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. 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 CovingtonArchibald Tod, W.S., of DrygrangeAlexander Hay, of MordingtonSubjectsDebtAlimentBill of ExchangePrescriptionTrusteeOathCreditorInterestPlaces mentionedCovingtonMordingtonEdinburghLondon