Date10 Feb 1796TypeRepliesCaseProctor v. CarnegyLength11 pagesRepositoryUniversity of Virginia Law Library (Special Collections)ContainerUVALL Box 12 Abstract AI-generated February 11, 1796 Information of the complainer, arguing that the commission by Lord Strathmore was not an essential part of the claimant's title and that the sasine was complete in law. ← Carnegie — Answers, 2 Feb 17963 of 6 in this casePatrick Proctor v. Sir David Carnegie — Duplies, 25 Feb 1796 →People in this documentMr. Haldane, of GleneaglesCaptain James Moodie, of MelsetterSubjectsAdjudicationSuccessionSasineTitleEvidenceDispositionMala FidesAct of ParliamentPlaces mentionedEdinburghPerthGleneaglesDurham