Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-20

Z AUtleS.
Having closely watched the proceed
meg Of the Csurt, ~e are glad TO bear
. ness that they have been character
lied by that ability, dignity and exact
administration Of justice which oar long
observation hitherto had led Us TO antiei-
pate and which abandantiyI justiGes the
honest pride OF sll good eftizsus, and
their profound respeec for the decisions
Of tho United States Courts Of Tennessee.
In conclusion, sir, allow US 10 assure
you OF our high appreciation CT your
public character and private virtues, and
express our sincere wish that your health
may be preserved and your highest aspi-
rRfions realized.
R Hough, Foreman, RobtJ Che ter.
Y BCnuFcnt y N Leon,
: Wilkias, James Ktmbel,
T. j Se!QCu, JG CrOOEh ham.
$50 Z Hardin, Geo II 5rselFy.
VIM Wat, jos L ROsson,
i bingham, N = Miller,
James, Wilkins, l. Woleott,
W L Marsh.
His honor Judge Trigg, In dlseAa5ging
the grand jury, took occasion to thank
them for the efficient ard satisfactory
manner in which they had discharged
their duties, snd also rendered, in appro-
pirate terms, the thanss of the Court and
It's officers for the unexpected compli-
ment conveyed in the paper handed TO
the Court.
The grand jury was then discharged
from further service during the term.
MUNICIPAL COURT, O.. W. WdJdrdn.
Judge.-CouTt meets MOndsymorniug at
8 O'ciOcF 3. The following calendar will
ne called for that day:
liza McCombs & Co vs. DAvis.
1925 Lucas VS. Paine.
1914 Notion vs. Saint.
1857 Warwick VS. Jefferson.
1913 McCendy VS. Briggs L Peterson.
1850 Wa tsring, use, VS. Tyler * Crook.
1853 Williamson vs. Bolinger.
1884 Gay VS. Same.
1884 size vs. Briggs & Peterson.
sl4l3 Briggs et al. vs. Kimbrn.
F1434 TOS, use, etc. VS. Coekreil.
1888 Memphis German Savings Instituted
VS. Kuatz.
l4fl Same vs. Hoegel ct al.
l442 Same vs. Hesche ct 81. =
l4i3 same vs. Slaughter.
l444 Same vs. Same ct al.
l48 Same vs. Same.
l455 Van Brocklin vs. McRae.
I45S Firth, Baugh & ca. vs. saint, Exec
ut0r, etc.
1855 Andrews vs. Saint, Admir-.
1881 Miller VS. Somerviile.
1886 Alien, Guardian, vs. Gleason.
1909 Carnes, admir-, VS. James.
1914 Grant VS. ROthroek.
1877 Waldran vs. Pittman & Taylor.
1921 CaFDy vs. Nj. & A. Of Memphis.
1922 Hunt VS. Greeulaw, IL.
1923 Pickell vs. Carroll.
1874 Binke vs. ID. & A Of Memphis.
1875 UadeThill 6 SpOre VS. Levy ct al.
1926 NC Z Jacques vs Haynes.
1927 Same VS. Wesche.
1878 Tagg vs. Randall.
1929 Adler ct al vs. Seellg.
1880 AekermSn vs. Mareu.
1882 Armour VS. Black.
1888 Richards ys Higbee.
1884 Ls FOntaine vs. Hum.
1855 steel vs. SHears.
1886 Nc Williams & Co. vs. Duffey.
1887 German Nat. Bank vs. Bingham.
1888 StOddard ct al rs Junkerman.
1889 Townsend, exir, vs. Berlin.
1910 Mccoy vs. Fransioli.
1871 Kane vs. Home ms. Co. of n. Y.
1912 same vs. Security Ins. Co. Of n. Y.
I543 Same VS. Enterprise Ins. Go.
I544 Same vs. Putnam ms. Co.
1545 Holmes ct al vs. Williamson.
1915 Walt vs. Ford.
Law CoURT-H s. Lee, Jtdge-Oa
Monday the resolutions of the bar ia
reference TO the death of Judge Harris
will be presented By Col. T. s. Ayres.
The following cases are set for that dag:
144F Davie vs bolton ct al.
I547 Bracket & Co vs. Early.
1913 WaldrOn We Forrest ct al.
1850 Able VS. BarnWell.
1851 WaldrOn va Creighton.
1852 Walker vs. Payne ct al.
1858 LOwenstein VS. McEair.
1850 Bates vs. Bryson.
1855 Watson, trustee, vs. Topp ct a..
1851 TObin, Lynn 81 Co vs. J0urdan.
1858 WilkersOn & Bridges vs. same.
1860 hraus u Co VS. SAi1fmsn ct al.
1861 ROesher VS. Caro-,
1862 Steiner Bros vs. same.
1868 Lshman & Co vs same.
1864 Franciole and wife vs. Hopkins,
admir-.
1865 Semmes & Co VS. Lspham.
1867 Mshan VS. Taylor &c al.
1858 Hamilton & Blackwell VS. Wright ct
OIL.
1863 Church vs. Jones.
1870 FarnsWOrth & Co vs. Dickens.
l572 Parte VS. C0ggswell,
1913 Kimball q Bros vs. Constable & Co.
1874 Cruikshauk vs. Pool.
1888 Jennings vs. HUFF.
1916 Fahnesbsck et al Va FAhnegback
ct al.
A-lI LDIDI "a I 81 AcI 70 AANAAius Z
1921 Beard, use, vs. Saint, ex'r.
I52S Gocdioe Va Cash, admir-, Ell al.
1929 Shropshire vs Fightmaster.
1874 Clayton va Blessing.
Writs Of inquiry will glso be executed
on Monday, when tbe parties are ready.
There viii be Oae more motion day this
term The ifth rule of practice has been
modified so ga 20 read as follows: Judg-
ment by default for failure TO prosecute
or defend may be taken on the last mo-
ton day of the Court in appealed eases
in which the papers were not filed within
the first three days of the term, but mo-
tons for such judgment must be entered
on the motion docket as early as the SEC
Opd day before motion day, anu heard
the same as other motions,