Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-11-26
THE COUATS.

CHANCERY COURT Fpl. IL. Smith,
NGacel3Gr.-The cases on yesterdays
calendar were disposed OF, To-day be-
ing thanksgiving day Court will not be
in session. Court meets Friday, which
will be motion day Roll of Attorneys
Gill be called, commenclng 81 letter A.
Law CoURT-R. s. Lee, Judge
Only 4 case was tried yesterday In this
Court. The remaining cases on yester-
day's calendar will be la en- up on Fri
day morning, to which day the Court
stands adjourned. The calendar is as
follows:
Il90 BlaCkmors VS. 4 x Co.
1923 First National BanK Us arnold e al.
ltS5 Glenn q SON vs. soulhail ct al.
llGS q bson vs. RSechsr.
lle5 Spect Vs Rawlings.
III ToppiEg - Swan.
ieO2 Laskl W husser.
1888 AIAoA W q Jones rs Archer.
lzVi Mclaughlin VS. Groves.
iH6 hsrHS rs CroVles.
ldf WesicQtt IS Mitchell.
1907 GoodmRn vs. Roth.
l20S Cunningham VS. Mccormick ct al.
1910 Stoval VS. Nan ing
I2lI Frazer & Coass vs. Hartman, admir-.
1912 Barnes VS. Jones.
Y 8 PGlliam ct al VS. waldran papers miszlng).
l2lI Jones VS. Ghoat5 q Co,
Els McEinnEE 4 &C. - HOPPER.
1918 KILLER vs. 1reightmssteri
Pa Ssler Us Foley.
LIS Cerley VS. Rae.
1919 Fond VS. Fieid,
lZ20 &ilEersJn & 20 vs. MCGat,
l22l ued1ek vs. HOian.
1872 Packer vs. Holland ct a..
1873 Blood & 70 VS. Hack.
liza Patterson VS. johnson & Williams.
lZ20 VS. Anderson ct al.
MUNICIPAL COURT-Geo. ". Fdldran,
JldGe,-phe case of Hatch VS.. Wsggener
ct al. was taken up yesterday. This Gaze
occupied the whole day, and no other
business was transacted. Court stands
adjourned until Friday morning, when
the untTied cases on yesterdays calen-
dsr will be called Up.
The calendar Is "a f%nlln.:
ll79 Mahen VS. Choaie Z Co.
lee Holland & Bros, Use, etc, VS. Marshall.
1851 ManshCd s Hfsbee VS. Chsrot.
lI50 HeANYOcd vs. Eusley,
lIs5 Memphis German savings Institution VS.
ll4s WI OK, wright& Co vs. Black ct al.
INA BeCombs & Co vs Davis.
lIT5 tfConnor vs. hei- n.
Il52 Msssick, ai1'r VS. Walker ct al.
l IS Cochran VS. Ke ly ct al.
IisO state OF Tenn sSoa " Speed ct al.
lisS TreadIel s q VS. Taylsr.
lAJ Crisp We Park.
1913 La Bau We Scudder ct al.
70 Z Lawrence VS. Mitchell.
izf3 Creighton VS. smith.
u 1 Dickinson Us y inter,
I&5 Lucas VB E atne.
1884 Walker, admir-, vs. Speed et I'll.
1877 S ewart & CO VS. COckrell.
i<3S Same Us same.
Lisa 'rlpiett VS. same.
l2N Memphis ciy Savings Institution VS.
1871 Ven bic VS. Jones.
I242 Bently, Burtos & Co VS. Newsom.
l2i3 Nenabie VS. Winter.
IA Notion vs. Ssist.
l4 Nelson Va Allen.
1915 NJ rTiwsathss. admir-, VS. Burwinkle.
l2iT Mitchell VS. Wright.
lE4S Dgpre6 v, TOueny.
i94g JuKe Ell al Us ,la5t n.
y o lewis VS. Webb a Fail.
1854 Paaer on VS. Z rIstian ct al.
81 ARrros VS. Cockrel
1853 Nem phisC City Savings Institution VS. CAN'T
ct a.,
l25l Oh a : Us Q7iiey.
l2@ Memphis German Savings .Iustltunon vs.
Slaughter OF al
1855 Same We Early.
l2J7 Warwick VS. jefferson.
1858 smIth W G m nsnam.
I25e Lake " Bettls
1880 Hugg W Etrhevarne.
l2oI fain'eI VS. Pettis.
/ % Commercial Bank Of Tennessee vs. Keudiu
l2SS PHILIP, Dodge & Co vs. Dickson tt
~ 4 Amer can Woe Co rs Aekerman,
l3S Memphis German Savings Institution VS.
Wetter.
1895 Hill rs Montgomery.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT AND CIR
CUT COURT Hon. Connolly T.. TTgo,
presiding. There was a large attend
anee yesterday, =. A. Given & Co. pre-.
scented e petition, through their counsel,
for the removal OF an application now
pending in the County Court OF Lauder
dale county, for the partition Of q tract
OF land, to the United States District
Court. The ground Of the petition holds
that the County Court has no jurisdio
ton in the matter, since the Supreme
Court has decided that the County
Courts cannot decide rights in equity
Papers submitted and deciaion reserved,
W. o. Butler, having debts paysble,
but not haying proved them, endeavored
TO prevent the discharge OF Geo. n Har-
ris from bankruptcy. HE Honor, Judge
Trigg, held that, until a party proves his
debts he caDnot be considered ; creditor.
Petition not granted.
The case Of Long vs. Paine, No.
525, was set foT EoYeaber seth also, the
case Of Southern W. Arnold, No IS, was
set for December, by consent. The cases
of Bishop VS.. Smith, Nos. sos and SOC,
defendant being insolvent, the plaintiff
dismissed the suits.
The case Of Sheppard vs.. the Mer-
chants Gatiensl Bank was than taken
up. II appears from the evidence that
Mr.. Sheppard sent y check drawn by
John II. Boyd on the City Bank OF Vicks- |
burg for the sun OF 1889 IS to the Mer-
chants National Bank foF deposit. The
bank refused TO credit him with the (
amount of the check, but undertook to
collect 1t that they sent the check to the
City Bank OF Vieksburg with special in
structions to remit the amount Of the
check in Eew York exehsngej that the
City Bank OF Yicksbnrg did 50, but the
bill OF exchange was lost, and on further
Inquiry By tbs Cashier Of the Merchants
National Bank q duplicate draft was
sent. In the meantime the bill of ex-
change wss protested In New York
then the Merchants National Bank en-
deaysred TO shift the loss on Mr.. s. The
case was argued by NJ. Z Perkins aud
Duncan McRes, Esq's, for tho plaintiff,
and by Judge Thos. r. Smith for the
RTarokanRa Nat;nnal Duntr M 49,,