1793–1794
PrescriptionBill of ExchangeDebtOathActionAssignationPringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- Pringle — Petition, 7 Jun 1793June 7, 1793 Information of the petitioners, arguing that the suspender is liable despite the bill not being duly negotiated, and that the defence of prescription is inapplicable.
- Mrs. Joanna Pringle, Alexander Pringle and Thomas Hay v. Colonel Archibald Hamilton — Answers, 5 Sep 1793September 5, 1793 Answer by David Cathcart to the petitioners' claim that he owes payment on a bill drawn by him in 1762, asserting that the debt was paid by his father and that he had no notice or obligation to pay
- Pringle v. Hamilton — Petition, 25 Feb 1794February 25, 1794 Petition of Archibald Hamilton asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
People & places in this case
People involved
- Alexander Hay, of Mordington — Party
- Thomas Hay — Party
- Matthew Simpson — Party
- Archibald Tod, W.S., of Drygrange — Advocate for Party
- Alexander Lockhart, Lord Covington — Lord Ordinary
