First page of the earliest case documentFirst page — click to view
1794

Alexander Wylie pursued Johnstone and Jardine regarding a bill whose date had been altered, contending that the change did not vitiate the instrument and that the defenders were not present at Langholm when the alteration was made. The respondents denied fraud, asserting that the date had been modified only after they had signed the bill, and they challenged the credibility of the witnesses upon whom Wylie relied.AI-generated

Documents in this case (2)

  • Wylie — Petition, 4 Sep 1794
    September 4, 1794 Information of Alexander Wylie, arguing that the bill in question was not vitiated by alteration of date, and that the suspenders were not present at Langholm when the alteration was made.
  • Johnstone — Answers, 4 Dec 1794
    Respondents deny fraud, asserting date alteration occurred after their signatures and that petitioner’s reliance on untrustworthy witnesses undermines his claim.