Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-11-12

90 N0AAA " " % @ a. ~
81 Railroad vs. Lowe; .
So Joiner vs. Taylor;
SO White Rec vs. Anderson /
81 Warne rs Leake ct al; :
IS "hildress VS. Jackson; :
80 B Eggs ct al vs. McEwen; 2
~ NcKee VS. Johnson ct al;
4 On ldresS VS. MadduX ct al; :
AZ Alloway ct al vs. amp (
bell; II
SO Craig VS. Warre0i II
A Grader ct al vs. Oltar
45 Mltthewson VS. Phillips;
46 Jackson VS. Bell;
A. Anthony jr, vs. acksoni :
IS Bolton e al vs. HI bro;
As Bradley vs. ID undsOn;
20 en- Lee se " Higgin;
81 Ensley vs. Vance;
70 Mayor = Adj vs. Jefrie ;
50 Polk vs. Fl lott;
81 STAG er, IT vs. Napier; =
s Faulkner vs. Railroad; 7.
SIS Watts e al vs. Payne; 7
81 n etmOre vs. Pyrter ct al;
; Brown use &C, vs. Gray 7.
50 no ker vs. Bass;
90 Peacock 4 % vs. Bugg
et al;
g. Knight vs. Sloan
g. stout vs. Leake ct al;
63 Price vs. S aughter ct al;
g. Web vs. Ledbe ter ct al
IS Embry IT al vs. sumner
ct Al;
sc Thomas VS. riff h;
81 Andersen vs. Porter ct al,
IS Farnswo tn It al vs. Rob
ert on ct a;
60 Fain, Gm'r vs. = ewsOmi
20 Bank We Roscoe ct al
2ud week.
II Bank vs. Polk ct al;
p Same " Same;
% A derson vs. Moore;
"A StrattoH Ct al vs. Coach
tai;
IS Brown VS. Turner ct all
70 HyIe V. II de;
II Woodruff vs. Railroad;
rs Wetmo e vs. Samuels;
70 Rob rtson ct al vs. Ba k
s. anne vs. Fi.e et al,
Il Cameron vs. SlOau;
So a way ct a vs. Elmer
man;
So yrOn vs. Johnson ct al;
81 Smith vs. Tcpp;
IS new ighr " Men fee
&c Hollins & Co vs. Plumme
a Go
81 Hrnl y W Faulkner
IS lark vs. Siu pson;
50 Foster & Co VS. Summer
hill admir-;
so Williams, admir-, VS. VII
son;
81 Powers vs. trankllni
% Scott et al vs. andy;
81 w lis Ell al VS. Bank;
"a Mayor u Al eN partei
IS Brown rs Foster;
O. Bowles e. al VS. Leake {
al;
81 Goodbare vs. Sa e;
@ B4k-r e al vs. Same;
80 Chi on VS. Same;
100 Will ms ct al vs. Same
TO- Neal VS. KimbrO;
l ? Mo IRE vs. Ledbetter ct G
lO8 johnson ct al vs. Maxwe
ct al;
IOt Guthrie VS. Holt ct al;
l,5 Abby v Same;
1Oj Nc iavock VS. linda ]
1O7 Cartwri yht vs. Tucker
al;
les Abb y vs. shute;
lO9 Do glass vs. Joyce ct al
10 ca vs. Barns;
II Powell y s Pit ;
, Bu l.r vs. ThuTmend;
l 8 wo druf vs. ThaNton:
I 4 Di,muk Is ct al vs. Camp
bell;
Us Same We Same;
l16 Witty " Ellis, use, aci
III Be " vs. Co pora ion;
IS Burke vs. nckliu;
1l9 BrusheT vs. ampbelli
l2U Whirley vs. Wetmore ct
II amerOl ct al vs. We
more;
1872 enderrrast & Co vs. VOL
ley;
l23 Cardwell, admir-, vs. BreI
men ct al,
124 ~hu c W Underwood;
Us Trabue ct a. vs. Ledbette
ct al;
126 d sha vs. Merrett et al;
] Z Bank Ne Rayb m ct al
y, SnOwdel " Cover
Is hirkpatri.k ct al Y
Young ct al;
Is Erwin W Wet ore;
- Ha s vs. n nee;
1872 Gleaves W. Sumner ct al
I 3 Railroad " Cunningham
/ 4 Kumbro use &C, vs. ain
TO;
1876 Morgan use &C, vs. John
sou et al,
1856 same vs. same;
1871 -te art ~ Gem try;
/ l8S Beafy Va Clodieiter;
| 1888 Dunn " Kn der;
l4J Raj road Don hon;
/ al Livingston vs. Gas Lisl
o;
/ 142 Moore vs. Hughes,
/ 148 Gilman vs. ugut;
/ IA Halle < 20 vs. Bridge q,
/ 1t5 Young vs. Summer. i ]
adm r;
/ l46 Brigham vs. Hays e al;
l4T Bachus - Porter;
AS GOldburg vs. insurant
20;
/ l49 smith vs. Bells ex'rs;
/ 49, McWhirte vs. Doug as
| l5l Lytis ct al vs. Bush;
! r. Murreu " corporation
loS Morg m a. Co vs. Wei
houn;
/ Ia Hobbs g. Co v Stun;
l55 Livingston " COrpOr
ton.
156 Lytle et al vs. Foster
90.
! 1871 Eu~ley vs. Vance;
] IS, ia e. vs. SIN N;
l59 Kelly ct al vs. Jyerton
al;
! 100 Lusk vs. Vance;
/ i6l StrAtton vs. Peck;
/ l62 Sta e " Davis;
ltG PEGS vs. Po tFTueld,
l6i takin & 90 vs. WetmO
ct al;
l65 Waters " Ellis ct al;
Sd Week.
166 Mayo a 20 vs. Noel &c Al
ldl Garter vs. Foster et al;
los Nannoy vs. Beaumont;
lt9 Pc way W McRobeFt-;
/ 10 Bedford W LtWrence