Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-05-15
Or thus /:
= -
COURT OF APPEALS
[SEAI..1

MoSpAy, March %.
CioROn's al. torriS-Superscdeas to the iudp-
mcnt of the Superior Court of Law for Buckingham
comfy Argued by stanard for the appellant and John
son tor the appellee
ffarstc, &c vs. Ipickhdnt-Appeal from judgment of
Superior Court of Law for Henreo county. Argued by
anaf Tor appellants, Johnson for the appclec and by
WEDNESDAY, March 25
Ukitloas ad. vs. Torry-Decree reversed and remand.
ed tor further proceedings.
Scorers vs. GirensmAppeal from decree of the late
Tor the appellant, and Leigh for the appellee.
THURSDAY, March 20.
Stsrens Brnmsfcrd-Appeal from Judgment of the
Superior Court of Law for the town of Lynchburgv-
Argued by Johnson for the appellant Leigh for the an
peliee, and by Johnson in reply.
FRIDAY March 81
Mills VS. pooaS cr -Supcrscdeas from a Indictment
OF the Superior Court of Law for Albemarlc ArguSd
by Johnson for the appellant and Leigh for the appellee
foitSI ih considered, and Judgment reversed
.iays CaHison-Appcol fSonaa Judgment of the S.
perior Court Of Law for GTaenbror Argued by Nicbo
las Tor thu appellant andhy Johnson for the appellee
SATURDAY, Mlrch %.
Moose's ad.n'rs VS.. fltsRandotph-nccrce affirmed
Mays KS acknowledgement closed by Nicholas for
the appellant.
Caiictfs cr'or VS. Russel-Supersedeas from irfp
men s Of the Superior Court Of Law for Frederick Ar
the appellee deferred till Monday.
MONDAY, March 80.
'Ho0d "a or VS. GaTlactt- Argument continued by Da
mel Tor the anpclaHi-hy Brooke for the appclee-and
By Daniel in reply.
p"ghs I'D vs.: Jones' snpersedeas to the Judgment
of tho Superior Court of Law for Mecklenburg-Ar
by Johnson for. the appellant
TGEspAx, March 81
BiIich -. GdrAic--Appeal allowed.
7rsingtoD, vs.. Cko0tinla-- Appeal allowed
Pngh sad VS. J6ncS-Argument continued by Stanard
for the aPpcleci and coneludodiby Johnson in reply
Ssssers vs. Giscsss--lafiinnedl
WEDNESDAY,, April T.
L5hns VS. Daeis--Appea allowed.
Ie'lcm W. Pat0n-Reversed.
Bakes W. EHis-Afirmed -
CSaeus er or VS. Rnsscs-Argumcntie sumed by John
for the appellee.
THuRsDAY, April g
C"Isa s. cIcr- Acknowledgement continued oy
99nson for the appellee, and by Leigh for the appellant
ERDAY, April
!hayS VS.. CaUison-AGirmed
CATERS er OF. vs. RaSSci-Argument contained IN,
leigh for the appellant, we'd by Johnson for the nv
pellee, and concluded by Leighton the appellant
Raeter VS.. Lo,ctGer-AppeaI fton decree Of no ,.,
S"perlGr court OF GhanecFy at LewrA'urg Argued by
Sian"rd tor the appellee
Rnehcr VS. i.o'otser-Argulnent suspendedesy the i'm
disposition of one of the Judges.
Bfdack vs.. TtsRt--A ppeal from decree of IL. a.:
cut Superior Court of Henrico county Security ~,
costs demanded.
MoNDAy, April G.
Rackcr VS.. Acknowledgements continued by John
son for the appellee and concluded by Leigh for the D.
yellant.
Zones VS.. Jennings-Appealf from a decrecof the Su-
PeIlor Court of Chancery at Lynchburg. Argued by
Johnson Tor the appellant by Briggs for the uPpelee and
by Johnson in reply
Huzcy vs. HJehham-Aiiirmed
StsPhcnS vs.. BraHsford-Re verse6
Gopt0H vs.. hOrriS--ArgpmenL continued bv st9nary
for the appellant.
EcsLiaf VS. Henry--Rule for security Argued bv
johnson for the appellee and Stonasd for the appellant
WEDNESDAY, April 8.
ErShipG VS. Henry-Argument continued by Stanard
ior The appellant, and concluded by johnson for tn an,
pcllee. ~ ~
farmyiaugh VS. DuprieH-Supersedea awarded
ChdRReH vs.. robertson, S'c.--Ap peal allowed
btasas vs. WonderiickAppea from the late SUPERIOR
Court OF Chancery at stanton. Argued bv Johnson
Tor the appellant by Leigh for tho Appellee and by john
son in reply.
THURSDAY, April o.
Erstine w. Henry, 9e.--Isule enlarged
C"Shoy VS. Hide, Sc-Appca froma decree of the late
Superior Court of Chancery at Saunton. Armed Inv
Sanard for the appellant Johnson for the appellee ond
Stanard in reply.
FRIBAY, April 10
Hoods dd. ~. GarneiL-Reversed.
R1ckor VS. LoIcHer--Reversed
Le'ciS VS.. Adaas-Appea from n Judgment Of the
Circuit Superior Court Of Loudoun county ARGUED Inv
johnson for the appellant Leigh for the appellee ana
by Johnson in reply
Geand vs.. Ioyd-Appcal from judgment of the Cir
cut Superior Court Of Law for Loudoun county Ar
gued by Leigh for the appellant, Johnson for the appel
lee, and by Leigh in reply.
SATURDAY, April II.
BTot1n w. &ie!ds-Appeal from Judgment of the
Circuit Superior Court OF Law Of Bath county Aroued
by Leigh for the appellant by Johnson for the appellee
MARRIAGES