Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff — Petition, 29 May 1792
Abstract
May 29, 1792 Petition of the Heritors of Crieff, asking the Court to alter an Inner-house interlocutor
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff — Answers, 21 Jun 1792
Abstract
James Gentle, Edinburgh writer, responds to church cost claims by Crieff heritors, seeking bond exoneration due to unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778.
Colonel Patrick Duff v. William Rose — Duplies, 8 Mar 1796
Abstract
March 8, 1796: Respondent denies complainer’s claim to include Newton and Gauldwall under 'Gaval and others' in trust-oath, arguing qualification is nominal and fictitious.
Mr. Rose of Balivat v. Colonel Duff of Carnousie — Copy, 4 Mar 1796
Abstract
March 4, 1796 Petition and Complaint of Mr. Rose of Balivat, asking the Court to homologate and discharge a reversion granted by the Earl of Fife in 1790
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff — Duplies, 26 Apr 1792
Abstract
April 26, 1792 Duplies of Sir William Murray of Ochtertyre, Bart. and others, Heritors or Feuars of the Parish of Crieff, responding to the Replies for James Gentle Writer in Edinburgh.
William Rose v. Colonel Patrick Duff — Replies, 2 Mar 1796
Abstract
Replies for William Rose of Ballivat, Esq. to the Answers for Colonel Patrick Duff of Carnousie, arguing that the answers are designed to prejudice the Court against his titles rather than address the substance of the complaint.
James Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff — Replies, 12 Apr 1792
Abstract
April 1792: James Gentle replies to Crieff heritors, disputing their claims based on mistaken understanding and prior consent.
William Rose v. Patrick Duff — Answers, 25 Feb 1796
Abstract
February 25, 1796 Answers by Colonel Patrick Duff to the petition and complaint of William Rose, asserting that Rose cannot remain enrolled as freeholder of Newton and Easter Gauldwall due to his refusal to swear oath on those lands.
James Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff — Answers, 1 Mar 1792
Abstract
March 1, 1792 Answers by the Heritors of Crieff to the petition of James Gentle, responding that the loss from the church contract is his own and not theirs.
