First page of the earliest case documentFirst page — click to view
1781

Thomson challenged the validity of an inhibition execution by Paterson, arguing that the execution's failure to state that witnesses were present at the time of execution rendered it void. Adam Ogilvie subsequently presented information advancing similar arguments that the respondent's inhibition execution lacked legal validity due to the absence of witness attestation to their presence. The dispute turned on whether this procedural defect invalidated the inhibition.AI-generated

Documents in this case (2)

  • Thomson — Petition, 26 Jan 1781
    January 26, 1781 Information of the petitioner, arguing that the execution of the inhibition fails to state that witnesses were present at the time of execution, rendering it void.
  • James Thomson v. John Paterson — Answers, 14 Feb 1781
    February 14, 1781 Information of Adam Ogilvie, arguing that the respondent's inhibition execution lacks legal validity due to absence of witness attestation to presence at execution

Similar cases