Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-23
SUPREME COURT.
Condensed Decisions Of The Supteme Court OF lenhes
see. at Brownsville. May Term. 1863. Reported Tor
the Sc Agpeai" by n. Clay King, ESQ.

No. p. Charles Jones vs.. StrattOn,
| Cover & Co. From Memphis NUM-
cipal Court.
This was an action ON a protested
negotiable paper. The Notary's GER
| tifcate of protest stated that the no
| tice of dishonor was given by leaving
a written notice at the defendants
"place of business"
Held, that this evidence was sufii-
cient to charge the parties to the pa
per without any proof dliumde on the
part of the plaintiff, there being no
proof cOntradicting the facts stated
in the NOtary's certificate.
No. -. SchwoobV VS.. Hill, Receiver.
From Memphis Municipal Court.
SchWoOb made a note payable to
Frayser, who endorsed the same to the
| Tennessee National Bank of Mem
| phis. The Bank failed and was put
into bankruptcy and liquidation, 10
der the act of Congress of June 3, 1864.
This action was brought by Hill, as
Receiver of the Tennessee National
bank, against SchwOoh the maker, and
Frayser, the endorser of the note. The
declaration alleged that the "plaintiff
is Receiver of the Tennessee National
Bank, duly appointed by the Comp
trOller of the Currency in accordance
with the provisions of an act of Con-
gFess approved June 3, 1864" The de-
claratiOn makes profert ofthe notice but
not of the authority tOsue az Receiver.
There was a demurrer ON the grounds,
first, that the declaration showed no
title in the plaintiff; secondly, that the
declaration made no prOfert ofthe APP
pOintment of a Receiver.
Held, Smith, Judge, deliver
ing the opinion of the Court,
that the declaration OF the IL
tie is sufficient in this case. The
plaintiff being the holder of negotia-
BILE paper, endorsed, the title would
come through the endorsement, and
the aVerment that the plaintiff is the
receiver Of the Tennessee National
Bank, duly appointed by the Comptrol-
Ter of the currency, in aceordanee with
the provisions of an act of Congress,
approved June 3, 1864, is a sufficient
declaration of title i'm connection with
the endorsement,
Nor is IL necessary, in this case, to
make pr0fert of the deed, certificate,
or written act of the Comptroller, APP
pointing a receiver.
At common law profert was not re-
auired Of contracts not under seal,
called simple contracts. But, under
the act of 1919, ch. q, sec. 2, Code
1893, prOfert is required of simple
written contracts, which are the foun-
dation of THE action. Even under that
act, il was not necessary to set out the
endorsement of negotiable paper, UNI
less the endorser vas sued on the en-
dorsement. The appointment Of the
receiver by the Comptroller, stands on
the footing of an endorsement, and
the Comptroller not bellgsued, profert
is not required of his act of the APP |
pOintment of a receiver under the act
of Congress. The demurrer being |
overrnled, the Judgment is affirmed.
No. %. z. NJ. Winters VS.. John Al
Dickinson. From the Memphis Law
Court. Dickinson suedsou an attach
ment from the Memphis Law Court |
against +. A. Tannehill, who was the
and manager of the Greenlaw
House, in the city Of Memqhis,
and the writ was levied by the Sheriff,
Winters, ON the scenery. fixtures. etc..
in said Opera House, as the goods and
Of the lessee Tannehill. AL
few days after the levy of the attach
ment, a distress WaTraat was issued
BY John League, Clerk of the Shelby
County Court, against panuehill for
his unpaid tax for tho privilege of
making theatrical exhibitions, inclus
ling the penalty for exercising the
privilege without a license. This dis
Sress warrant come to the hands oftEe
and was by him levied on the
anne property taken under the writ
IF attaehmept, The Sheriff advertised
md sold the property under the dis
lress warrant, and the proceeds not
being more than sufficient to satisfy
he distress, the sheriff paid over the 7