Alexander Duff of Echt v. James Brodie of Brodie, Alexander Penrose-Cumming of Altyre, Hugh Grant of Moy, John Gordon of Grievehop, John Innes of Leuchars and Francis Russell of Westfield — Answers, 12 May 1792
Abstract
May 1792: Esquires Brodie, Cumming, Grant, Gordon, Innes, Russell answer petition of Alexander Duff, asserting prior objections were legally distinct and res judicata inapplicable.
Thomas Condie v. The Principal and Professors of the United College of St Andrews — Memorial, 17 May 1796
Abstract
Pursuer Thomas Condie seeks valuation of Strowie and Pitquhanatrie teinds against St Andrews College, disputing defenders’ higher valuations based on hypothetical grass cultivation unsuitable to local conditions.
Condie of Strowie v. Principal and Masters of the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, in St. Andrews — Memorial, 21 Jun 1796
Abstract
June 21, 1796 Memorial of the Principal and Masters of the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, arguing that the value of the teinds of the lands libelled should be set at 99l. Sterling per annum
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres — Petitionand Complaint, 17 Jan 1792
Abstract
January 17, 1792 Petition of the Honourable Alexander Duff asking the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres
Messrs. William Wilson and Company v. John Scott — Information, 12 Oct 1795
Abstract
October 12, 1795 Information of John Scott Carrier, arguing that as a carrier only between Glasgow and Manchester he is not liable for delivery to London
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres — Petition, 31 Jan 1792
Abstract
January 31, 1792 Petition of Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
William Wilson and Company v. John Scott — Proof, 3 Sep 1795
Abstract
September 3, 1795 Proof adduced for both parties in causa William Wilson and Company, manufacturers in Glasgow, pursuers; against John Scott, carrier betwixt Glasgow and Carlisle, defender.
William Wilson and Company v. John Scott — Information, 3 Jun 1796
Abstract
June 3, 1796 Information of William Wilson & Co., arguing that the defender John Scott is responsible for the safe delivery of goods to London within sixteen days
