, 7 Apr 1825
- Mary Grierson alias Hyslop v. William Douglas — Answers, 10 Apr 1794
- Messrs Duff and Bain v. Messrs Sellar and Thomson — Answers, 19 Oct 1808
- Messrs Spencer Sutherland and Company v. John Hay, Esquire of Letham — Pleas in Law, 22 Nov 1842
- Mrs Isabella Howden v. Robert Howden and Gordon Howden — Answers, 24 Feb 1815
- Mrs Jean Gordon v. William Walker and Lewis Gordon — Information, 15 Jul 1784
- Petition — David Mitchell against Lord Craig's Interlocutors [2]
- Petition — David Ross of Priesthill, Liferenter, and John Gordon of Carrol, Fiar, of the Lands of Bindal, and others
- Petition — John Visc. of Arbuthnot for Renewal of Act and Commission
- Petition — Thomas Stewart against Lord Hermand's Interlocutor [2]
- Petition — William Boyle against Lord Gillies, & Lord Meadowbank's Interlocutors
- Philip Anstruther Paterson v. John Rutherfurd — Answers, 8 Feb 1791
- Philip Miller, Oculist in Edinburgh v. Francis Angelo Tremamondo, Master of the Academy, Edinburgh — Answers, 24 Jan 1771
- Reclaiming Petition — Mrs Eliz. Mitchell against Lord Meadowbank's Interlocutor
- Robson — Answers, 31 Jan 1794
- Sir John Nisbet of Dean v. John Edgar — Answers, 14 Nov 1794
- Somerville v. Rutherfoord and Thomson — Minutes of Debate, 21 Jun 1815
- Spencer Sutherland and Company v. John Hay — Pleas in Law, 1842
- William Adam v. Alexander Duthie — Answers, 12 Jun 1810
- William Douglas and others v. Charles Lyell — Duplies, 23 Jun 1791
- William Somerville v. John Thomson — Answers, 8 Mar 1813
- Wright Bowden v. Harriet Pye Esten and Anne Maria Bennett — Information, 10 Apr 1794
- Young v. Scotts — Petition, 16 Jul 1777