1796–1797
Thomas Purves of Lochend pursued Robert Gentle regarding obligations under a lease, particularly the repair of houses and fences. Gentle petitioned the Court to alter Lord Polkemmet's interlocutor, but Purves answered that Gentle had expressly accepted all obligations of the original lease, and James Murie, tenant in Kingseat, answered regarding the rebuilding of dikes to make fences fencible. Purves subsequently petitioned to alter a further interlocutor, and Gentle answered, denying that he was bound by implied obligations and asserting that Purves misrepresented the lease terms.AI-generated
Documents in this case (5)
- Purves v. Gentle — Petition, 2 Dec 1796December 2, 1796 Petition of Robert Gentle asking the Court to alter Lord Polkemmet's interlocutor
- Robert Gentle v. Thomas Purves — Answers, 20 Jan 1797January 20, 1797 Answers by Thomas Purves of Lochend to the petition of Robert Gentle, asserting that the petitioner expressly accepted all obligations of the original lease, including repair of houses and fences.
- Thomas Purves v. James Murie — Answers, 8 Feb 1797February 8, 1797 Answers by James Murie, Tenant in Kingseat, to the petition of Thomas Purves of Lochend, responding to the claim that dikes must be rebuilt to make fences fencible.
- Purves — Petition, 4 Jul 1797July 4, 1797 Petition of Thomas Purves asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Thomas Purves v. Robert Gentle — Answers, 7 Sep 1797September 7, 1797 Answers by Robert Gentle to the petition of Thomas Purves, arguing that the petitioner misrepresents the terms of the lease and the respondent was not bound by implied obligations.
