Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-08-30
THE COURTS.

LAW COURT.-The calendar set fo
yesterday was disposed OF, the majority
of cases being continued over to mex
term. The cases set for trial to-day ar,
as follows:
I9 Metcalf ct al VS. Dowell ct al.
is Brown VS. Holland ct 81.
l26 Murreu, administTatrix vs. Boon.
IL Feres VS. Strauss ct al.
1913 Fortsam VS. Galloway.
1870 Hanisan, administratriX, vs. Rice, admin
istratOr.
l3l Pointer vs.. BTinkley.
lS2 Saint, sur part, VS. Cogswell ct al.
l3 Parrish vs. smith & Co.
ia DE Barre VS. Picket et al.
1856 Harrison VS. Miller.
IS7 smith vs. Fletcher ct al.
l28 McLain vs. sale ct al.
l4O johnson vs. smith
al Robinson VS. Nichols, admir-.
l42 Mitchell VS. Hester ct al.
l43 Pope VS.. Tucker.
la Wiley VS. FOWlkeS, adm'X.
l5 Smith VS. Howse.
~ Stockton vs. Prewit, admir-.
l4S Rsmbaut vs. Morgan.
l49 Scott VS. MONTGOMERY.
Isl Williams VS. Jones ct 81.
l52 Burch VS. Staily
i58 simpson, Hays & Co VS. Memphis and Little
Rock railroad company.
l4 Morgan VS. Gilmore.
l5 Barnes, admir-, VS. Park.
l55 Foote, Clay & Co VS. Perry.
I67 hWO VS. Hunte ct al.
I5g Freeiegh ct al VS. O'Neal, Jr.
100 Howell, admir-, VS. Jackson ct al.
lti Nail vs. Patterson ct ri.
l62 Park, McCurdy 4 co VS. Glthner Ell al.
l63 Parran vs. smith.
lS4 Seabrook vs. Coleman & Co, ct al.
l65 Claybrook vs. Wickersham ct al.
100 Meyer q Co VS. Auer.
l67 Central Insurance company VS. Baird.
I6g Haley vs. Carroll ct al.
10 Hempshire vs. Leath.
III Newly. heir, etc, vs. Burnett ct al sur part.
III CogsWeli VS. Mumford.
l73 OConneT VS. Memphis and Ohio railroad.
ia Healy VS. Listh ct al
lT5 Bona VS. White.
176 james Admx vs. Grifing.
III City Insurance company OF Con vs. Williams
ct al.
I7s Delaware Mutual Insurance company VS.
Williams Ell al.
lT9 Caldwell VS. Coleman & Co.
lSJ Greenlaw Ell alys Henderson.
ISL Petit, trustee, VS. McknighL
lS2 Hamilton VS. Mcconnell ct al.
1873 Hamilton VS. Park.
l4 Marshall VS. Hinchis ct al.
iS Cogswen VS. Elliott
lS6 Merr.ck sur part VS. Pante.
lS7 Heirs Of Johnson vs. Hogan ct al.
iS Templeton vs. DOugherty ct al.
1888 James, administrative, VS. Phelon Ell al.
1870 Mckinney & Co VS. Street ct al and Mayor
and Aldermen of Memphis.
lgl Sullivan VS. Reynolds.
1872 Copeland, Edmonds & Co VS. Wintersmith
1913 James VS. Haynes.
1875 Edmonds VS. Cornell.
1876 Lithnor & co VS. Stillman & Co.
lB Hill & Dorian vs. NJ ana L r railroad Co.
~ Mason Co, NJ and Go, and Syracuse Coal
Co vs. steamer J II Diekey and owners.
1893 Hofmeister, administrator, VS. Padgst.
1919 Burnet ct al VS. Newby.
200 same vs. same.
9Ol Isaacs vs. Montgomery.
2G2 Williams VS. johnson.
2S8 Erskine vs. Chamagne ct a..
2S4 Morgan ct al, heirs Of Ball, deceased, VS.
Tate ct 81.
2S5 Burnett, executor, VS. Ayres.
20 Wills ct al VS. Farrls ct al.
% Doyle vs. Breathet ct al.
2S Foster, Gwyun q 20 vs. oliver.
go Jones ct al VS. Hurst.
go Gather, sur part, vs. Bartlett.
29l Bryan Bros vs. Cole ct al.
22 Wickersham vs. Austin ct al.
DIS Franciolu Ell al VS. street et al.
24 Mississippi Central Railroad Company vs.
Normsmt.
s5 Morgan ct a., heirs, etc, vsBeard ct al.
26 Morgan vs. Yelling.
az. Memphis Oyerton Hotel Company VS. Ban
non, admir-.
Dos Same VS. HarriRan, adm'X.
800 Same vs. Becktold, adm'x.
so Jones, Brown & Co., vs. Plckens.
8l Grifith, Hyatt & Co, VS. Buell. & Co.
SO Kirkland VS. Pearson ct al.
SO4 Pope, ex'r., ct vir VS. stephens.
+5 Garrison OF al vs. Coleman & Co
SS Parrow vs. Burch.
ST Hathaway VS. Carr ct al.
SS Eagle Insurance Company VS. Williamson
ct al.
800 Hiilman Bros. w Grant.
$40 johnson VS. Smith.
MUNICIPAL CoURT.-Stands adjourned
until Monday next. Yesterday-The
calendar set for that day was called
through, and disposed OF in the usual
manner.
R1ts Renovatad at 362 Second STRAIT