Date7 Jun 1793TypePetitionCasePringle v. HamiltonLength11 pagesRepositoryUniversity of Virginia Law Library (Special Collections)ContainerUVALL Box 10MarginaliaYes Abstract AI-generated June 7, 1793 Information of the petitioners, arguing that the suspender is liable despite the bill not being duly negotiated, and that the defence of prescription is inapplicable. View larger map →1 of 3 in this caseMrs. Joanna Pringle, Alexander Pringle and Thomas Hay v. Colonel Archibald Hamilton — Answers, 5 Sep 1793 →People in this documentAlexander Lockhart, Lord Covington✳Archibald Tod, W.S., of Drygrange✳Alexander Hay, of Mordington✳SubjectsDebt✳Aliment✳Bill of Exchange✳Prescription✳Trustee✳Oath✳Creditor✳Interest✳Places mentionedCovington✳Mordington✳Edinburgh✳London✳