Brownlow's Knoxville Whig, and rebel ventilator. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1863-1866, 1865-10-04
Proceedings of the Supreme Court.
SHAckLEroRD MILLisAS AND HAwKIss PRESIDING.
Knoxville Sent 2Isf Is65

SHAckLEroRD, MILLleAS AND HAWKES. PRESIDING.
Knoxville, Sept. 2Ist, 1855.
Cary, Howe Co., ct ais vs. Joseph B. Palmer and wife,
ct ais, and George W. Reed Co., vs.. Joseph B. Pal
mer and wife, ct ais.
From Sullivan county.
Joseph NJ. Logan, for compliments.
James W. Deaderick, for defendants.
ShacklcfOrd delivered the opinion Of the court
The complanants fled their attachment bills in the
Chancery Court BlOuntve against Palmer and Bet
erton charging that BetterOn had cOlluded with Palmer
in the fraudulent disposition of bis goods. Palmer was IN
failing circumstances and largely indebted to com
planantS and Others Beterton knew Of the indebted
ness Of Palmer advised the agents Of compliments that
Palmer would make fraudulent disposition Of his goods
that be could for 81 900 purchase the stock Within q
hours thereafter, when he had been informed the COM
panRntS were about sueng out their attachments against
Palmer he purchased the stock Of goods amounting to
about g $780, for which he paid in part tract OF land
priced at 5OO and executed his for the balance
Tho proof shows the title to the land was defective;
part Of the original purchase money unpaid and part
in litigation. Is manifest 10 he court THE rc0s az n-
tempt The part Of BeeroH TO aid and assist Palmer N
the Perpetratiou Of fraud his creditors There
IN The record The decree Of me Chancellor nil be
affirmed.
Bryant Byas, il error, vs.. Robert Martin and Samuel
Vance, Extrs.
LAW CAUSE.
Mcfarland, for plaintiff in error.
Swan and Meek, for defendants in error.
Judgment affirmed
Il. G. Fain and Henry q. Wax, Adm'rs of VIM. Mil
Ter, deceased, in error, Isaac johnson.
LAW CAUSE.
This suit brought by defendants in error, damages
for the unsOundncSs of horse received in exchange
judgment rendered in favor of defendants in error
from which the plaintiffs have appealed. There is
in the charge of the preudicia the defend
ant The proof fully sustans the verdict and the iudg
ment of the court is affirmed.
James Haws vs.. Thomas NJ Brandon and the President
and Directors Of the Bank of Tennessee.
CHANCERY CAUsE.-From Greene county.
Tho decree Of the Chancery Court affirmed.
Abraham Upton VS.. Thomas J. Powell Thomas c. John
son, Robert Love, Isaac P. Upton and James P.
Upton.
Baxter and Champion, for Powell
Thos. A. r. Nelson, for the complainant.
Millcgan, Judge-deyered the opinion Of the court.
This bill fled to restrain the sale of land. The
court Of the opinion that the grounds upon which the
prayer of the bill based insufficient The decree
of the Chancellor will be affirmed with costs, and the
emanded to be proceeded according this OPin-
Col James " Meek, Jacob ". Thornburc, L. 4. Graft
and E. C. Carp were admitted to practice attorneys
in the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
September ed, 1865.
Louisa Moody vs. Daniel BrittOn James W. Duncan and
John Rankin, in
Maxwell and Nillegan, for plaintiffs, in error.
ThOs. D. Arnold, for defendants, in error.
Maynard, Special Judge-deivered the opinion Of the
court.
In this case defendant Britton, as a constable of
Greene county, seized and sold certain personal property
upon execution against the father of plaintiff dsre
sarding an alleged conveyance to her from her father
on the ground that his creditors the conveyance
was fraudulent and void. On the trial he relied the
Statute passed the Sd of February, 1885, his legal
authority for his sctnga constable. The court held that
this not valid and confessed authority the
defendant make levy beyond the limits of Rkcato
The holding of the Circuit Court erroneous; the
judgment Will be reversed and the cause remanded for
new trial
T. I. Bradford, in error vs.. Bradford :. Taylor
The fact of suretyship appearing in the judgment
There the record The decree Of the Chan
ccor is affirmed Hawkins, Judge.
Thco L Bradford vs. Bank of Tennessee, ct ais.
From Chancery Court at cambridge.
James 2. swan, for complainant.
James Il. Cooke, for defendant.
Shackeford Judge-devered the opinion of the court
The fact of the complainant being the security not
appearing in the Judgment the Demurrer properly
allowed and the decree Of the court is affirmed.
Edward Waerson and others, heirs &C., vs. Henry Wat
terson.
CONTESTED WILL.
C.. W. Hall, for plaintiffs in error.
Thos. A. r. Nelson, for defendants, in error.
There being the charge of the court in h'
cause the verdict Of the Jury authorized by tbs
proof and fully sustans the judgment of the court ii
therefore affirmed. Shackeford.
September Esd, 1859
William +. Butler w. William q. Butler, ct ais.
ThOs. A. K. Nelson and James W. Deaderick, for COM
plauants.
Baxter and Champion, James Il. Cooke, and Logan 4
Logan, for defendant.
Hawkins. Judge-deIvored the opinion Of the court.
The opinion is very lengthy and elaborate. The court
was of the opinion there in the record and The
decree Of the Chancellor is affirmed.