Petition — John Thomson, Gunsmith, Edinburgh
Abstract
Petitioner seeks review of interlocutor refusing bill to prevent tenant from altering shop layout and breaching contract.
John Anderson v. Margaret Thomson — Answers, 20 Dec 1821 [2]
Abstract
Respondents deny causing shed damage; claim they followed Bairds' instructions and blame Bairds for any harm.
Petition — John Anderson against Inner-House Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
Petition of John Anderson, Carter at Tollcross, near Glasgow, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
John Mair v. John Mill — Bill of Suspension, 13 Apr 1819 [2]
Abstract
Bill of Suspension by John Mair, innkeeper, High Street, Glasgow, against John Mill, farmer of the post-horse duties of North Britain, asking the Court to suspend and interdict a warrant of conviction and sale of goods.
John Mair v. John Mill — Answers, 25 Apr 1821 [2]
Abstract
Respondent challenges petitioner's appeal to Court of Session, arguing jurisdiction is improper for revenue penalty case under Post-horse Act.
Petition — John Mair against Lord Cringletie's Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
John Mair challenges Lord Cringletie’s dismissal of his suspension over a warrant of sale, claiming justices misapplied revenue statutes by penalizing him for day-hire of a gig without mileage reporting.
Alexander Ewing, Lindsay and Adam, and Peter Buchanan v. George Brown — Answers, 21 Feb 1828
Abstract
Respondents defend a composition proposal in George Brown’s sequestrated estate, disputing objections over creditor voting thresholds and validity of claims.
George Brown v. Alexander Ewing and others — Objections, 31 Jan 1828
Abstract
Petitioner George Brown disputes creditor vote validity objections, asserting statutory concurrence despite contested mandates by Dr Monteath and Mr Speirs.
Alexander Ewing and others v. George Brown — Objections, 1 Feb 1828
Abstract
Creditors object to George Brown’s discharge, claiming the composition lacked required security specs at first meeting and voting was invalid due to missing affidavits and unproduced bonds.
Mary Thomas v. Neil Hutchison — State of the Process, 29 Nov 1825
Abstract
Respondent seeks oath in supplement, citing witness testimony of pre-birth intimate relationship to challenge admissibility objections.
