James Morris v. Hugh M'Kean — Answers, 2 Dec 1828
Abstract
Hugh M'Kean denies James Morris's claim to a servitude of free light, challenging the sufficiency of his letter and Sasine as titles.
Hugh M'Kean v. James Morris — Replies, 11 Jan 1826
Abstract
Petitioner seeks to preserve a light servitude over a historic open close, opposing respondent’s north-side building that would block light and obstruct passage.
Hugh M'Kean v. James Morris — Reclaiming Note, 17 Jun 1829
Abstract
Hugh M'Kean reclaims against Lord Cringletie's interlocutor denying his servitude of light over James Morris's close, seeking to remit case to Dean of Guild and recover expenses.
James Baxter v. James Herbertson — Answers, 17 Feb 1830
Abstract
Respondents resist petition to remove inhibition, asserting damages awarded and petitioner’s misconduct in sequestration.
Petition — Petition
Abstract
Petitioner seeks inhibition recall citing four-year inaction, narrow claim scope, and extinguished liability via arbitration and landlord sale.
Thomas Aitchison v. William, Earl of Mansfield — Reclaiming Note, 12 Feb 1830 [2]
Abstract
Pursuer Thomas Aitchison seeks damages for illegal sequestration of his farm assets by defender Earl of Mansfield, claiming wrongful seizure and reputational harm, while defender contends sequestration was lawful necessity to secure rent under disputed lease.
I.—PURSUERS' PROOF.
Abstract
Pursuer proves shipment of lamp mountings from Birmingham to Greenock via Liverpool, but defenders show no receipt or delivery at Clyde Flint-Glass Company.
Thomas Bishop and Mandatory v. The Directors of the Clyde and Mersey Steam-Navigation Company, Matthew Wotherspoon and Alexander Johnston — Note, 3 Dec 1828
Abstract
Respondents defend additional pleas alleging failure to notify non-delivery and lack of culpability under nautæ edict, asserting proof refutes claims and damages are established.
Thomas Bishop and Edward Railton v. Directors of the Mersey and Clyde Steam Navigation Company — Replies, 18 May 1826 [2]
Abstract
Replies by Thomas Bishop and Edward Railton to the defences of the Mersey and Clyde Steam Navigation Company and its partners, asserting jurisdiction and proper citation.
The Mersey & Clyde Steam Navigation Company v. Thomas Bishop & Mandatory — 28 Nov 1829
Abstract
Mersey & Clyde Steam Navigation Company sued for unpaid freight on a box shipped in 1824, with defenders challenging jurisdiction and claiming claimant’s delay bars recovery.
