Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-01-29
TIE COURTS.

1864 same vs. GrlIln eC 81.
1855 Walker Bro. q Co. vs. Schooles ct al
1886 Taylor vs. Wynn.
1887 Lynch vs. Wynne.
1888 Ssndheigsr vs. Bfignadelo.
1889 Snider q Mccall vs. Hogen q Co.
1890 Trigg & Bro. VS. T0ohigg.
1851 Burns ct al. VS. Behr & Bro.
1892 Mosby vs Haynes ct al.
1898 Hswbenner w Field.
1894 Blackburn & Co. vs. BrinkIey.
1895 Borum & Co. va Church.
1896 Weinhager vs. Evans.
1897 Hunt VS. Wormeley ct al.
1898 Same VS. Smith.
1893 Neil VS. Wynn.
100 p. and d. Of Northern Bank Of Ky
VS. Wynn & Hawley.
The judgments entered yesterday werS
as follows:
1881 Cubbins ct al vs Holman ct al, judg'
ment for plaintiff 1890.
1865 Cohen Il Co VS. Cheek, judgment fol
defendant.
1914 Reid VS. Gamer, judgment for plain
tiff, 1885.
CHAECERY CoURT.-Wm IL. Smith
ChGaceJlOT.-Tbe case of Greenlaw VI
Maydweii was concluded ST q late houl
yesterday. No other business was trans
acted during the day. To-day is motion
day, and the roll Of attorneys will be
called, commencing with letter A.
seThe Clerk and Master will take an ae-
count to-day in the case of Rice Va Prizes
ct al.
The account in the case of James VS.
Petit ct 81 will be closed to-day and re.
ported on by the Clerk and Master, aS
viii also the case OF Page ct al vs. Com
mercisl Bank ct al.
CIRCUIT COURT-GeOrge ". Reeves,
JHage.-f esterday being motion day
the following motions were made and
entered, to-GIt:
G. w. Blood & Co va Ben. May-mis.
trial.
II. Myers, use, vs. A. Johl-plea OF
bankruptcy filed and case continued.
q. B. Sale vs. H. w. & w. C.. HAYS
and II. J. KoOnce-dismissed.
+. GuytOn va 8. NJ. Ashe-Rppeal dis.
missed and judgment affirmed.
J. JOyner vs. jag. Herring-appeal dis
missed.
J. Notebooks, admir-, vs Dr. T. Il. Todd
appeal dismissed.
J. Ra0lst0n vs. Thos. Conway-8ppeal
dismissed and judgment affirmed.
Albert Pike d Co. vs. A. J. White Il
Co.-appeal dismissed.
Fairly, admir-, vs. w. A. LaUry-judg-
ment 1918 SO.
Hall VS. Ira L. Douglass-motion to
strike cut the pleas of defendant-1ver-
ruled SIS TO the I'd first pleas and sus-
tanned as to the third pleas, and leave
granted TO defendant 20 amend third
plea.
j. Bostick vs. w. Chas, ex'r, ct al, re-
vived by consent, VS. w. 7. Elliott, ex'r.
]. Sswell vs. j. Observation-Disclosures d
and Judgment affirmed.
s. II. Shock vs G., w. Upright-dis.
missed ana judgment affirmed.
Martha Snyder VS. Frost d Baip-dis-
missed and judgment affirmed.
J. G. Armour vs T. ThOmaston-dis-
missed.
T. H. Holland vs. N. Kraus & Co-ap-
4 dismissed.
,es. Tsnsuer & Co. vs. J. B. kelsey
L. h It the justice affirmed on fail
Judgment -
w. Rliney Il " Judgment.
,nnsaI Dismissed and 1t sl.-appeaI
r. Grundy vs b. Cox
dismissed and judgment. order
Susan Dobbius Ys J Ohm DobbIns
German vs. Breen-motion to dismiss
lverruled.
GaIiena vs. w. W. Waer OF el-motlon
> dismiss the appeal.
. rEastrong & Grace vs G~arvey-mO-
- dismiss.
u, Niy VS. Grant-judgment.
T." SHs!i vs q. HOgsn-order that
sGarifF III the cotton attached ana
roonav in ~ court that the Cierk
Most:r loan DPS same subject to the
.rdar of tho aourt
In Tnio o. BANK ' vs. :. @, gete-iudgment
or S2S2S o..
Watson, trustee, vs virgin al al
1881 90. -
Green vs J.. W. Hawthorne Judgment
" default. i'd
w. Bsobr vs s. S. Garrett ct al.-s'udg-
nent by default.
z. w. Uprightvs G. II. Braekett-judg-
nent by default.
w. II, Wright vs. Wslcott, Smith IL
Jo.-plsintif non-suited and writ OF eX-
Coleman vs acknowledgement. by de-
ault and damages waived.
Duvall vs. Pride IL acknowledgement
Jy default.
B. Ward VS. N. Taylor-dismifved for
want of declaration.
]. Bedford ct al. vs. P. G. Carter-judg-
by default.
The following cases will be called FOR
rial to-day:
28 w L Stewart & Bro va Mitchell.
IL Same VS. Chapman, admir-.
AZ ] Herring vs. NJ & o r r Co.
SO y Hin Va T Buntyne.
"a ] Mallon vs. w n Muncrief.
st w a Myer vs. Il Stephens.
81 f ale rs e l. Perkins ct 81.
So l. d NJ Cunningham VS. A MLLeary.
"a Walden IL Frantham VS. ] Holiness
admir-.
65 w B McSpsdden VS. Black.
50 Cbas Crenshaw Va J B Smith.
81 r E BrOsdnax & Son vs. D Crenshaw,
admir-.
Gs Fl Nokes VS. w A Sigler.
60 r ] Chester VS. r Quinn.
20 ] Smith VS. ] NJ i Smith.
" Brooks & Saunders vs. s Dickens.
=, q HuneF, Mason q Dyer esG w Small.
- " G Dunlap vs. Ja.nes Rice.
- NQubs 81 Co 70 W p Warield.
- BDII anderson vs W Lowe ct al.
20 ~ " y, trustee VS. Worsham ct al.
70 n WWeesve Fustes, VS. II G Brinkiey
ct a..
~ same VS. Mynne VorTeIsv & Co.
Same VS. Pickett, ', a.
p same vs. y PEARSON
- same va J 7 LeRfh ct al.
81 Same VS. Grant White Lea CnSo
q 3 Simon d Go VS. Marks, Pun tx 20.
81 w Chambers OF al VS. o c Boo. q
Company.
. Geo G Garner d Co VS. o C Boone & |
Company.
u 7 and d Of Bank of Tenn ys G f !
Beaumont ct al. I
! Rose Kinney VS. FL GoOdlett. :
z W Shipp IL Co VS. E + Trotter. (
. Simpson, Saunders & Co. uss. VS.
Owners Steamer Natoma. !
1 FO Moore, trustee, vs. Jones & Bro, {
. VIM Park VS. q w WeibIe ct al. I
3 w McMullen VS. J McWiiiams, T
Z u Plumpton VS. TG CogsweIl. Q
; FS Webb VS. E 2 Seymore. Z
J ID Mcdonald, guard'n, vs. C Jones
ct al. d
'OreigD 0pinfOn-Exsractz from Eng Is
b Testimonials, giving evidence OF the efi- =
y OF " BROWNS BRONCHIAL TRouHEs :"
1 have derived greater benefit from the
'oches' than from anything I ever tried"
BRooKHoUsE BOWLER. =
Lae Tenore of the British Operatic Associa- q.
on, Lordon. VI
I mover knew such a wonderful cure for
w. RANDALL, n
OXfoId Music Hall. -
y - E-f-H 49,