Ballantine and Company v. Brown — 4 Jul 1791
Abstract
Pursuers allege overcharging on a 1789 drug invoice, citing witness testimony and pricing; defenders say charges were market-appropriate for small quantities.
Reclaiming Petition — Archibald Brown against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Abstract
Archibald Brown challenges an interlocutor finding him liable for overcharged goods from London druggists, claiming he returned them and that loss resulted from pursuers’ negligence.
Petition — John Laurie against Lord Henderland and Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor of the
Abstract
John Laurie petitions to reverse an interlocutor finding him liable for expenses after a bill of suspension was passed in his favor, arguing the award is legally invalid and procedurally unjust.
Simon Berard v. Robert Hunter — Information, 16 May 1793
Abstract
Information of Simon Berard and Alexander Young, arguing that Messrs Berard, Brothers and Company were not bound to insure goods on the Carnatic for Mr. Hunter, as no such obligation existed under their agreement.
Simon Berard v. Robert Hunter, Esq. — Information, 16 May 1793
Abstract
Information of Simon Berard, arguing that Robert Hunter, Esq. of Campie, is liable for debts incurred during his time as a merchant in Bengal
John Sheriff v. John Foreman — Memorial, 25 Jan 1793
Abstract
John Sheriff, farmer at Samuelton, defends against trespass and damage claims, asserting cattle entered via an open gate and damages of £40 are excessive and unjustified.
Reclaiming Petition — Margaret Mark against an Interlocutor of Lord Stonefield
Abstract
Margaret Mark seeks to overturn an interlocutor finding her guilty of adultery and ordering divorce, based on a disputed prior marriage claim by John Shirrah.
William Gillespie v. Adeliza Hussey and Charles Bogle — Answers, 28 Apr 1791
Abstract
Answers by Adeliza Hussey and Charles Bogle, Esq. her Husband, to the petition of William Gillespie, Manufacturer in Anderstoun, responding to his claim over lands and rents at Broomielaw.
Mrs Susanna Vere alias Ogilvie v. Thomas Earl of Hyndford and others — Answers, 23 Jun 1791 [2]
Abstract
Mrs. Susanna Vere, widow and sine qua non tutor, insists her consent is legally required for Daniel Vere’s guardianship, opposing petitioners seeking authority without her approval.
