1783–1785
William Palmer, as charger, pursued Charles Hutton, as suspender, over the lawfulness of a vessel purchase and whether Palmer’s claim for recompence was barred. Hutton answered in 1783 that the purchase was lawful and the claim not barred, and after the court found the vessel property remained with Palmer and refused Alexander Abercromby’s petition for suspension, Abercromby petitioned in 1785 to have that interlocutor altered.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- William Palmer v. Charles Hutton — Answers, 6 Aug 1783August 6, 1783 Answer by the suspender to the petition of the charger, arguing that the purchase of the vessel was lawful and that the claim for recompence is not barred by the circumstances of the case.
- William Palmer v. Charles Hutton — Petition, 25 Feb 1785February 25, 1785 Petition of Alex Abercromby asking the Court to alter its interlocutor against him, which had found the property of the vessel still entitled to the charger and refused his petition for suspension
