Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-10-28
THE COURTs.

CHANCERY COURT Vim. Ii. SnaSth
Chancellor, etc.-The following oases are
set for trial to-day:
III Porter VS. Street ct al.
As smith VS. Myn4tt.
S3 Poces:a VS. Art, ct al.
Si Ssay VS. Wade.
800 Heidie VS. While.
$50 Peerce ct al VS. Miller ct al.
Isl IRWIN, administrator VS. Ford.
81 sumner VS. HaIlnm, administration.
$50 Greenl4w ct al VS. Nelson, executor.
S5j Mix VS. Marshall ct al.
SS7 HOyton VS. Gillalsnd ct al.
3S Brown VS. jacob.
39 aaerrtn VS. DIbarre ct al
so Hunter ex parte.
S9l baugh VS. BrasWell.
49, Peacock VS. Thomas ct al.
33 Waiver VS. Andrews ct al.
81 Fitzgerald VS. Beattics ct al.
S95 Perkins vs. Todd ct al.
80 Ss6rcy VS. Ssarcy.
3F Broozs vs. Hill ct al
3S Union Bank Tenn VS. Dickens ct al,
500 Prouuht, executor VS. Walker ct al.
400 Bradsn w wiley ct al
fl JACKSON Insurance Co Us Partee ct al.
42 Clay Us Jackson Insurance Co.
404 BuleI vs. Rogers ct al.
4O5 Kaufman VS. Taylor ct al
iI JO1es et al VS. Boyer ct al.
AIS Richmond VS. Il cnLnord,
l09 4lssy ct al vs Nance ct 81.
40 Butler VS. StoeksIaAer.
All Allen VS. Allen.
Az Batter VS. Graft ct al
i3 Blood & Co VS. 4rLley ct al,
Ala Robinson vs. Tane.
40 Rocket VS. Memphis Bulletin Co ct si.
46 Eaccaro VS. Memphis TneRter Co 81 al.
CIRCUIT COURT George ". Reeves,
Judge-Al the business set for yester-
day was disposed OF.
p Ia the case OF Brown vs. Neeley, the
jury failed to agree and were discharged
until to-day.
Gases set for to-day are as follows:
20 Or-iIl Bros. VS. Farris.
q springfield ct al VS. Armour.
81 kehes VS. GaTvtn.
81 omIth vs. MeGrsth ct a..
40 Dickens, use, VS. Cash, adm'r
- state VS. GsiJuer.
% Bsnner VS. Goodman.
% LsfJ1ich VS. Hines.
ii Lsderl5 VS. SSlllman.
u kider & Pope VS. Dtxey q ALGee,
o5 Union BANK VS. bowIes.
"a Aiken VS. Treat.
% Bond VS. Madison.
66 Thompson ct al VS. Williams.
o. Moore VS. Johnson.
20 McCleary VS. Glissen,
a shore VS. Williams,
Y Leonard, use, VS. WheeIar,
70 sic VS. Chapman.
"A Reausseau VS. hRnass.
% Ed yards VS. NJ. & o. r, r. Co.
20 SAndSrlLn VS. same.
u Bell VS. same.
IS ID cksns, aum'r, VS. Cash, admir-.
- Barnett vb COMBS.
o. Jackson lbs. co. VS. Parker ct al,
81 Blood vs. Nav.
- N9S N1 NIL.
81 Humss q Pqstcn vs. olty OF Memphis.
81 snnsoa VS. NJ. & O. K. R. Co,
. Herring VS. Same.
- STATE, use, VS. Edwards.
q or, admir-, VS. Osborne.
IS COidwSu We Harvey.
az Nil vs. EunICn,
90 Mallon VS. Numerical
~ Myers VS. stephens
gS Sale VS. Perkins ct "A
"a Lawrence Ell al VS. MNCIeary.
% LoIdwell VS. bay.
81 same VS. Sparks.
81 Same VS. White,
IS Same VS. Holmes.
% Same VS. Holmes,
100 same VS. Aur
iU5 Ma.dEaa G Truntham VS. Homes.
l2 McSpadden VS. Black.
lO5 CroEshaw VS. smith.
lU4 bfoadnax VS. C~rsnshav,
I'D Nokes VS. SigleT.
LAW CoURT-H s. Lee, J1doe,-An
cases set for trial yesterday were dis.
posed OF. Tae regular calendar set for
to-day will be taken up:
1910 Hicks vs Gsyoso Savings Institution.
lOI2 Moore VS. Pollock.
1857 etgne VS. Duke.
Ieos G.enn & son VS. southan ct al.
lOSg Bennett VS. McLepoke.
lI9J Gritf1a VS. Scar.
AOVl Memphis and st. Louis Packet Company
ISs2 HsrL9n; E:tes q Co VS. Sorry & Harris.
1904 Wood q Co VS. Malatssta.
igyj Seldner VS. Mell1nger.
l09I ABLE VS. Roberts.
4Oss Hart ct al VS. Atlantic and Mississippi
steamship Company.
lIOO EIehbert VS. Wilson & Co.
MUNICIPAL oURT-Geo. W. WdLdrdn,
Judge, etc.-This Court was engaged the
Whole of yesterday in empanneIing q
in the case OF the State VS.. Camp
DELL. The trial Of the same will come
to-day. Cases set for trial yesterday
will be taken up to-day,