Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-12-03
LAW REPORT.

First OireuIt COurt-HeiskeII. Jadge.
The argument in the gas case was re-
sumsd on yesterday and occupied the at
tention of the court the entire day. The
motions entered on the motion docket
we're laid over until next Saturday. Nom
days calendar contains the following
cases: 167, Selkirk vs n and A of Menu
phis; 1856, Thomas and wife vs NJ and A OF
Mem phis; $50, Montgomery, use, vB Pull
Ian. exr; 1921, Hill rs Pearoe; 1887, Low
& Douglass vs. Allen; 1912, Harris, trustee,
vs. Townsend, trustee; 1913; Brown ys
Haynes q Co; 1866, Low q Douglass vs.
Douglass; 1851, Galloway vs. Woodruff q
Co; 1871, Mcdonald, guardian, Va Jones,
Brown q Co; 1852, McIsemore, use. w Nc
Lemore; 1892, Heatham VS. Dixon; 1896,
Bates vs. Watts; l603, Condor vs. Fon-
tains; 1926, Taylor, Cole q Go vs. Mullins;
l5z8. Diggs vs. PiantsTH' Insurance Co;
l547, Allen vs. Plsnters' insurance 90; i;
1856 StrRttcn Us Jones; 1861, Roberts vs.
Alien; l572; Van Kirk x Co vs. Powell q
Co; 1873, Haskins We cOst9n es ali 1881
Dunham VS. Churchill; 1875, Williams VS.
Sample, Mitchell d Co; 1876, Dixon q
Housh VS. Smith; 1872, Read VS. Hutton q
Dixon; 1878, VenADle Vs Eddins; 1879,
Chester Ys Crews; 1850, Vensble VS. Ed
dins, 1851, Miller W Msrgirum; 1882;
Payne VS. Thompson, exr. aa
IS,
second Cfrcait COurt-IudseH HaIney.
To. morrow viii be motion day. Tues
day the following cesoe are set for trial;
$40. Frost VS. Memphis and st. Louis
packet company; 77o, Given W Lowden
ct al; S52. Watson VS. Donaldson d Topp;
S5S, same vs same; 854, same vs. same; $50,
Metcalf ct al VS. Connolly; 596, McKiEsiok
vs. Selby; 81, White vs. Seiigman; 9Ss,
~ l. D. "a. II Err.r.s
Foley; 965, Brown. administrator, VS.
Wickersham; ee8, Foley vs DUNN 4 Bro;
9S7, Proft and wife Va Brstte; 9Ss, Coopey
vs Cunningham; $50. Park w Peres; 500,
Cole trustee, vs. Leah; 991, Pelnsl VS.
Hitzfsld; e9A, Miller VS. Dickens; eoz,
Waters VS. FeVre a Andrews; o05, Lea
vs. Bethel u Montgomery; 998. Graham VS.
Delap; 997, Moore VS. Pioneer Express Co.;
ees, Watson, trustee. vs. Coleman
lOO1. Moerdel q Hsidslck VS. Freitag; lO02,
Mckinney q 90. VS. Poston, admir-; 1904,
Higgins vs. Warner; 1905, Inman vs. Jones
q Bond; 1006. O'Hsrn Va Davis; 1907,
Higgins " w arner q Col 1Ol0, Mcclure
Va HitSheld; l0l2, Bir0n VS. Sullivan;
lOI4, Alexander W Dexter; lois, O'Hern
VS. Haipey; l0I6, Ferm9rty vs. Webbsr ct
al; I0I7, Finlsy vs. HsTringt0n; 1010, Burk
ct al vs. Bauer; l020, Pool VS. Creighton;
1923. Nilsson VS. Rocco ct al; lG2s, Mc3ain
vs. Hall; 1924, Bruce We Weyhe 4 Able;
lO2S, Robinson vs. Malatasts; l026, Davis
VS. League; 1877, Crawford VS. League q
winters; 102S, Price VS. Clarke; 1923,
Feldmsn vH League; 1890, Lewis Va Pear
son; 10S2, FiemminR VS. Saunders; 1898,
Reese vs. Tiemsn, 1854, Levy VS. smith;
1885 Hill vs Bates; 1856, Moore vs. Batesl
1887, Wslsh VS. Bates; 10SS, FolWell vs.
Watson; 1883, Schultz va Laski; 1040,
WiilisHas, CartWell q Co. VS. Losgue q
Winters; 1o4l, Seessel d Son VS. same; i042,
Elan VS. Simpson; l04S3, Harris, exeou-
trix, ETC.. ys AcDermott; 10z4 Means vs
Graham; l04t, Mclaughlin VS. Corpora
ton OF Memphis; 1916, Yancs VS. Siidell
& HsrrisonI l04T, Bro~lay vs. Harris, ct
al; 1913, Yacosr0 vs Mcmahon, heirs ct al:
104e, Briggs q Peterson vs. steamboat
Zephyr; 1850, Gamhart VS. Merits ct al;
1851, Connolly, use, eta, vs. Larkin OF a !;
l05a, Cochran q Co. vs. Jones, Brown 4
90; loss, Schmidt " Kahn.