Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-05-08
SUPREME COURT.
Proceedings of the Week Ending 9Th inst.
Decisions. Including those Of Curry VS..
Wright, ana Wright VS.. Curry. Re-
ported By Il. Clay King, Esq.
From the Jackson Tribune.

From the Jackson Tribune.
JACKSON, APRIL TERM, 1870.
Claybrook vs.. Wade. Hawkins, Judge,
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Bill filed 23d May, 1865.
Complainant alleges that the de.
PENDANT is indebted to him in the sum
of S44OO, as evidenced by his four
notes, dated June ?, 1860, and due as
follows;
1860.
One due 18th December, 1861, for
1920.
One due 18th December, 1862, for
$1,000.
one due 18th December, 1868, for
$1,000.
All payable to Robert Wade, and
Endorsed by him, and bearing inter
est from date.
Complainant charges that defendant
is the owner of a certain lot Of ground
situate in Shelby county, Tennessee,
the boundaries of which are set out
in the bill.
Complainant charges that defendant
is a nonresident of the State of Ten
nessee.
The prayer of the bill is, that the
land be attached, that publication be
made, as required by law; the land
be sold, and for general relief.
An attachment was issued on the
9Th of May, 1865, Hlurnable the sec
ond Monday "a Nttember, 1866, and
was levied on the Ind described in
the bill, on the 81 o. June, 1865.
An order pro eOn&sSsO was made in
the cause; but at what date does not
appear, reciting, disappearing to the
court that tbs ascendant, Robert
Wade. is 2 nonresident of the State
of Tennessee, and thsia n~nhlic4tion has
been duly made requtrlngsa defend
ant to appear d plead, answer r
demur to cOmplaiH&nts bill herein,
before or within u rst three days OF
the present term his eour, ana 1t
] 1Irther appearing that ne has wholly
feaed SO 10 do, it is therefore ordered,
radiunged and decreed by the court,
that complainant's Till, with all the
ALLEGATIONS therein, De and the same
is Gtken IOr confessed, and set fol hear
ing En- p0rte as to him.
On the 18th of November, 1865, The
cause was referred to the Master To
ascertain the Indebtedness of the de-
!endant to complainant
The notes mentioned in complain
ants bill were filed on the ID of De
cember, 1863, and the Master reported
the indebtedness at 1852 90.
ON the 9th of December, 1865, The
cause was further heard upon the re,
port of the Masteri which was con-
hrmed, and a decree pronounced, for
complainant, for the amount of the
Indebtedness and costs, and directing,
that in case said Indebtedness should
not be paid before Or within the first
three DAYS of the neXtregular term of
said court, the Master, after advertis-
ing, etc, should sell the land on seven
and twelve months time, retaining a
lien, etc.
The decree was not executed, and
on the 18th of Manchester, the same
was renewed, and ug0n motion Of
complainant it was offered, the sale
be without the equityOf redemption,
etc.
The defendant has removed the
cause into this court b. writ Of error,
and assigns several grounds of error.
/. The record does not show that
publication was made Is required by
law-requiring the deisndAnt to APP
pear
The order of publication is not set
out in this record, exceptas it appears,
in what purpOrts to be copy of the
notice, as published in tie &" Memphis
Argus" which, according to the GER
tifcate of one Grehan, which is sworn
to, was published once a week for four
Successive years in ne memphis
argus" previous to NoSember 18th,
1865.
1t appears from this notice, which
puTports to be a copy OF the order Of
publication, that the defendant was
required to make his appearance.
within the first three DAYS of the next
term of scOurt, to eOmmHnce on the
second Monday In November, 1865.
1t is now argued that it does not
appear, that Grehan, who proved the
publication of the notice, was a
printer, or connected with any news
paper. Nor does the paper, to which
is appended the affidavit, show, that.
the "MemBhis ArguS" ) a newspa-
per. Nor that it was published after
the order of publication was made.
Nor does the order of publication
show the Memphis Ai0as0 is a
newspaper. Nor does Cid certificate
Of the clerk, show, that the paper
by Grehan vas sworn to by
him.
These objections are all lighly tech
meal, andBsm in the DSsJ1 or concealihi
,narif ather places, are requested 70 leaV'
1UI s ONCE, OF with any OF the Pc
We fnaAe same viii be removed by theCl
If fhdr without expense N the parties,
CT. SMITH, Sanitary !
Vldes, III .~OFFIcE-City Hail.