Erskine-1-Vol.-22 doc0059
Abstract
Answers by the Honourable Edward Richard Stewart to the condescendence for Sir William Maxwell of Monreith and others, asserting his unconditional possession and free disposal of his qualification.
Sir William Maxwell of Monreith, Baronet, and Others, Freeholders of the County of Wigton v. The Honourable Edward Richard Stewart, Fifth Son of the late Earl of Galloway — Condescendence, 5 Jun 1807
Abstract
Freeholders of Wigton challenge the legitimacy of Edward R. Stewart's enrollment, asserting his qualification was granted gratuitously and under the late Earl of Galloway’s direction.
Petition — E. R. Stewart for Correcting Mistake in Interlocutor
Abstract
Petition of Edward Richard Stewart, asking the Court to correct a mistake in its prior interlocutor regarding admission to the roll of freeholders of Wigton.
Petition — Sir W. Maxwell against Innerhouse Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
Petitioners challenge an interlocutor admitting two claimants to the Wigton freeholders’ roll, arguing omission of interrogatory requirement and defective valuation due to descriptive-valent discrepancy.
Hon. Edward Richard Stewart v. Sir William Maxwell of Monreith, Bart. — Replies, 17 Feb 1807
Abstract
Respondents dispute petitioner’s freehold claim, arguing valent-descriptive clause discrepancies in multiple retours, especially the 1600 retour’s half-merk error, fatally undermine qualification.
Erskine-1-Vol.-22 doc0054
Abstract
Special return by Janet Campbell, granddaughter and one of two heirs of Finlay Campbell, asserting her right to half the lands of Corsewell and Mye, with evidence of prior possession and lack of entry by heirs.
Edward Richard Stewart v. Sir William Maxwell of Monreith — Replies, 22 Jan 1807
Abstract
Petitioner defends freehold qualification by citing pre-1681 retours showing precise land extents, refuting claims of error in descriptive clause.
Sir William Maxwell of Monrieth, Baronet, and Others v. Hon. Edward Richard Stewart — Answers, 16 Oct 1806
Abstract
Respondents challenge petitioner's inrolment claim due to valuation discrepancy between descriptive and valent clauses reducing land value below 40s. legal threshold.
