Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-06
THE COURTS.

MITE STATES DISTRICT AND 1IR
CUT CCURT-Hoa Connolly F, 1rigg,
prssidiHg-Tbe criminal docket OF the
Circuit Court will be taken up on regulsr
cali Mondsy morning.
On opening the court, the case OF Az
detson VS.. White, continued from yester
dy, Was tsken up. B=fore the court
charged the jnry, the counsel for the de-
PENDANT claimed that the suit was prem
sJGrely brought, on the ground that an
agreement had been made between the
C~ontending parties in this suit that, for
tue security of tenants who might emf
the land now in dispute, the rents should
be paid over to the heirs, unless by a de-
cree of the Chsncery Court of Memphis
the suit should be decided in favorol An
ders0n; then the tenants should become
accountable to Anderson. This agree
ment was dated January 2, 1867. In
June of the same year, the Chancery
Court issued 8 decree in favor Of Ander-
son. Now, the defendants council claim
that the agreement virtually ackDowl-
esged that the heirs held adverse posses
sion at the time that the suit was insti
tuted, which was in August, 1857.
His honor, Judge Trigg, said that from
the express conditions of the agreement
the situation of the parties now contend
tLE III Aul5 suit we're uOt u DS dnrCAcOf
therefore he would not rule that the suit
was prematurely brought.
In charging the jury, the Court held
that while trespsss had not been COM
nitted NAL tides, yet the plaintiff had
been damaged TO the value of the lumber
felled, destroyed, and taken away for the
benefit of the defendant. Toe jury, af-
ter retirement, found damages to the
amount OF 5000 for plaintiff.
Judgment by default was rendered in
the following cases: Nos. SIS, SAC, $40,
and sos on the Circuit docket also in
eases Nos. 242, pa. 247, 254. 255, 25S, 259,
go. anu 265 OF the District docket.
g. w, Carson, q bankrupt, has his dis
charge, but still has property in the
hands Of the assignee, for which there is
no claimant. He therefore asks for an
order to receive bsck the property and
cancel the obligations OF the assignee.
Granted.
Certzin creditors of J.. w. Alexander
ana s. a Given, bsnkrupts, by attorney
on petition, asked an Injunction against
parties who are proceeding in the County
Court of Lauderdsle county for q parti.
ion Of lands, in which bankrupts own
undivided iDterests-on the ground that
the creditors who hold q lien on the in
terests of Given in the lands, claim that
Given is entitled 70 the entire interest
II the firm Of Alexander, Given & Co.
l. ICcti0n refused, on the ground that
he assignee OF the b~snkrupts is the
proper party to ask the process of a
Court for the benefit OF the creditors.
Law CoURT-A s. Lee, judge
The motions entered on the motion
docket yesterday and also the cases pub
.ished for trial were mostly disposed OF.
Tomorrow the following cases will be
called:
4lG Nolan VS. Beaumont.
liG Led we vs. Quinn.
IllS Union Back OF Tennessee vs. Hack et al.
I4ls comps Il al VS. O'Nauy.
lao Humes & ) OFT VS. Levy & Co.
Az anon " Winters ct al.
l43 Vincent vs. B.idgeS ct al.
4 4 KaneSly "a hce, Davis q Co..
"a Lyons vs. futile.
1928 JONES VS. HAIRS.
lts7 spencer VS. Hidebrand.
i42s Union BANK OF Iennesee VI TOWNSEND
l4-9 same VS. Taylor & McEwen.
1880 Trabus Z Co. VS. Cash, sdm'r.
liS5 EOlian1 vs. Packer ct ok.
ilS1 Tyler VS. Hunt.
l264 81 c h. X. Company Va sullivan.
y !lllvan VS. 80 4 H. Co.
Isl Potter VS. German National Bark.
s 5 OBritn Us Davis.
1904 NJ. A o Memphis VS. Rocco.
4O6 Same VS. Y .Ins-y.
HOS Same VS. Oaurch.
II ? Same VS. O'DonHell.
MUNICIPAL COURT-Gs0 ". HdldTdn,
Jndge.-COurt meets to morrow morn
ing At 8 O'Clock. The following calen-
OAR will be called for trial:
1860 Hugg VS. Etcherverne,
o. KIN L. 0CHenry VS. McClane.
" German SAVING Inst w Bender,
lzs3 Same vs. So ur.
L91 same Va MAILER.
l29j same VS. w gsnd et 81.
I295 same We Ben1er.
igS 5 az & Co VS. Kelly.
1883 aid VS. Grace.
1890 Stafty Y L1wlesss
1871 Tenn s MEire ms Co % Reordsn.
iS5l apmap VS. Black & &c.
los Tenn Nat Bank Vs Hutchinson ct a..
1874 Hill (r celye) VS. Wottertna,
10 - s-man Ct al vs. Wallace
1896 He'd W saele,
lS7 %sifdwOrta Vssahiei
i8ls KeIter w I've Ell ct 81.
1893 Kaunz y EoaiBetstsr VS. same.
1910 Brooks, Wiley 4 Co vs Kennedsy ct al.
1914 N Sernan savings Inst vs. Kel1g g ct al.
1912 Bliss d Co vs. Thomas & Arnold.
1913 McCardy VS. Briggs q Peterson.
1914 spies q Roseway VS. jess Ct al.
1875 Bnsbs rs Sheppard.
1910 OiEern VS. heecber,
1917 Briggs & Peterson vs. Robinson Co.
I3fgSTwUhfg VS. Cations.
1870 Russell, Grove & 20 VS. Carter & fwotfg .
1921 Memphis German Savings Institution VS.
1922 Hushes VS. Davidson ct al.
Hampton VS. Mississippi Valley Insurance
1e4 Sewnaan y Roescher.
ISIS P1WcrsV VS. Treat
Tennessee 5 NJ Fire INSURANCE Company
vs. Walter.
1877 Tennessee 5 II Fire Insurance CompeDy VS.
P5res4
wilhelm,
1879 Smith VS. Aosl,