1764
The creditors of Robert Deans petitioned the court to review an interlocutor affecting the interest of Dr. James Pringle, physician in Richmond, who answered their objections. Andrew Chalmer, writer in Edinburgh, acting in right of the deceased Alexander Deans and his creditors, then petitioned to remit an accusation by Pringle that Chalmer had charged sums intromitted by Thomas Mackenzie to Mrs Campbell and again to the respondent. Pringle defended his statements in duplies and a reply, maintaining their accuracy and urging private clarification over public complaint.AI-generated
Documents in this case (5)
- Creditors of Robert Deans v. Dr. James Pringle — Petition, 11 Jul 1764July 11, 1764: Creditors petition court to review interlocutor affecting Dr. James Pringle’s interest.
- Creditors of the deceased Robert Deans v. Dr James Pringle — Answers, 8 Aug 1764August 8, 1764 Answers by Dr James Pringle physician in Richmond to the petition of the creditors of the deceased Robert Deans, responding to objections raised against his interest.
- Creditors of Robert Deans v. Dr. James Pringle — Petition, 1 Oct 1764October 1, 1764 Petition of Andrew Chalmer asking the Court to remit the accusation against him made by Dr James Pringle, that he charged sums intromitted with by Mr Thomas Mackenzie to Mrs Campbell and then again to th…
- Dr James Pringle v. Mr Andrew Chalmer — Duplies, 28 Nov 1764November 28, 1764 Duplies for Dr James Pringle physician in Richmond, to the Replies for Mr Andrew Chalmer writer in Edinburgh, as in right of the deceased Alexander Deans, and his creditors.
- Andrew Chalmer v. James Pringle — Answers, 29 Nov 1764Dr James Pringle’s Nov 29, 1764 reply to Andrew Chalmer’s petition, defending his prior paper’s legal statements as accurate, not injurious, and urging private clarification over public complaint.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Dr. James Pringle — Defender
- Robert Deans
