Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-15
THE COUBTs.

GoAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT AND CIR
CUT CCUKTs-HOn. C0nndlV f. TTi00,
presiding The following cases are set
tor tomorrow Lehman Loeb, case in
bankruptcy; State Bank of Missouri We
Branch, and Vance vs Merrill.
The case of Southern VS. Arnold was
taken up from an adjournment on Satur-
day. Col. CAN'T replied to the argument
Of the counsel for the defendant, in re-
gard to The laws of Coz gress in reference
70 iiiegality Of contracts; after With
The court charged the jury. 1t held thai
If q contract had been made, il was not
necessary for the plaintiff to offer the
money, rope aud baggiDg, If the plaintiff
vas well satisfied That the defendant
could not comply with bis part OF the
contract. Plaintiff alleged in the deelar-
alton that a contract was made, which
was denied by the defendant. The court
held IL 3 contract was made, it should
nave been produced il court, or the ex-
press stipulaiions proven. That not hay-
ing been done, the jury after a short re
tiTeHent. found verdict for defendant.
Wright & McKissick for the defendant.
Case Nc. IFS, United States vs. Smith,
vas dismissed.
In the case Of the United States Va. NJ,
Wolf, the defendant applied for a eontin-
uance on affidavit, which was granted.
Gotten case OF Jas. Thomas, jE. VS., J..
B. Sharpe d Co., was then taken up II
appears from the evidence that Messrs. ]
B. Sharpe d Co. wefe tobacco commits
sion merchants in Memphis in 1862; that
Jas. Thomas, jr, OF Richmond, Va, had
tobacco Oh commission with them at inst
time; that there was q balance due when
Memphis fell in the hands of the United
States Of $4,000; that the defendants ae-
kuOwledged the debt rs a just one, pro-
vided il was paid at the value Of Confed
crate money at the time the debt wss
contracted but the laws OF the United
States are such that 10 action can be
awarded: il . court, where parties trade
for Confederate money. Mr.. Estes for
the defendants, and Gen. Humes and Mr..
JGrnigan for the plaintiff. Msss.s. Estes
and Jarnigan conclude their argument
to-day. Gen. Humes will close the case
tomorrow, after which the Court will
decide whether or not this case comes
under the above mentioned laws of Con-
gress.
TIE attention Of attorneys interested is
called to the petitions Of r. w. Newly,
u. ii. Branch, II. z. TomliBsOu, w. w.
Nuckolls and Il. H. Doris, which are in
formal knd require correction.
MUNICIPAL CoURT-Geo. ". WaLdTaR,
Judge.-EverY case on yesterdays cal
endar was disposed of, AMI thirteen iadg-
meDts were entered. The eases for To-
day are as follows:
Iise Orgill Bros & Co VS. Larkin.
1924 Dickinson VS. Whittier.
l2f4 Notion VS. Saint.
'2oS Maddox vs. Bullt ok Of al.
1881 B.elock & 20 VS. Mickie ct al.
1874 Bates VS. LpTy.
1913 NJ s A Of Memphis VS. Castor.
1853 same VS. LOwden.
1857 Fin VS. wye.
HOS Roberts VS. SIDES.
1909 State VS. Wneelar eI nj.
lao Smith, aSm'r, VS. McLea
l434 Topp VS. COckreIl.
l452 Semmes q Co vs. Robbins.
1853 Cassitt vs. TedfOrc. ct al.
l4d Peasants x Co VS. Bender.
lA5 Van Brocklin VS. McCray.
1856 Ford VS. Meath.
l457 Stillmap VS. Meath.
1919 Firth, Baugh q Co VS. Saint ex,
1853 Craft q Wilson vs. WaggeEer.
dol Stillman VS. Burton.
1860 SliIlman & Co VS. Farresles & Barnes.
l462 Merchants National Bank vs. Cable.
1853 Brinkley VS. GATES & Wood.
1864 Same vs. same.
1865 Andrews VS. saint, admir-.
1896 Smith VS. Evans.
li67 Edmundsv We Woodbridge.
Ii6S Moleott, smith Go VS. Patterson.
l1pd DIIc6 " 20 vs. hhYuH5
lao Mostly, Rsc'r, vs. Helales.
1871 Same VS. James ct nj.
I4z2 same vs. BrSoxs Peasants ct al.
lab Same VS. Williamson.
474 Same VS. Saint.
li75 Green aw VS. Cunningham.
l476 Littlefeld VS. HuntiPy.
az Savings Bank or Memphis VS. VIM ct al.
l47s Reynolds VS. County OF Shelby,
l4So Gallagher VS. same,
Law CoURT-A. s. Lee, dzdGe.-Yes.
terday'5 calendar in this court was run
through with early in the day. The cal
endar for to-day is al follows:
lAl Siillman & Co w. Bluff City Insurance
Company.
l4s6 Anderson ct al VS. Brooks, admir-,
1887 Anderson & GAY VS. Murphy,
l4S0 G3odhue VS. S~shOOnovsT, admir-, ct al.
1899 Risk VS. Pope Ell a, admir-.
l4Al Walker, trustee, vs. Msycr and Aldermen
of Memphis.
1902 Tilman VS. Wlekersham, admir-.
1898 saunders Bros q Co VS. Pollock.
1871 Stillman VS. r dgers.
1895 Boltol VS. StrSet& Co ct al,
1896 aarJin VS. McLefesh.
l4S7 johnson VS. Pittmau ct al.
1890 EaTmerA Bank Of Kentucky VS. Ford ct al.
SO flaheriy VS. Smith.
IDA Patterson vs. Johnson & Williams.
1913 Conley VS. Joyce.
CHANCERY CoURT.- Vim. u. Smith,
GlGRcelor.-The following cases come
up to-day on motion of pleas and de-
murrer
Vaudeville rs Persons.
Hiiman VS. Scarborough.
VS. Gal inc.
STATE, exc, VS. OveFton Hotel Company.
VS. Laird.
Ottenbeimer ysCook.
JAffrey VS. Holland,
Miller VS. Ma lury.
FREEMAN VS. Freeman.
VS. Galloway.
Buster VS. Hinson.
Buck VS. Williams.
smith vs. Beaumont.
The above cases will he called after the