Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1857-11-05

~ Walker vs. Brown, 70 TAFT " Masso; 70
Bears ys Boyd; II WiekeTshsm We Crofort; IS
Davidsm rs Croford; - Croford = Maionevf
80 Hzrsshen " Morriss 81 HI vs Gilmore; 81
Richsrdson vs. Horley, SO Farmer Fs-Cockreil;
"a Msmnhis and Little Rock Railroad COMPANY
We Porter; s. Powell vs. McCagpe 4 Co So
Reef & Co. vs. Boro 81 Cheek vs. Spar IS
Brooks vs. PeTton; 50 Curtis vs. Bankhsad: %
williams rs Rszsii 81 Carson Fs Pbelon %
George vs Renfroe; 90 Wilkins vs AVdlett &
20 ~ harstv vs. Mean; 95 O'Neinl vs McKeou;
% haAdenYs kennedy;9T Memphis and Charles
Ton Railroad Company " George; IS Keller rs
Iaiis " SEaggs " Mckinney; loo johnson IS
bekeTi lol Baton vs Little; l02 Morris vs.
Nueamboat i Ben Lee;s l03 Rice " McSbay;
-l04 Lo0nsy vs. Porter; I05 Looasr " Porter et
a; 100 Leeney Va Porter ct a.; I07 Wheaton vs.
Bankhead ct q; los Memahis and Little Rock
hallroad Company ys Peters; 100 Menpbis aud
Little Rock Railroad Company W Martin; 10
Greggs vs. Memphis and Little Rock Railroad
20, &c; III Burch vs. Greeian; fI2 Inman vs.
GroFes; lib 0'HaTra vs. Jones; ia Memphis
Hospital - Bowen; us Thomas vs Jones; ll6
WedgewoOd We Mayor and Aiderman;1 III Wood
I Son " Cobb; lis Brinkley vs. Newly s
Nay.
FRIDAY, N~oTEazEK6 6, 1887.
1i9 Sullivan vs. Crandalg; 100 Grover, vs.
HswlhOrae ; l2I NJ. & C. r. r Co. " Robin
son l22 Rawlings vs. GallaheT; l2s Razor
". Frank l24 Titus & Co. VS.. NJ. 4 c. r.
T. Co; lbs Titus 3 Co. Es.M < c. R R. Co.
l2e BiakenOrs vs. Logan I27 Gufing vs..
H0rseiy, les Dean We. Lssry; I29 Hancock
vs. N. I. R R. Co; 80 MAYOR and Alder
men vs.. Bender 1SI Mayor and Alderman vs..
Collins; 1872 Bartlett vs.. WaggOner; 1873 F. &
" Bank vs.. Means ; 134 Maier vs.. Caldwell ;
I35 Park vs. Cheek. 1876 Park rs. Cheek l37
Gaasey vs.. Bonman 1873 Wright vs.. Caldweli;
lSs Pell vs.. Graves l40 Morrisey ". Gale a
Dent 14I Robinson vs. McConb I42 James
vs. Newell 143 Wickersham vs.. Horsely IA
Wilaek Es. Hunter; las Memphis and Charles
ton Railroad Company vs.. Br; 1868 Fowikes
vs.. fopp; lf6 Thomas vs. M)seley; 1z7 Riddle
vs.. Curtis & Knapp; i4S Hooks ". White &
Amis 14s Rocco ". Steamboat 7. II Larkin /;
$50 Shermsnvs. Memphis Insurance Company
Isl Porter vs. joiner I52 Bank Of Memphis
vs.. Bnliitt, Miller & Co; l53 Msachsm vs.. Cos
ia Grim vs.. Sample. 155 wilkinson &
Co, vs. Robinson 4 Co; 10 Wilkinson & Co,
vs. Robinson & Co ; 157 Flsherty vs. Seam
boat J. P. Tweed; I5S Potter vs.. Steamboat
Tsp Tweed; l59 Conway vs.. Ferguson; 100
haleman We. Mason l6l Draper vs. Hawiey
lo2 Draper rs Jones; I63 Draper Is ketling;
l6f Perkins, Brooks * Co, vs.. Duke LOB
Woodward Va Poole s Watsoni lo0 h1risoB
rs. King i67 Memphis and Ohio Railroad
Company w. Hu.
EArURDAT, NOVEMBER :, 1857.
les Sims vs. 1oeker; l69 Beer & mart We
Bloom; 10 Moore aad Wife vs. Gibson; III
and Wife vs. Gibson; I72 KimbSl vs.
5ibsouj I73 Strain vs. Morgan, Ia Hot vs.
s-eamboa- "Dr. Rcbinson;' lis Stoekmsn vs
I76 Botto & CO W Pannessi; IL King
Is Cooney; rs DIpree vs. Turuags; I79 Hill {
g Il IA l~nsursnce Company; IS0 RsufrOe vs. q
George; ISL Ssngster vs. COT IS2 Hancock vs. I
Memphis & Ohio Railroad Company; IS3 Burr,
&c, VS. Fslts; Is4 Gas.On vs. OvsTtoi;
So During vs. Heron & Davidson; lS6 Browne
s Hawthorne; 1S7 Schabel vs. Hgling; I8S ;
shirley & Bell vs. Booker; 1S9 Swayne vs.
heck; 100 LOoney " JsrnagiE; 19I Donell vs. $
dcG0Hn 4 GSiu; 1872 Greishaber rs For3; 1913 J
richardson vs. Fowler; 19i Burk We 0'Nelli; :
IS Newiby & May vs. Eicsn; 196 Mayer and :
Ts Sewer; 1877 Leake vs. Hall; 19S
iabinsoR vs. Csrsor; 1873 Cartwright vs. Steam
Lucy Robinson; 200 VIM vs. James; POI
Bowen vs. Moore; POP Bell vs. James & Under
wood; 203 Culver vs. Walker; 20i Fsllons & Co
5 Williams & Dashisll,255 Order vs. Memphis
md Ohio Railroad Company; 2O6 Guerrans We
207 Memphis and Charleston and Ten
lessee Railroad Company vs. NOrmsnf; 298 {
rs Grant; 209 Mcdowell vs. Hawihorn; 9
10 White vs. Lane & Co; 2ii Mckinney vs. ,
.schuuueh; 2l2 Mckinney vs. Turnsge; 2l3
haeklin W R5bsrdss pa Nelson vs. Brown; 2I5
vs. Meath; 2I6 Stockdell vs. Smith;
IL Southern Bank Vs Ferguson; ct al.
Causes lot disposed Of on tie dayfor which
hey are set, will appear first on the calendar
be ensuing week.
MARCUS WRIGHT, Clerk.
% NNurn ~ Mam~mm-A- ~. TH-.l 4