LC Volume 03

Documents in this case (38)

• John Robertson and others v. Archibald Macgown — Proof, 15 Jun 1804 [2]

  June 15, 1804 Proof in process, Mess. J. Robertson, &c. Feuers and Inhabitants of Tradestown, against The Trades House of Glasgow, &c., stating their compearance in name of their Factor.
• Benjamin Mathie v. John Roberton, Andrew Wilson, Robert Halley, William Bogle, and others — Memorial, 17 Sep 1807

  September 17, 1807 Memorial of Benjamin Mathie, factor for the Trades-house of Glasgow, arguing that his constituents are entitled to inclose and use the disputed ground as a walking-green
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 26 Jan 1808 [2]

  January 26, 1808 Petition of Benjamin Mathie, Writer in Glasgow, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• James Robertson v. Margaret, Jean, and Agnes Robertson — Answers, 2 Feb 1809 [3]

  February 2, 1809 Answers by Margaret, Jean, and Agnes Robertson, Cowfeeders in Glasgow, to the petition of James Robertson, designed Cowfeeder there, responding to the petitioner's claim to property and possession.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 16 Jan 1810 [2]

  January 16, 1810 Petition of Poor May or Marjory Murray, relict of John Hall, asking the Court to alter Lord Craig's interlocutor in actions for reduction and damages for wrongful imprisonment.
• Christian Bisset v. Marjory Murray — Answers, 27 Nov 1810

  November 27, 1810 Answers by Christian Bisset, Widow of John Crombie, and Catharine Crombie, to the condescendence for Poor May or Marjory Murray, asserting that the Respondents are entirely free from charge of oppressi…
• Poor Marjory Murray v. Christian Bisset — Answers, 28 Feb 1810

  February 28, 1810 Answers by Christian Bisset, widow of John Crombie, and Catherine Crombie, his wife, responding to the petition that they be compelled to execute a conveyance under the decree-arbitral
• Poor May or Marjory Murray v. Christian Bisset, Catherine Crombie, and Thomas Thomson — Condescendence, 23 Jun 1810

  Poor May Murray sues Christian Bisset, Catherine Crombie, etc., for wrongful imprisonment and patrimonial loss under 1701 Act, seeking 246l. 17s. 10d.
• William Connar, Henry Sheats, and John Evret v. George John Bernard — Information, 18 Dec 1810

  December 18, 1810 Information of George John Bernard, of the City and State of New York, Merchant and Ship owner, arguing that foreign seamen cannot maintain action for wages against their master before this Court
• David Paterson and Others v. John Pollock — Bill of Suspension, 19 Dec 1810 [2]

  Dec 19, 1810: David Paterson, Esq., et al. vs. John Pollock, Esq., seeking to suspend a horning charge for a bill allegedly accepted by Paterson but executed by his son under an invalid procuration.
• David Paterson v. John Pollock — Answers, 20 Dec 1810 [3]

  December 20, 1810 Answers by John Pollock, Esq; as Manager for the Commercial Banking Company of Scotland, to the bill of suspension for David Paterson, Esq; of Cofterton, Mr John Manderston, his Tutor ad litem, and Oth…
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 3 Jan 1811 [2]

  January 3, 1811 Petition of John Brown, Builder in Edinburgh, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• John Pollock v. David Paterson — Answers, 9 Jan 1811 [2]

  January 9, 1811 Answers by David Paterson, Esq. of Costerton, and Charles Steuart, his Curator bonis, to the petition of sequestration presented in name of John Pollock, Esq.
• John Pollock v. David Paterson — Replies, 1 Feb 1811

  Feb 1, 1811: John Pollock, as creditor manager, defends transactions under David Paterson’s authority, asserting public trust and intact credit until stop payment.
• William Dixon v. Thomas Edington and Sons, and others. — Bill of Advocation, 16 Feb 1811

  Feb 16, 1811: William Dixon’s bill against Edington & Sons seeks court advocacy against a sheriff’s final interlocutor over seized pig-iron.
• David Paterson v. John Pollock — Duplies, 21 Feb 1811 [2]

  Petitioners seek to enforce a procuration against David Paterson’s estate, claiming ignorance of his insanity; respondents deny this, asserting creditors knew of his incapacity and lacked bona fides.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 5 Mar 1811 [2]

  March 5, 1811 Petition of John Pollock, as Manager for the Commercial Banking Company of Scotland, and others, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• Dunlop, Hamilton, and Company v. John Laurie — Answers, 6 May 1811

  May 6, 1811 Answers by Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton, & Co and Hercules Scott and James Crocket Robertson to the petition of John Laurie, Esq., arguing that the sequestration should not be recalled as the firms are one compan…
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 1 Jun 1811
• John Lawrie v. Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton, & Company, and Hercules Scott & Company, and others — Replies, 1 Jun 1811

  June 1, 1811 Replies for John Lawrie, Esq. to the Answers of Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton, & Company, and Hercules Scott & Company, arguing that Scheviz, Robertson, & Co. is a separate concern from Hercules Scott & Co.
• John Lawrie v. Dunlop, Hamilton, and Co., Hercules Scott, James Crocket Robertson, and Scheviz, Robertson, and Co. — Duplies, 22 Jun 1811

  June 22, 1811 Duplies of Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton & Co. to the respondent John Lawrie, Esq., arguing that the sequestration should not be recalled and that the companies are one in unity.
• William Mylne v. Charles Ferrier — Information, 16 Nov 1811 [2]

  November 16, 1811 Information of William Mylne, Merchant in Leith, arguing that he is eligible to be trustee on David Paterson's sequestrated estate despite Charles Ferrier's objections.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 19 Nov 1811 [2]

  James Miller, Craigend distiller, petitions Nov. 19, 1811, to overturn Lord Balmuto’s refusal of his advocation bill, citing temporary absence to England, caution de judicio sisti, and lease terms permitting manager app…
• Charles Ferrier v. William Mylne — Information, 27 Nov 1811 [2]

  November 27, 1811 Information of Charles Ferrier, Accountant in Edinburgh, arguing that Mr Mylne is not entitled to manage the procuration funds of David Paterson as trustee.
• LC Volume 03 — Information, 27 Nov 1811 [2]

  November 27, 1811 Information of James Inglis, Banker in Edinburgh, arguing that his election as trustee on David Paterson's sequestrated estate is valid under the succession mandate.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 6 Dec 1811 [2]

  December 6, 1811 Petition of James Miller asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 2 Jan 1812 [4]

  January 2, 1812 Petition of William Mylne, merchant in Leith, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 2 Jan 1812 [6]

  January 2, 1812 Petition of creditors and the Bank of England, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor refusing confirmation of Charles Ferrier as trustee on David Paterson's sequestrated estate
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 2 Jan 1812 [5]

  January 2, 1812 Petition of David Paterson, Esquire, and Charles Steuart, Writer to the Signet, asking the Court to alter an inner-house interlocutor
• Alexander Buchanan v. Mrs. Isabella Lowis and Ninian Lowis — Bill of Advocation, 24 Jan 1812 [2]

  January 24, 1812 Bill of Advocation by Alexander Buchanan, trustee, against Mrs. Isabella Lowis and Ninian Lowis, asserting the Court should remit the interlocutor's decree regarding dung and repairs on leased lands.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 29 Jan 1812 [2]

  January 29, 1812 Petition of Alexander Livingston, Esq; asking the Court to alter Lord Craigie's interlocutor
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 14 Nov 1812 [2]

  November 14, 1812 Petition of William Sibbald and Company, Merchants in Leith, asking the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Bannatyne
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 9 Dec 1812 [2]

  December 9, 1812 Petition of Alexander M'Whann and William Ireland asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• John Wilkinson v. Alexander M'Whann — Answers, 5 Jan 1813 [2]

  Respondents answer petition challenging jurisdiction and partner status, asserting death of original partner dissolved the company and action is valid here.
• James Campbell v. John Dougall — Answers, 5 Jan 1813 [2]

  John Dougall, gardener, defends a 19-year lease from 1801, citing oral agreement, landlord’s agent’s scroll, and tenant’s reliance, against landlord’s removal deemed unjust and contrary to lease terms.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 5 Feb 1813 [2]

  February 5, 1813 Petition of William Daniel Arthur Frank, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
• Kirkman Finlay and Others v. William Sibbald and Company — Answers, 12 Feb 1813

  Feb 12, 1813: Kirkman Finlay et al. reply to William Sibbald’s petition, asserting seizure occurred within Wolgast port, thus covered by warranty and excluded from liability.
• LC Volume 03 — Petition, 8 Apr 1813 [2]

  April 8, 1813 Petition of William Sibbald and Company, Merchants in Leith, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor