Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-11-24
THE o

LAW CoURT-H S. Lee, JEdge.-The
case Of R1ffin sgsiost ferguson, which
has been on tTisi for two weeks, was
given to the jury yesterday morning.
This was IN action OF ejeetment brought
to recover possession OF q lot IN block
q, on the corner of Main aud Vance
sire cts. The plaintiff clsimed under a
continuous dsraignment Of title from
the original North Carolina grant to
John Ramsey in 1854. He also claimed
by virtue of twenty yeRrs prescription
and seven years adverse possession un-
der color OF title. The defendant, who Ia
the sole heir OF the late w. D. Ferguson,
claimed under a corporation tax title
acquired shortly before the Federal occu-
patlsn of the city. Great eX-rEons were
male by Messfs. Dixon, Adams and
Brown, the defendants counsel, TO de-
veiOp this title, and it Is believed that
the law on the suDject of tax titles was,
during the course Of this trisi, thorough
ly exhausted. The plaintiffs counsel,
Messrs. Humes and Jackson, raised sew
erat objections to ths defendants title,
which seem to have besn well taken.
The assessment was greater than the
smOuat authorized by the ordinance.
fhs lot was improperly listed In the
name Of the Second Presbyterian
Church. II 1t belonged to that
religious society, and was intended to Oe
used 10 the erection Of a church, the
assessment. was improper, for the Law
exempss such property from taxation.
Tbs description of the lot was faulty and
uncertain. Tae Judgment Of ths Com
mon Law and Chancery Court, con-
demning the property, did not recite the
fact necessary to give the court Jurisdic-
ti01-that is, IL did not set forth that the
property was situated in the city of Bem-
pals, and the territorial jurisdiction of
that court did not extend outsld8 the
city ; and lastly the purchase money was
not paid 1T the time OF the sale, bu. three
months thereafter.
The jury found for the plaintiff.
The calendar for to-day is as follows:
lisa Pierce VS. Hunt.
llS Sullivan vs. Ws2the-bee.
- d Hand W Packer and wife.
LIST Tyler VS. Hunt.
lles b o KS, edm'r, VS. Allen.
lles Edmonds, admir-. vs. Ryan
lIG Mitchell vs. Perkins
llss G&ll2gnoT V Mead
Coll VS. Henry.
lisa G eighton vs. nusso-
llyl Evans vs. Hunt.
llSo Spect vs. Rawlings.
lL9s Gaylor VS. seligman (psp.rs missing
300 Welsh VS. Sc3les.
Carroll Va Carroll.
Wolf & 60 We Manson.
h acEmore Va & MSSC
lI2j First Bank VS. Arnold e. 81.
loss Glenn & Son W. SouthaL ct al.
.lS Gibson vs. Baeche-.
The Court is now two weeks behind on
The regular calendar. Attorneys are no.
.ihed that when csses have been specially
'es for any particular day, butnot reach
they will be called Immediately after
he cases for that day shall have been {
Of. )
MUNICIPAL oURT-Geo. ". Wo1draa, /
Court yesterday. TIE cal !
published for yesterday viii bs+f
sken up TO day. /
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURr- :
JOnnetty f. 7rigg, Judge.-Met yester-
ley. No business transacted. Meets to-
pursuant to adjournment. No regu- :
ar order OF business on the calendar, 7
CHAECERY COURT.-RB1 N Smith, l
BGnceL!or.-The following cases will be /
card to-day on notion pleas, etc.
esgue VS. Dun.
oltnn VS. dickens.
vs. Justice.
-ates VS. Brinkley s
s.tle VS. Laird.
limby vs. Phe Xix Insurance Company. =
Vat VS. ThOmassoG. .
- fdEEaOce.
sndsriin VS. Johnson,
ersham W. Battai!s. -
-tlman vs. Stanton.
VS. Persona.
1lic rs Hsger.
ichoison pavement cases Nos. 2s57, $3.50, 2sS4
25SSse' Sl, 1914. @.5, 800, 1851, sa5S Sss. sGi, :
'atson VS. Haines. =
altman " scarborough.
VS. Gal mo. I
eep VS. C~annOyan. 4
VS. DuEtlilger.