Date4 Feb 1796TypeRepliesCaseCarnegy v. GardyneLength15 pagesRepositoryUniversity of Virginia Law Library (Special Collections)ContainerUVALL Box 12MarginaliaYes Abstract AI-generated February 4, 1796 Information of the complainer, arguing that the sasine 1789 is invalid as it proceeds upon an exhausted precept and that extraneous evidence was not improperly introduced. View larger map →← James Lindsay Carnegie v. Charles Gardyne — Answers, 2 Feb 17965 of 8 in this caseJames Lindsay Carnegy v. Charles Gardyne — Replies, 10 Feb 1796 →People in this documentSir James Fergusson, of Kilkerran, Lord Kilkerran✳SubjectsSasine✳Deed✳Tack✳Infeftment✳Reduction✳Forgery✳Charter✳Disposition✳Places mentionedAyr✳Edinburgh✳Banff✳Spynie✳Cromarty✳