1797–1798
Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet, pursued Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie regarding a conveyance of provision, which Alexander Kenneth defended as void for lack of requisite curator consent. Both parties successively petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors entered against them, with Sir Hector insisting that payment by his factor Norman Mackenzie was valid and not reducible. The dispute thus turned on whether the conveyance was effective without curator approval and whether the factor’s payment could stand.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Mackenzie v. Mackenzie — PetitionPetition of Sir Hector Mackenzie asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie v. Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet — Answers, 6 Apr 1797April 6, 1797 Answers by Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie to the petition of Sir Hector Mackenzie, arguing that the conveyance of his provision was ipso jure null and void due to lack of curator consent
- Mackenzie v. An Inner-House Interlocutor — Petition, 24 Jan 1798January 24, 1798 Petition of Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie v. Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet — Answers, 13 Nov 1798November 13, 1798 Answers by Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet, to the petition of Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie, asserting that the payment made by his factor Norman Mackenzie was valid and not subject to reducti…
