AI-generated

January 9, 1811 Answers by David Paterson, Esq. of Costerton, and Charles Steuart, his Curator bonis, to the petition of sequestration presented in name of John Pollock, Esq.

AI-generated

June 22, 1811 Duplies of Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton & Co. to the respondent John Lawrie, Esq., arguing that the sequestration should not be recalled and that the companies are one in unity.

AI-generated

June 1, 1811 Replies for John Lawrie, Esq. to the Answers of Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton, & Company, and Hercules Scott & Company, arguing that Scheviz, Robertson, & Co. is a separate concern from Hercules Scott & Co.

AI-generated

May 6, 1811 Answers by Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton, & Co and Hercules Scott and James Crocket Robertson to the petition of John Laurie, Esq., arguing that the sequestration should not be recalled as the firms are one company and no preference was obtained.

AI-generated

December 20, 1810 Answers by John Pollock, Esq; as Manager for the Commercial Banking Company of Scotland, to the bill of suspension for David Paterson, Esq; of Cofterton, Mr John Manderston, his Tutor ad litem, and Others.

AI-generated

Dec 19, 1810: David Paterson, Esq., et al. vs. John Pollock, Esq., seeking to suspend a horning charge for a bill allegedly accepted by Paterson but executed by his son under an invalid procuration.

AI-generated

Feb 16, 1811: William Dixon’s bill against Edington & Sons seeks court advocacy against a sheriff’s final interlocutor over seized pig-iron.

AI-generated

January 3, 1811 Petition of John Brown, Builder in Edinburgh, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor

AI-generated

November 27, 1810 Answers by Christian Bisset, Widow of John Crombie, and Catharine Crombie, to the condescendence for Poor May or Marjory Murray, asserting that the Respondents are entirely free from charge of oppression and that damages should be nominal.