Date20 Feb 1777TypeAnswersCaseElliot v. M'KayAuthorSir David Rae, Lord Eskgrove, 1st BaronetLength21 pagesRepositoryUniversity of Virginia Law Library (Special Collections)ContainerUVALL Box 04Appendix1 item Abstract February 20, 1777 Answers for Hugh Mackay to the petition of David Elliot, arguing that compensation for the bill should be upheld as proponable. View larger map →← Elliot v. M'Kay — Petition, 28 Jan 17772 of 2 in this casePeople in this documentAlexander Boswell, Lord Auchinleck✳Sir David Rae, Lord Eskgrove, 1st Baronet✳Sir James Mackenzie, of Royston, Lord Royston✳SubjectsDebt✳Adjudication✳Bill of Exchange✳Privilege✳Prescription✳Assignment✳Compensation✳Assignation✳Places mentionedGlasgow✳Islay✳Bowmore✳