App. to Ans.—Robt
Abstract
Appendix to Answers detailing disputed quantities and pricing of spirits between Robert Willis and Philip Taylor, with calculated differences in charges and measurements.
Daniel Taylor v. Robert Willis — Answers, 5 Jan 1813
Abstract
Respondents answer petition alleging misrepresentation of account, asserting full accuracy and prior creditor acceptance of debt terms.
Daniel Taylor v. Robert Willis and John Willis — Answers, 5 Jan 1813
Abstract
Respondents answer petition alleging misrepresentation of account, asserting accurate records and prior creditor acceptance of debt terms.
Robert Willis v. Daniel Taylor — Answers
Abstract
Answers by Robert Willis to the condescendence for Mr Daniel Taylor, Writer in Edinburgh, responding to allegations of deficient spirits and unreturned casks.
ANS.—ROBERT WILLIS, TO THE PET.—DANIEL TAYLOR. D. Maclean, W. S. Agent for Respe. Party, Agent for Petr. Mr FERRIER, Clerk. ANSWERS FOR ROBERT WILLIS; TO THE PETITION of DANIEL TAY
Abstract
Answers by Robert Willis to the petition of Daniel Taylor, Writer in Edinburgh, responding to the Court's interlocutor of June 13, 1811, which ordered him to answer a condescendence on facts relating to spirit trade practices.
Robert Willis and John Willis v. Daniel Taylor — Memorial, 3 Dec 1811
Abstract
Memorial of Robert Willis, late Merchant in Leith, now in Jamaica, and John Willis, his Attorney, Pursuers, arguing that Daniel Taylor's petition against their interlocutor is incompetent
Daniel Taylor v. Robert Willis — Memorial, 19 Dec 1811
Abstract
Memorial of Dan. Taylor, arguing that the Court should reconsider its interlocutor against him in a debt dispute with Robert Willis, where the petitioner's petition was properly lodged and marked despite irregular distribution of copies.
Reclaiming Petition — July 23, 1811. Pet.—Daniel Taylor against Inner-House Interlocutor
Abstract
Daniel Taylor, brother’s cautioner, opposes an interlocutor ordering him to pay Robert Willis’s claimed expenses, asserting the debt was settled and the costs are excessive and unjust.
Daniel Taylor v. Robert Willis — Answers, 13 Feb 1812 [2]
Abstract
Respondent Robert Willis answers petition by Daniel Taylor seeking to resume merits consideration after procedural rulings on condescendence and expenses.
