1788
Gavin Young, merchant in London, pursued Robert Armour, merchant in Kilmarnock, claiming that Armour had incurred liability under the second obligation of a bond of presentation by breaching the first obligation through the obtaining of a bill of suspension prior to presentation. Armour defended that he had fairly fulfilled the bond, arguing that the suspension was ineffectual and had been obtained by Hugh Ferguson without his knowledge.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- Gavin Young v. Robert Armour — Information, 1 Jan 1788Information of Gavin Young, Merchant in London, arguing that Robert Armour, Merchant in Kilmarnock, is liable under the second obligation in his bond of presentation, as the first obligation was breached by obtaining a …
- Gavin Young v. Robert Armour — Information, 19 Jan 1788January 19, 1788 Information of Robert Armour, Merchant in Kilmarnock, Defender, arguing that the bond of presentation was fairly implemented and the suspension obtained by Hugh Ferguson was ineffectual
- Gavin Young v. Robert Armour — Information, 19 Jan 1788 [2]Information of Robert Armour, Merchant in Kilmarnock, Defender, arguing that the bond of presentation was fairly fulfilled despite a subsequent Sist of Suspension being obtained without his knowledge.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Robert Armour — Defender
- Gavin Young — Pursuer
