APPENDIX.
Abstract
Account of legal expenses and loans between Mr. Adam Tod, Mr. William Halkerston, and David Jameson, including petitions, witness summoning, and dispositions, with sheriff-substitute certification.
Elizabeth Anderson alias Halkerstone, Janet Halkerstone and Katherine Halkerstone v. Robert Ready and Robert Low — Answers, 29 Jan 1817
Abstract
Respondents defend a bill of debt by asserting the debtor's inability to pay and creditor's forbearance, challenging petitioners' presumption of payment.
Petition — Robert Ready of Netherhall, and Robert Low of Brackly, Surviving Trustees of the deceased Adam Tod of Kinross Mill against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
Abstract
Petitioners challenge Lord Pitmilly's interlocutor rejecting their defense that a 1803 bill was extinguished via payment or prescription, citing evidence of its custody by Tod’s agent and Halkerston’s silence.
William Eaton and Others v. John Gordon and Others — Answers, 5 Sep 1816
Abstract
Respondents answer petitioners' claim that the ship Hope was lost due to negligence, asserting the vessel was properly navigated and insured, and that the grounding was due to perilous currents beyond control.
Robert Ready and Robert Low v. Mrs. Elizabeth Anderson, alias Halkerstone, Janet Halkerstone and Katherine Halkerstone — Answers, 29 Jan 1817
Abstract
Respondents defend a bill of debt by asserting the debtor's inability to pay and creditor's forbearance, challenging petitioners' presumption of payment.
Petition — John Gordon. & Others against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
Abstract
Petition of John Gordon and others asking the Court to overturn Lord Pitmilly's interlocutor in a process involving the ship Hope of Ayr and the burden of proof in insurance abandonment.
William Penney and George Lothian and Company, and Messrs Ewing, Miller, and Company v. William Bennett — Duplies, 12 May 1817
Abstract
Respondent opposes recalling sequestration of Joseph T. Crawford’s Lisbon firm, asserting it was a dissolved branch of the insolvent Port-Glasgow concern, not a separate entity.
APPENDIX.
Abstract
Partners of Jos. T. Crawford and Co. inform creditors of cessation and refer business to Stephen R. Crawford and Co., while other parties dispute sequestration validity.
Replies — Rep.—William Penney to Ans.—William Bennet
Abstract
Petitioners seek recall of sequestration against Joseph T. Crawford & Co. of Lisbon, claiming it’s a distinct entity not liable under Scottish law.
William Penney and George Lothian and Company v. William Bennett — Answers, 10 Jun 1816
Abstract
William Bennett, trustee of sequestrated Crawford branches, defends sequestration as lawful and necessary to unify funds across Lisbon, Newfoundland, and Port-Glasgow branches under James Crawford’s management.
