Robert Hill v. Trustees of the deceased Thomas Dewar — Answers, 4 Jun 1823
Abstract
Respondents dispute petitioner’s claim to future litigation costs, contending the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor only covers past expenses.
Misses Grizel and Helen Leslie v. Dr Gavin Gibb, and Others, Trustees of the late James M'Indoe, and John Morison of Craigend — Answers, 12 Nov 1825
Abstract
Respondents, including Dr Gavin Gibb, assert their heritable security, confirmed first, must prevail over later claims despite petitioners' objections.
APP. to PET.—MISSES LESLIE, AGAINST JAMES MACINDOE, &c. W. & A. G. Ellis, W. S. Petitioners' Agent. Mr MACKENZIE, Clerk. APPENDIX TO PETITION OF Misses LESLIE. EXCERPT from PRECEPT
Abstract
Petitioners request the Lords to order printing and delivery of sasine documents challenging James Macindoe’s title to land.
John Tainsh v. Hugh James Rollo — Answers, 17 May 1824 [2]
Abstract
Respondent defends payment of £200 by petitioner (son of deceased banker) to estate, asserting it settled existing debt and was made in continuation of father’s agency role.
Petition — John Tainsh against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
Abstract
Petition of John Tainsh asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against him in an action concerning a £200 payment made to Mr Hugh James Rollo, W.S., under a draft dated April 30, 1821.
Messrs Gillow & Company v. Charles Montolieu Burges — Answers, 4 Sep 1825
Abstract
Respondent claims jurisdiction is improper, arguing suit should have been brought in England where his domicile and property lie.
Petition — Messrs. Gillow & Company and Mandatories against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
Abstract
Petition of Messrs. Gillow and Company, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
Petition — Intp. Pet.—Alex. Cowan against John Spence, Trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of Nasmyth, Pollock, & Co
Abstract
Petition of Alexander Cowan asking the Court to authorize the sale of machinery at Melville Mill and consign proceeds to the party ultimately entitled
John Spence v. Alexander Cowan — Answers, 8 Apr 1824
Abstract
Respondent seeks return of machinery delivered under sub-lease to bankrupts, arguing it remains his property despite sequestration and trustee’s refusal to adopt lease.
APPENDIX. No I. SUBTACK and CONVEYANCE, by ALEXANDER COWAN, TO ALEXANDER NASMYTH and COMPANY.
Abstract
Cowan sub-tacks Melville Mill property and machinery to Nasmyth & Co. for 7.5 years, with machinery remaining Cowan’s until paid for, repairs by Nasmyth, and court orders division/valuation excluding undelivered items.
