Petition — James Miller, Esq. against Lord Cringletie's Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
Petition of James Miller asking the Court to alter Lord Cringletie's interlocutor
James Macnab v. James Russel — Answers, 5 Feb 1824 [2]
Abstract
Answers by James Russel, Writer in Falkirk, to the petition and minute for James Macnab, Distiller at Cowie, responding to claims of compensation against the estate of Robert Gillespie.
Petition — James MacNab against Lord Meadowbank's Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
Petitioner seeks review of interlocutors rejecting his compensation plea against pursuer, trustee on sequestrated estate of Falkirk Union Bank partner, based on pre-bankruptcy debts and notes.
Dr John Balmanno v. Duncan M'Nee — Information, 25 Feb 1824 [2]
Abstract
Information of Dr John Balmanno, arguing that the suspender Duncan M'Nee was unjustly favored in dividend distribution and that diligence was lawful to recover bond instalments
Duncan Macnee v. Dr John Balmanno — Condescendence
Abstract
Suspender paid bond debt in installments but claims creditor unlawfully detained him in jail despite full payment and excess funds from co-obligants.
Duncan M'Nee v. Dr John Balmanno — Information, 8 Jan 1824 [2]
Abstract
Information of Duncan M'Nee, Suspender, arguing that the charger's diligence exceeded lawful bounds under the bond and sequestration statute
James Campbell v. Ann Steele — Answers, 16 Dec 1823
Abstract
Respondents defend against petitioner’s repeated claims to retain feu rights, asserting a trust established by Thomson for Mrs. Lang and her family, overriding petitioner’s debt-based objections.
Petition — James Campbell, Esq. against Lord Alloway's Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
Petitioner seeks to overturn interlocutors declaring a trust in favor of Ann Steel and her family over a feu granted to Andrew Thomson, arguing he was unaware of the trust and must be compensated for advances made to Thomson.
DUPLIES FOR Walter Dickson, Writer to the Signet ; TO THE REPLIES for Sir James Colquhoun, of Luss, Baronet.
Abstract
Respondent counters complainer’s shifting claims about liferent rights and mala fides, asserting no splitting occurred and no harm to vassal.
