Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-04
THE COUNTS.

hfr. Wm. Pepper was excused from
further Service on the grand jury, also
hIr Pr0viBe, on the traverse Jury.
Case Of Grisham VS. Lane, dismissed at
the cost Of defendant
Case No. so, ciLcuit docket, was con-
tiBued by consent.
In the case OF the United States VS.
1900 bales of cotton, row the council,
Judge p, Z. SeTuggs, asked that the on
Cfi0n Of the bond shall be changed so as
To protect the Interests of other claimants,
provided the cotton il not forfeited 10 the
/ Government. His honor, Judge Trigg,
said the bond was given in strict accord
snce with the rules Of court, which rule
was founded upon the act Of Congress.
In csses 822 and SIS judgment was tax
en- ty default.
Cases rs and 70. equity dOcket, are
continued by consent.
In the case OF st. Louis sectional dock
COMPANY, a decree has been is7ued
against NJ. Pyne and James Lee, jr., for
S4lS6 81 with the privilege of paying it
in twenty days, otherwise will be sued
on attachment.
Applications were made for the ap-
pointment OF United States Commits
s~IoneTs, as follows: VIM. a. Woods,
Of Ripley, Lsuderdsle county; james
Il. olEA1CA6s VI dfhcON 1AahilcOn COGbAlf
Tenn. Isaso NJ. Hudson, Of Paris, Henry
county, Tenn; and II. p. Woodland, of
Memphis.
In the case of John p. Read, OF
Brownsville, lately appointed United
States Commissioner, Mr.. L. d. McEis.
sick resd from Brightley's Digest ind
referred to sdjadicsted decisions to SeOW
that a United States Commissioner was
not required 10 give bond or be sworn.
He said that after carefully examining
thstaw, he found no statutes and nc act
OF Congress which required q COmmIs-
sioner OF the United States to take an
oath CT Office. Marlsnd l.. Perkins,
Esq 10 presenting The name OF James
K. Stephens as a suitable person tc be
appointed United States Commissioner
for Jackson, said that 1t seemed TO him
the rule ought to be q uniform one.l
Either those heretofore appointed United
States Com nissioners, and who had not
taken the test oath ought to be relieved of
service, or else those now to be appointed
ought to be let in on the same oath that
was heretofore administered. Either all
should take the test oath, or all be ex-
cGsed from tskingit. Question held over
for consideration.
The case Of Harris VS.. Butler, wherein
Harris resists the discharge Of Butler as q
bankrupt, Harris not hsvirg proved his
deb, was taken up and argued by Mr..
MeCisushan, of Jacks0n, Tenn. Butler
being il debt, even TO insolvency, oOn
yeys various tracts of land to the value
OF 500 J0 to his father for the considera-
lion Of S2400 Subsequently his father, |
without consideration, conveys the same
lands back TO his wife, and sppoints his
son her trustee. Harris failed to prove
his de5s, because il he did SO, by the
tventy-fFat section OF the bankrupt act,
hs would forfeit his claim except TO g
foint participation with ether creditors
in the assets Of Butler, bat files a petition
to prevent ButieIls discharge as q bank
rupt, having 6 suit Slresdy pending
the Stats Court, TO attach the said
lands in payment OF his claims. The
petition Of Harris to prevent Buffers
discharge is resisted because of bis fall
ure TO nrnvs his debt ia the bankrupt
court-the question being whether a par
ty having cebts pFOvable against q bank
Tupt, but not having them, is a creditor
under the bankrupt law. Mr. McClans-
han read various provisions Of the law
Itself, a. we'll as the forms OF notice pro-
vldsd by the Supreme Court Judges, and
also from various decisions, wherein it
had hee1 decided both ways, snd showed
both the Law itself, as well IS equity, re-
CURED that all parties interested in 8
baukrupps estate, shopld have the privi-
lege Of making apparent any act OF fraud
il the bankrupt. The question Is a new
and important one, and Mr. McClana-
hams argument was listened 10 With
marked attention by the members Of the
bar generally. 1t remains 10 be further
argued by Mr.. Humss en- the same side.
The case Of ABGeison vs. White, was
taken up, and the Jury ~empanDeied.
Pending the examination Of witnesses,
the court adjourned until 10 o'clock this
morning.
Law COURT-R. g.. Lee, JiSdge.-
Case OF wilkins vs. Acknowledgement
sUit-GiEputed baundsries-judgnent for
p~lsintiff. The motions of Mr.. Donovan
and Mr.. Matthias fOT judgment over
eCsiGst successful parties for their fees
c me on 20 be hesrd yesterday, and was
a. s.-3 At length by various counsel. The
crGE1 hsiG, tst That in original suits
com meBcsd in this court the successful
parties are liable to the officers Of the
court for those fees which have accrued
at their instance, upon execution against
the unsuccessful parties being returned
nuAG 65sa. %. That in cases brought
from 4 lever court 10 this court by de-
PENDANTS appeal or petition for eertiorari,
the defendant, though successful, is in
ike manner liable for costs accrued at
his instance. 81. That the liability of
successful parties does not Include their
sureties.
The calendar published yesterday was
called and ell the cases disposed OF,
maaiIg by continuance. To-day the fol-
cases will be calleds
1921 Watson VS. Rosser.
1872 PyEe vs. GDrphy.
1873 Temple e. al vs. Yergsr. |
24R Rec, ~ Co " ltegt.
lZS5 Hamilton VS. Moran.
1916 McEirOy W he one
Roach ( CO vs. Hill, Strange 3 Co.
1850 Frsyser & Wiiiett vs. FsIdmRR.
1921 Carr VS. CaldTell.
1902 Bales vs. Auglsr.
lza5 HiImau = os VS. Jones'
lz9i Howell y Oimsteac.
1898 McAdams vs. Gardner.
1875 Parker VS. Mccoy.
lZg7 Morrow v ~Braokshire et 81.
1898 N tchell, Hoffman & Co vs. Brown.
1888 Malone W. Swamp. |
80 Davis VS. Barton.
1871 same - s2m5.
1902 Mcrri on - Smith. I
- 3 Russell We Kelly. 4
1904 Anger W Euukley IT ell.
1905 Ames, Woodbury. q Jones Va CoggsWen
1905 watson vs. Cunningham.
10 Grant V Margsn.
1905 Thompson VS. 7 piping.
AINa L 81 LAahA az ~ ~ W GtEA4 j
ISi0 Barker rs Way & Co. |
lsll Montgomery ~ BeaGmonts
1872 Sullivan VS. Captain Rnd cwnsrs steamer
GuadCn. |
1913 Sane " same,
JS!f tougaersy Vs. Eyett8. |
1915 Conley vsJoyce. /
1873 Pc kins vs. swamp. L
1917 Creighton & Co vs. Mussos
1919 WicReTshsm CT al Va Stsinkuhl.
1920 Same " same. i
1872 HClstefn vs. PfsnneStishl. /
1872 z a k IS WIldebergeT, sdm'r,
1928 Wsldeberger - Brown.
l524 Block & Baymliierxs Levy /
laI Rice, six &c VS. Rose. I
1895 Go=pel a5m'r VS. Church.
lsH Bridgefcrt vs. Huss.
1873 Engfcbsch vs. 5 udder, /
1923 Harris vs. NeccseH%
1870 Johnson vs. Green Co.
1923 II Carry W collin.
MS, Potter v Ge.nsn National Bank.
slT Young vs. zchooi Visitors.
Attorneys are reminded that these are
mostly appeals from Justices and that
the calendar viii doubtless be gone
through with rapidly.
CHANoERY CoURT.-REa. H. Smith,
G.GaceIlOr.-Conyeuss at 10 o'clock am.
tO-dsv. which i motion day. The roll