Skip to main content
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • instagram
Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive
SCOS The Scottish Court of Session Papers University of Virginia Law Library
  • Explore
    • Map
    • Browse by County
    • People & Place Network
  • Scholarship
  • About
    • The 2026 Modernization
    • Searching the Archive
    • Computational Methods
  • Search
  • News

Breadcrumb

  1. Home

Dugald Campbell v. James Stevenson, Hugh Price, and James Alexander — Condescendence, 15 Nov 1828

Abstract
AI-generated
Pursuer claims unpaid wages for managing a steam-packet, supported by defenders' admissions of faithful service and partial payment.

Dugald Campbell v. Hugh Price; James Stevenson; James Alexander — Replies, 1827

Abstract
AI-generated
Campbell sues George Canning steam-packet owners for unpaid wages £14.2s.11½d. for command and caretaker duties while vessel lay up in dock.

Dugald Campbell v. Hugh Price, James Stevenson, and James Alexander — Bill of Advocation, 1830

Abstract
AI-generated
Dugald Campbell seeks court to alter interlocutor absolving defenders and awarding him expenses, citing his service and witnesses.

John Nairn, S.S.C. Petitioners' Agent. James Bennett, W.S. Advocator's Agent. Sir Robert Dundas, Clerk. RECL. NOTE—HUGH PRICE AND OTHERS, AGAINST LORD COREHOUSE'S INTERLOCUTOR. REC

Abstract
AI-generated
Hugh Price and others reclaim against Lord Corehouse's interlocutor, seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred while managing the George Canning steam-packet, including payment for a boy’s upkeep and 11s. 6d. spent on the vessel.

John Richard v. The Hon. B. Cochrane's Trustees — Answers, 4 Jan 1831

Abstract
AI-generated
Petitioner seeks commissioners to grant infeftment in Auchterarder burgage land, citing historical precedent; respondents oppose, claiming title vested in them and burgh privileges are extinct.

John Stewart v. Alexander M'Ra — Minute, 17 Dec 1830 [2]

Abstract
AI-generated
Defender claims an execution appended without party names or summons details violates statute 1672 c.6, making the action dismissable.

John Boyd v. Alexander Napier — Reclaiming Note, 29 Jun 1830

Abstract
AI-generated
Reclaiming Note for John Boyd, fruiterer in Edinburgh, against Alexander Napier, agent in Glasgow, asking the Court to alter an interlocutor finding no expenses due to the suspender.

Alexander Napier v. Turner and Boyd — Bill of Suspension, 6 Feb 1826

Abstract
AI-generated
Napier’s agent seeks suspension of a £30 bill, claiming it was paid via a £34 acceptance from Forrester, and that Boyd’s charge is unjust.

Napier v. Turner & Boyd — Bill of Suspension, 6 Feb 1826 [2]

Abstract
AI-generated
Napier seeks suspension of two bills charged by Turner & Boyd, alleging no value received and accommodation use by chargers.

John Boyd v. Alexander Napier — Reasons, 26 Jun 1828

Abstract
AI-generated
John Boyd’s charge suspended by Alexander Napier, contested for improper preference, lack of protest, and irregular diligence.

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 442
  • Page 443
  • Page 444
  • Page 445
  • Current page 446
  • Page 447
  • Page 448
  • Page 449
  • Page 450
  • …
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
Subscribe to
Home

The Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive is a multi-institutional collaborative initiative featuring Session Papers held by the Arthur J. Morris Law Library at the University of Virginia School of Law, the Library of Congress, and the University of Edinburgh.

The project is made possible with generous investments from the Horatio and Florence Farmer Fund at the University of Virginia School of Law and the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation. 

Support SCOS with a tax deductible gift.

© 2026 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
© 2026 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

User account menu

  • Log in