1831–1832
AlimentDebtArrestmentSecurityExpensesInterlocutorGeorge Binnie, mariner in Greenock, served as suspender against Niel M'Millan, grocer in Cartsdyke, reclaiming against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor which found that no expenses were due to the suspender. M'Millan argued in response that Binnie was not entitled to aliment because he had refused to sign an obligation for peace. The litigation turned on whether a suspender who declined to give security for the peace could recover expenses or maintain a claim for aliment.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- George Binnie v. Neil McMillan — Reclaiming, 29 Feb 1832February 29, 1832 Reclaiming Note by the suspender against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor, asking the Court to alter the finding that no expenses are due to the suspender
- George Binnie v. Niel M'Millan — Appendix, 7 Jun 1832June 7, 1832 Appendix by Niel M'Millan, grocer in Cartsdyke, arguing that George Bennie, mariner in Greenock, is not entitled to aliment due to refusal to sign an obligation for peace
People & places in this case
People involved
- Thomas King, of Drums — Named in case documents
