William Morehead v. Ilay Ferrier — Duplies, 7 Dec 1790
Abstract
Dec 7, 1790: William Morehead replies to Ilay Ferrier, Col. of late Scotch Brigade, challenging false land descriptions in his claim.
Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead — Replies, 23 Nov 1790 [2]
Abstract
November 23, 1790 Replies by Ilay Ferrier, Esq. to the answers for William Morehead, Esq., addressing objections to his liferent infeftment and land valuations.
Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead — Answers, 24 Feb 1791
Abstract
February 24, 1791 Answers by William Morehead of Herbertshire to the petition of Ilay Ferrier, Esq., arguing that the liferent superiorities granted to him are nominal and fictitious, and that his claim is not independent of Sir Archibald Edmonstone's political design.
Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead — Petition, 16 Feb 1791
Abstract
February 16, 1791 Petition of Ilay Ferrier, Esq. asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
Stewart V. Ireland — Petition, 17 Jun 1797
Abstract
June 17, 1797 Petition of Charles Stewart asking the Court to apply the recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses
Stewart V. Ireland — Petition, 15 Feb 1797
Abstract
February 15, 1797 Petition of William Ireland, against the Inner-House interlocutor, asking the Court to alter its finding that the freeholders did wrong in refusing to admit the complainer to the roll.
Charles Stewart v. William Ireland — Duplies, 1 Feb 1797
Abstract
February 1, 1797 Duplies of William Ireland, respondent, to the replies of the Hon. Charles Stewart, complainer, requesting commission and diligence to recover material writings.
Charles Stewart v. William Ireland — Replies, 7 Jan 1797
Abstract
January 7, 1797 Replies by the Honourable Charles Stewart to the Answers for William Ireland, Writer in Kirkcudbright, disputing the Court's rejection of his claim to freeholder status.
Charles Stewart v. William Ireland — Answers, 6 Dec 1796
Abstract
December 6, 1796 Answers by William Ireland to the petition and complaint of Hon. Charles Stewart, arguing that the claimant’s qualification is nominal and fictitious, and that no mandate was produced with his claim.
