Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-01-31
sI'--------------------
COURT OF APPEALS.
Monday, 9Th Jan. 1885.
Tncsdafn. GIL I'm.


Tncsdry 9Th Jun
4nderSon vs. Lirey--Superscdeas to Judgment of the
1l,eat Superior Court of James City Submitted with
aPI eaasda and I for appellee
oses rs Lees C0mp,ittec-Appca from decree of the
Circuit G Superior Court of York. Argued in part by
Thursday Sch Jas.
Jones vs. Les co"sainec.-Euy argued by Scott, for
appellant and Harrison for appellee.
sm,ret VS. fo.oier Adm'1-Injunction allowed.
l'1'0erfHAc 0sa MagrNder 1arih-Inunctiou re-
Fsidry, 9Ss jan
Rag'G'S VS. FILLS .qan,r.-Supersedeas to iudp.
ment OF Cireuit Superior Court of Henrico. Submitted
-7- I'D Scott for plaintiff, and Daniel
bore being no counsel or either side
-; ItNfo'ske f15c'ears-ApPea hon Itc Chnncery
appellant. "
Saturday, JOA Jan.
Thomas GoDhpGl.-kppeal from the Indictment of
the Superior Court of Law for Elizabeth City argued by
SCOT. sSr The appellant, Myers for the appellee and by
WESTERN COURT CASES.
foiey VS. Nedt-Petition for supeEsedeas 10 iudg-
ment OF The Great Superior Court of Mason refused
lowed.
Orange VS. Standardization for supersedcas 10
the judgment oflhe Superior Court of Kanawha allowed
Monday, Jan. H.
Bassen VS. hom--Appeal from decree of the
Circuit Superior Govt Of IIanover-Argued by Daniel
for the appellant by Lyons for the appellee and by Da-
MEL in reply.
Tucsday jan 10.
Wcayer VS.. SH,hb-ApPeal from a decree Of the Su-
perior Court of Cbancery at northumberland
BY Harrison and Stanad for the appellant the qucs-
WedaesdaY, jan Ia
Lees Committee rs Jones-Anirmed.
Bank Of he q. Suites vs.. JaekSOn-Thc argument OF
this which mad been suspended continued
by Wyndham Robertson for the appellee and concluded
Thursday, jan. 10.
iee@dn VS. Comnon'eeath-Pe for superscdcas
Cochs Nttson--Appeal from decree of the late
Superior CouSt of Chancery, at acknowledged by
CLAIBORNE for the appellant by Scott for the appellee
and by Claiborne in reply
Reynolds VS.. Pohs.-Pctition for appeal allowed
Bdsseu Cunninghqm.--Reverscd, and both dis
missed.
TlmJcrake VS.. Se,oart-Reversed, and sent back for
further proceedings
Smith vs. Smitf.-New rule for additional security
anderson VS.. Sands-Motion to rchcar the petition
Saturday, Lan H.
CocLo vs. Ncison--A firmed.
Wheaay Afarfin.-Appeal from The Superior Court
Of Law and Chancery for the county Of Fouquier-Ar-
gued by Harrison for the appellant and in part by
WESTERN COURT CASES.
Thomas vs. Herdwd-Applicaton for supcrscdcas
fused.
Monday, jan. 10
| Ragtd'd vs. UWs-Judgment Of the Superior Court
Of Law reversed and that Of the county court affirmed
Bunk Of ~ mia vs. RoyaH.-Appiication for In
ber9ara 49, i"yioT.-Appication for injunction
UeakL1# .Martia.-Argumcnt continued by Ssanard,
for clcc, and by Harrison, for the appellant, in
Tuesday, Jan. 90
! Thomas nai.-kevcrscd 10 the damages,
/ and rmed for the residue
/ Crgddock vs.. Iarner.-Appeal from the judgment Of
the Circuit Superior Court Of Argued by Lyons
for the appellant by Daniel, for the appellee and by
/ Lybns, in reply.
WcdDcsdoy Jan. 81.
Coigit vs.. He'dcg--Appoal from a Judgment Of the
Superior Court Of Law for IIenrco--ATguod BY Csi-
borne, for the appellant, and Daniel for the appellee
Thursday, Jan. %.
Souds w. Acknowledgements awarded.
Colgu vs.. Hcnley.-hrgument continued by Scott,
for appellant