Skip to main content
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • instagram
Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive
SCOS The Scottish Court of Session Papers University of Virginia Law Library
  • Explore
    • Map
    • Browse by County
    • People & Place Network
  • Scholarship
  • About
    • The 2026 Modernization
    • Searching the Archive
    • Computational Methods
  • Search
  • News

Breadcrumb

  1. Home

John Morison v. John Ramsay — Respondents' Case, 7 Dec 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Respondent John Ramsay to file Notes of Pleas and Mutual Cases per Judicature Act within ten days, with printed bundles due ten days later for Second Division hearing.

Andrew Millar v. James Gibson-Craig, Esq. of Riccarton, and Others — Note, 1 Dec 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Andrew Millar seeks to withdraw his petition and complaint against local council members, after having previously disclaimed authority to pursue the matter.

Sir James Montgomery of Stanhope v. Ebenezer Shaw of Drumrash — Respondents' Case, 27 Apr 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Respondents' Case of Ebenezer Shaw of Drumrash, Esq., asserting that the 1662 retour affords legal evidence of the old extent of the lands of Drumrash as a forty shilling-land.

Sir James Montgomery v. Ebenezer Shaw — Complainers' Case, 1826 [2]

Abstract
AI-generated
Complainers' Case of Sir James Montgomery of Stanhope, Baronet, asserting that the respondent's claim to enrolment is unfounded and based on erroneous interpretation of historical retours.

John Menzies v. Sir George Abercromby and Others — Interrogatories, 30 Nov 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Respondents Sir George Abercromby and others, freeholders of Banff, are served with interrogatories in a petition and complaint filed by John Menzies, Esquire of Chesthill.

John Menzies v. Sir George Abercromby and Others — Answers

Abstract
AI-generated
Petition and Complaint of John Menzies, Esquire, of Chesthill, answered by Sir George Abercromby, Baronet, and Others, Freeholders of the County of Banff, denying the validity of his claim to a freehold qualification.

John Morison v. James Earl of Fife — Respondents' Case, 26 Jan 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Respondent seeks to add lands to his freeholder qualification, then restrict it to those lands without losing his roll position, challenging the complainant’s objection that this constitutes a new enrollment.

James Earl of Fife v. John Morison, Esq. — Respondents' Case, 23 Feb 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Respondents challenge a petition for new enrolment as a disguised claim on different lands, arguing Freeholders erred in continuing listing.

John Morison v. James, Earl of Fife — Complainers' Case, 23 Feb 1826 [2]

Abstract
AI-generated
Earl of Fife seeks to add and restrict lands in his freeholder qualification in Banff; Complainer Morison objects it’s a new enrolment, not lawful amendment.

Petition and Complaint — & Compt.—John Morrison, Esq

Abstract
AI-generated
Petitioner challenges Earl of Fife’s claim to add lands to his qualification while restricting inrolment to those lands, arguing it seeks to circumvent his diminished status after granting liferent to another.

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 221
  • Page 222
  • Page 223
  • Page 224
  • Current page 225
  • Page 226
  • Page 227
  • Page 228
  • Page 229
  • …
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
Subscribe to
Home

The Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive is a multi-institutional collaborative initiative featuring Session Papers held by the Arthur J. Morris Law Library at the University of Virginia School of Law, the Library of Congress, and the University of Edinburgh.

The project is made possible with generous investments from the Horatio and Florence Farmer Fund at the University of Virginia School of Law and the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation. 

Support SCOS with a tax deductible gift.

© 2026 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
© 2026 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

User account menu

  • Log in