First page of the earliest case documentFirst page — click to view
1796–1976
RentSequestrationTackAssignationCautionLease

Andrew Knowles defended an action by John Low and John Richardson regarding rent obligations under the Act of Sederunt 1756, maintaining that he was not liable for the full rent in light of prior payments and the pursuers' conduct. He further alleged that Low had failed to pay rents and had caused ruin to the farm, and that the caution found was insufficient to secure future rents. Knowles also petitioned against a Sheriff's interlocutor requiring double caution for the same rents, arguing that such a requirement was unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Act.AI-generated

Documents in this case (4)

  • Low v. Knowles — Petition, 27 Jan 1796
    January 27, 1796 Memorial of Andrew Knowles, arguing that he is not liable for full rent under the act of sederunt 1756, given prior payments and the pursuers' own conduct.
  • Low — Answers, 1 Mar 1796
    March 1, 1796 Information of the respondent Andrew Knowles, arguing that the petitioner John Lowe has failed to pay rents and caused ruin to the farm, and that the caution found is insufficient to secure future rents.
  • Low — Petition, 20 May 1796
    January 27, 1796 Memorial of Andrew Knowles, arguing that he is not liable for full rent under the act of sederunt 1756, given prior payments and the pursuers' own conduct.
  • John Low v. Andrew Knowles — Answers, 16 Jun 1796
    June 16, 1796 Petition of Andrew Knowles against the pursuers John Richardson and John Low, arguing that the Sheriff's interlocutor requiring double caution for the same rents is unjust and contrary to the spirit of the…

People & places in this case

People involved

Places

Where this case took place