Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1855-12-15

SAaecu, anu puOilS1 IN one OF I
eulation the causes set for triA
and fourth weeks, so that u
have notice when their attend
RULE 4th. II shall furtherm
issuing subpenas for the with
tend on the first, second, hi
Term, according to the place {
Under the above Rules the r
trial during the FIRST week Of {.
CASES AT JANU
1st Week.
! Den lessee ". Malloy;
3 Sesy vs. Cameron;
8 Morrow VS.. Napier;
4 Stanheld vs.. same;
5 Pointer vs.. same;
8 Flowers VS.. same;
Kirkman vs.. same;
s Travis vs.. Wallace;
9 Lawrence vs.. Nashville 4
HllsbOrO' Turnpike Co;
10 Shelby vs.. Martin;
IL Same vs.. WetmOre;
IL Winston VS.. Fields;
10 Walker vs.. Bates;
"a Mayor and Aldermen Of
Nashville exparte;
IS Young VS.. Corbett;
Is Doe lessee VS.. Ray;
IL Gov dey use &c. vs.. Mar
shall;
is same vs.. same:
10 Baldwin vs.. Elliott;
% MOsley vs.. Gillian;
81 Brinkiey vs. McDOle;
% York 4 Co vs.. Mckenzie;
% McCampbell vs.. Bell;
"a same VS.. Bell L RObardS;
IS Doe lessee vs.. McEwen;
20 Jasper ct al vs.. Barns;
q Lawhorn vs.. Davis;
IS Sloan vs.. Haskell;
20 McGavock vs.. Gilman;
80 McGayock 4 Co vs.. same;
81 Jones vs.. Mitchell;
80 Mayor and Aldermen o.
Nashville exparte;
SO State Of Tennessee use.
&C vs.. Smell ct al;
% McCampbell VS.. Clemens.
IS JackSon's Ex'rs vs.. Gil.
bert 4 Son;
Sc Charlotte Turnpike Cows.
Spence;
81 Cross vs.. Green ct al;
IS Evans 4 Smith vs.. Shivers
ct al;
SO Forehand &c vs.. Farrell;
40 Chileutt vs.. Mcintyre;
IL Martin vs.. Armstrong;
AZ Crunk vs.. James;
- Charlotte Turnpike Co vs.
Spence;
~ Fay VS.. Sloan;
As Ayres 4 Matthews vs.. Gil
bert;
A6 Hyde vs.. Maddox;
AZ Davis VS.. MOseley;
IS Charlotte Turnpike Co.
vs.. Spence;
40 Hughes vs.. Gilbert;
80 Allen vs.. GOoorich;
81 Frazier VS.. steamboat To-
ledo and owners;
50 Goldberg vs.. Hinton;
So Harris vs.. Smiley eN'r;
81 Bank Of Tennessee vs.
Greene ct al;
IS Mckee admir- vs.. Noel,
IS Same vs.. Same;
81 Bank VI Tennessee vs..
Newsom; T.
SO McGavock vs.. Paul ct al .
SO Same vs.. Tucker ct al;
I'd Week.
90 Wilson ex'rx vs.. Goodwin
ct al, .
81 johnson vs.. Radcliffe;
so same VS.. Orion ct al;
g Manufacturing Company
vs.. HOBBS 4 Henly.
G. Lowry VS.. Dabbs;
65 Adelphi Theatre Co VS.
Greene;
66 Harrison q Richardson vs..
Boiling & StrattOn;
81 De La Yergne VS.. Dodge;
Is Martin vs.. Ensley;
90 Williams & Hitchings vs..
Glover 4 Boyd;
20 Bell vs.. Davis;
IL l. & y Railroad Co VS. Z
n. D. Love; T.
~ same vs.. Walker; L
70 same VS.. Gee; L
"a same VS.. Maynor;
IS same VS.. Sledge; i
20 Martin VS.. RUSSELL ct al;
u McEwen, use &c vs. Nor
ton ct al;
Is Watkins vs.. Barns; +.
70 Nance VS.. Moore ct al;
81 PasQuett vs.. Austin; /;
81 ShegOg vs.. Roberts, ad'T;
So Sloan ex'rX vs.. Halle; L.
So Carmichael vs.. King ct al,
81 Haley vs.. Wetmore; /.
SIS Wilkinson, ct al vs.. Gin
ard; /.
Sc Eathsrly vs.. Ninson; Z
81 Morse 4 Son VS.. Hess. I.
IS Nash. d Char. Turnpike
vs.. Spence,
50 Bell trustee vs.. Mcdonald
30 Bell trustee vs.. Ssmuels;
81 State Of Tenn, use, &C,
vs.. Dodd;
90 DotsOn admir- Ac VS. Dabbs
SO Smiley vs.. DemOss Ad'mr,
80 Childress vs.. Jackson; :
95 Greer VS.. Jordan; I.
90 Hammer vs.. Carroll, ag't,
" Ament vs.. Taylor,
IS DeLahay vs.. Lawrence;
80 Cunningham vs.. M'Combs
4 Coz nelius;
100 Mclaughlin vs.. Kimhro;
iOl French vs.. Duncan, Nor
gan 4 Co;
l02 Lowe adm'r VS.. sloan; I
los Taylor vs.. 8 Boat Beauty
ct al;
iO4 Gilman vs.. Kimbro;
los MatthewsOn vs. Philips;
lO6 Kimbro vs.. Watson;
iOT Steel vs.. l. a RRCo;
los Buchanan vs.. Joseph;
lO9 Nancy trustee vs. Blgley;
10 Demoss admir- vs.. Russell
et al;
III Scales vs.. Tenn. and Ala
Railroad Co;
l12 Looney vs.. GriEzard;
ll3 Burger vs.. Brien; I
ii4 Austin vs.. Hays
1l5 Bland vs.. Boiling;
116 Boyd vs.. " oodwArd ct al;
III B'k Of Tenn vs. McNRlry
ct al.
IFS Bells ex'r vs.. BIZ Of Tenn
ll9 bank Of Tennessee "
Mclaughlin;
40 Jackson vs.. Bell,
12i Anthony, jr., W. Jackson;
La Beech vs.. Pointer use AZ.
VS.. Bell;
l23 Baker vs.. jackson,
ia Bowen et al vs.. Steven
son et al;
1875 Brunson ct al VI. Hick
man st al,
1876 Bank, Planters We. Hud-
son,
l2T Bolton ct 81 vs.. Kimbro;
l2s Berry, use &c. vs.. Foster
admir-
l39 Carter vs.. Hamilton ct al
1870 Childress vs.JOhnsOn eta
ISL same vs.. Deck Jones ct al
IS2 Same W. Jackson e al;
1873 Same vs.. Owen ct al;
1874 Collins W. Gregory;
i85 Cousss n ~. Mounts;
1856 Cartwright vs.. smell ct ~
1ST ChAvOus vs.. Dickinson Ct
al;
l3S Douglass W. Turnpike Co I
l89 Dickey vs.. Manufacturing
Company I
40 Demos vs.. Bell,
l4I Tanning ". Bartlett;
la FIRING vs.. Zimmerman e.
al,
i43 FArris vs.. Hundley,
10 Foster, trustee vs.. Nc
Marry;
i45 Goodwin vs.. Paul ct al. /
lac Greenfield 4 Co. ". Man
ufActuring Company:
141 Glesves ct Al W. jackson
et al,
las Gray W. Holt, agent;
l49 Glover vs.. Telegraph Co.;
Sd Week.
$50 Childress vs.. Mayor 4 Al
dermen o. Nashville,
l5i Driver W. Hitehings;
i53 HAnf W. n 4 L Powers,
decIi-oau4E
IRON Raj