1796
ArrestmentCreditorContractDebtBankruptcyHeritorWilliam Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Swinton concerning their claim to payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default under a contract for church construction. David Monypenny, appearing for the respondent Nicol, submitted a memorial arguing that Nicol was entitled to preference over the petitioners in recovering payment for timber supplied under the contract.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- Petition — William Grant against Lord Swinton's InterlocutorMarch 8, 1796 Petition of William Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant asking the Court to alter Lord Swinton's interlocutor regarding payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default
- William Grant, Daniel Grant and Alexander Grant v. John Nicol — Answers, 26 May 1796May 26, 1796 Memorial of David Monypenny, arguing that the respondent is entitled to preference over the petitioners in the recovery of timber supplied under a contract for church construction.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Alexander Falconer — Party
Places
- Urquhart (principal)
