1794
DebtSuccessionEntailDispositionAlimentHeritorThomson and others, as petitioners, sought alteration of an interlocutor that had ordered them to pay Lady Erskine's annuity from Whitsunday 1791. Sir James St Clair Erskine, as defender, argued that the bond of annuity granted by General St Clair constituted his personal debt rather than that of Mr Thomson, general disponee of the late Colonel St Clair. The question was whether liability for the annuity fell upon Colonel St Clair's estate or upon Sir James as successor to the grantor's obligation.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- Thomson &c v. St. Clair Erskine — Petition, 28 Jan 1794January 28, 1794 Petition of the petitioners asking the Court to alter the interlocutor that ordered them to pay Lady Erskine's annuity from Whitsunday 1791
- John Thomson, Esq; younger of Charleton, and Thomas Coutts, Esq; Banker in London, Claud Boswell, Esq; of Ba... v. Sir James St Clair Erskine of Sinclair, Baronet — Answers, 13 Feb 1794February 13, 1794 Memorial of Sir James St Clair Erskine, arguing that a bond of annuity granted by General St Clair is to be paid by him, not by Mr Thomson, general disponee of the late Colonel St Clair.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Thomas Coutts — Party
- David Douglas, of Reston — Advocate for Party
- James Oswald, yr. of Dunnikier — Advocate for Party
- John MacLaurin, Lord Dreghorn — Lord Ordinary
- Sir James Fergusson, of Kilkerran, Lord Kilkerran — Lord Ordinary
