Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-04-23

and 1erger, Foote q SsoVsH LOT ueIehu-
ants.
8. Anne Fighe w. Heirs of Hennessey
on report; 81. E. Jackson for plaintiff,
; and King & Humes for defense.
4 S. G. Morris vp. AAn II. Westerton I;
Estes, Jackson, Bsecber & BsIeher and
Munford for plaintiff, and HeiskeU,
Gantt and Wsd6ell fJr defense.
+ Zsbeth L. Davenport vs. John
Howbers, ct al. L. +. Carr for plaintiff
and Estes for defendants.
g. Ann NJ. Cogsweli vs.. L Sslby ct q.
on report; CAN'T & Waddell for plain
tiff and M. Bullock for defense.
; T. w. A. McRae vs. w. l. Vance
Humes, Jarnagan & Scott for plaintiff,
and Kortrecht & Craft for defendant.
s. Mary Ann Schouruar Vs. q. w
Lincoln ct al Yerger & Yerger for the
plaintiff and Heiskell, Scott q Heiskell
and Gsntt & Waddell for defense.
8 VIM. Maxvell VS.. John 6. Finnie
ct al. Vance & Anderson for plaintiff,
( and Msssey & Weieh for defense.
10 W. y Bayliss VS.. Henry B. S
Wniisms ct al Bumes, ~ erger, HAllum
& Scott for plaintiff and Haynes q Jack
son for defense.
IL. Elienor E. GreenlaW vs.. 81. B. S
Williams ct al; Hames & Scott and YER
ger & HAllum for plaintiff and Jackson
& Haynes for defense.
II Maurice Mitchell, ct al, vs. John
Brown ct al. +; Estes, Taylor & jackson
for plaintiff, and JarnRgsD, Humes,
Brown & Scott for defense.
Is. Joseph Arlington vs. f. A. Tyler;
Heron, Randolph & Lehman for plain
Tiff, and I. w. Brown for defense.
IL Mirah P Morgan ct al. VS.. Clara
Pope ct al. Wright IL McKissiek for
plaintiffs and Smith & Kittridge for de-
!ense.
Is. Thos. H. Williams VS.. E. B. Rob-
eTts ct al. II. G.. Smith & Estes for
plaintiff and D. L. Henry for defense.
l6 Jas. F. Holmes vs.. Lewis A. Wal
ton ct ri Scott, Dixon & Campbell for
plaintiff and Yerger for defense.
Il. James Z. Temple vs.. John eager
ct a Temple & CAN'T for plaintiff and
K1rtrecht & Graft for defense.
! IS. r. s. Jones and GAyoso Savings
Institution VS.. Cornelius, Fellows & Co /;
4. w. Brown for plaintiffs snd Finlay l.
Kslisr for defense.
| 10. Mary Murdock ys. VIM. Johnson 4;
| Heiskell & Winchester for plaintiff and
| Smith & Kittridge for defense.
20. john B. Hill vs.. VIM. Walker
/ Brown & Y srger for plaintiff and Craft,
Humss, Scott & Heiskell for defense.
q. Mary A. BiscsW we'll VS.. George w. /
!
Rae Z SCmsFville u Scott for plaintiff, !
and L. w. Brown, Yerger & Sale for de- |
fense.
D. Thomas R. Vaughn ct al, We. D. |
Vaughn; Hames, Pickett Il Hanson and |
w. s. Scott for plaintiffs and Hanson q
Swingley for defense.
% Henry Laird VS.. Geo. w. Scott, ct
ST. Wright & McKissick for plaintiff
and Humes, JarnGgsu & Scott for defense.
"a r. w. PStillO VS.. y. w. Stout ct
al; Humss, Heiskell & Scott for plain
tiff
25. Memphis & Lagrange Railroad va.
WIckersham ct 81. ; Clspp, Vance q
Andersen for plaintin and Esrger, King
Humes, Wright, McRae & Bsecher for
defense.
26. VIM. Wallace ct al, vs.. Geo. ".
Wsldran ct al; Yerger, CAN'T, Humes
L Morgan for plaintiffs and /. Z. Smith
& Randolph fofdefense.
81. VIM. Walker ct al. VS.. MeFriman
ct al Yergsr CAN'T, Humes & Morgan
for plaintiffs and Smith and Randolph
for defense.
2S. John johnson VS.. Anna B Sale;
H1mes for plaintiff and Yerger q Beech
er for defense.
80. john s. Claybrook VS.. Robert
w ade; CAN'T & Waddell for plaintiff and
King for defense.
80. Isaac n. Moon ~ w. P Matthews
and NJ. J Wright; Wright q McKissick
for plaintiff and Yerger, Stephens y
Smith for defense.
81. Sallie r. Coffee VS.. ]. d. Ruffin ct
al HumeMSeott q Craft for plaintiff
and YergefsH 5tes g Jackson for defense.
80. Wm. Allen et al. va. Wm. A Fur
gnson Humes & Scott for plaintiff and
Brown, Campbsll & Foute for de'enss.
80. A. c. Ketchum ct al, VS.. PAntheW
Dew e. al; Wright d McKissick for
plSintiff and Humes & Scott for defense.
81 Wade ii Bolton vs.. 81. A. Kerr ct
al; Caruthers & King for plaintiff and J.
McHenry for defense.
35. P. Tuggle vs. ]. 3. Wssson; Will
son q Beard for plaintiff and Brown q
Carr for defeDse@
So Sarah 3. Green vs. r )bert L.
Smith ct al Humes & McR4e for plain
tiff aDd Estes tS Jackson for defense.
81. Merchants National Bank vs.. J no.
Thurston ct al; Stephens & Smith for
defense and Welch & Ray for defense.
3S. A. II. Merrill admir-, vs.. Arthur
Bently eft al ThOs Bidridge, Stephens
& Smith for plaintiff, and Humes, Pos
ton Il Scott for defense.
49, D. O'dhsm VS.. A. L Kimbro 1
Humes, Pcston & Scott for plaintiff.
SO Thos. Murdoch ct al. VS.. Mayor and
Aldermen OF Mem phis ct al, Heiskell,
Scott, w nchester & Hatcher for plain
tiffs and Morgan, Estes, Jackson u Nc
Kissick for defense.
Al. H. B. E,dmOnson vs. James II.
McNeal ct al. and D. z. Gibson VS.. as.
H. McNeal ct al; K0Ttrecht & Craft for
plaintiffs and Massey, Wright q WEIGH I
FOR defense.
42. Planters Bank of Tennessee vs. A.
n. Douglass ct al; KOrtrecht & Craft for
plaintiff and Small 81 Foute for defense.
43. George w. Lincoln VS.. w. J. Da-
vie ct al; Lewis, FiDnie * k3antt for
plaintiff and Beecher & Belcher for de-
fspse.
A. Ella johnson VS.. Charles Kor-
trecht OF al; d. Gregory for plaintiff
aOd Wight d NcKissiek foa defense.
IS John J. Worshsm VS.. Abram Hen
Oh, ex. et al; ID x0n & Hough for plain
tiff aad Estes, Jackson d MeDavitt for
defense.
IS James A. Root ct al. VS.. Benz. D.
Anderson Poston, Scruggs d w. L.
Scott for plaintiffs and Kortrecht d Graft
for defense.
AZ. Elizabeth Brook VS.. A. ]. Walt ct
a.; WestcOtt, Poston, Humes Il Scott for
plaintiff and Jackson d Craft for defense.
As. Robert Fletcher, admir-, VS.. Ann
Grsnslm ct al. StOvall & klippin for
plaintiff, and Finlay & Kellar, Smith &
Ktridge for defense
AZ G G.. Polk VS.. NJ. G.. Armour; Fin
lsy & Kellar for plaintiff and Wilson &
Beard for defense.
so. James f. Schsbel vs. James Wick
eFsham Estes, Jackson q McDavitt for
plaintiff and Bsecher d Belcher for de-
tense.
81. F NJ. Cash, admir-, vs. A. Il Cur
lin ct al; KoFtrecht d Graft for plaintiff
and Hsllum d Mulligan for defense.
50 Waddy Thompson We. Woodruff d
Co.; Humes q PostoD for plaintiff and
Kerr, Westcott q Stshl for defense.
SO George Sherman et al. VS.. NJ. D. L
Turpin ct al; ]. w. Wood q Yerger for
plaintiffs and PostOn, Humes d Scott for
defense.
81 Eliza Penfit, ex. etc., VS.. VIM. s.
Pickett ct al. Stephens & Smith for
plaintiff and PostoD, Humes & Scott and
Kortrecht & CTa t for defense.
55. Richard Klingholy VS.. VIM. g
Elliott ct 81. ; Randolph & Rainey for