Date20 Feb 1777TypeAnswersCaseElliot v. M'KayAuthorSir David Rae, Lord Eskgrove, 1st BaronetLength21 pagesRepositoryUniversity of Virginia Law Library (Special Collections)ContainerUVALL Box 04Appendix1 item Abstract February 20, 1777 Answers for Hugh Mackay to the petition of David Elliot, arguing that compensation for the bill should be upheld as proponable. ← Elliot v. M'Kay — Petition, 28 Jan 17772 of 2 in this casePeople in this documentAlexander Boswell, Lord AuchinleckSir David Rae, Lord Eskgrove, 1st BaronetSir James Mackenzie, of Royston, Lord RoystonSubjectsDebtAdjudicationBill of ExchangePrivilegePrescriptionAssignmentCompensationAssignationPlaces mentionedGlasgowIslayBowmore