Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-09-14
LAW REPORTS.
Second Cireuit .COurs-Irving. HaEsey

Judge.
The September term Of this court be-
ginE Monday the 18th Inst. Until further
notice the court viii convene az nine and
3 hslf O'Clock am and adjourn st half
past three pm, with short intermissions
at noon. The Jurors summoned for the
term must be promptly in attendance.
New trial dockets hsve bsen made, but
the cases retain their old members.
The following Is the of business for the
first week Of the term: Monday, empan-
neling Jurors, after which the following
cases Will be called for trial, being thoss
specially continued from last term, on 30
count of the attorneys engaged being at
the Supreme Court:
2S0l, McKinevey VS. Pickard; 290S, Rem
kert VS. Murphy; 2S04, Hunt administra-
tors VS. Provfne; 2s73, Aydlett VS. James &
Co; 2oO9, Halle VS. Jones; 29E, Ssesssl q
| Son VS. Kaliski; 2927, Freeman VS. Mole
fresh q Co; 1891, White VS. Carter
ct al; 2932, Edwards VS. Jefferson /;
1850, City OF Memphis vs. Jones;
1882 ~Gorgenthum vs. E~tchervsrnei
Gels; 1915, Dunn vs Semmes & Go; 297S,
Thornton VS. John Johnson ct al; 1878,
Damman vs. Mesmsr; 1881, Doriac VS. Ca
b0us; 1884, Miller VS. Wait q Lewis; 298S,
Clouston VS. Cook; 2959, Mahan VS. Tsy-
lor, McEwen ct al; 1894, EVEREST vs. Fla
herty; 2995, Meath VS. Treat ct al; 2998,
Sinnott VS. Garrett; 2999, Specht vs. Saw
yer; 5000, Smith VS. Garrett q Specht;
5OOI, Lien VS. Coronns & Co; 3002, Austin
vs. City of Memphis; 300S, Sharp VS. Al
ston; 1904, Thurston VS. MRhRn; 5000,
Shryer VS. Wright & Powell; 5000, Hutch
inson & 7 VS. Hsmpe; S007s Curry VS.
Plummer: SOLO, Venable VS. Swesringer;
anil Nan XOrk Life Insurance ComnauV Il
VI. Rsiford; 3Ol6. Douglass VS. Calhoun q
Co; 3019, Brochooget VS. Green; 1920, Rich
mond VS. Newark Machine Works; 1881,
Raan VS. Board of School Visitors; 3c35,
Frank & Co VS. Allen; 1896, same vs. same;
3O40, Humes Il Poston vs. Emmett Bank;
S046, Gsnter VS. Schroeder; 1868, Baxter q
Smith VS. Beasley; S057, McClesry VS. Hart
ley & Gurley; 1900, Sherwood vs. Herman;
1868, O'Donnell vs. Memphis and Louis
vile Railroad Company; 3070, Flemming
vs. Spore; SO7S, Widrig VS. Hester; S079,
same VS. same; $3.50, same vs. same.
Tuesday-Persons summoned as gar
nishees will b required to answer; and
for failure so to do, judgments RisI may
be had on any motion day. (See rule g.
The remaining cases specially continued
will then be tried, 8 list of which Will be
published in due time.
Observation-Disclosures of fifty cases, be
ginning st No. l.
I0uESuAN-1u6 A6H CREG6 OA ~ ~ Il
docket will be called, when judgments
may be taken in all cases appealed nom
magistrates or the Recorder, where either
party fails to appear and prosecute or de-
fend, Judgments by consent may also
be taken st such call of the docket. (See
rule ~
Friday and saturdsy-Cslendar of fifty
cases each day.
First Circuit COurt-C. W. HeiskslI,
M-A-n L
The September term ofthis Court opens
on Monday, September Is, 1871, at 9
O'Clock am. The daily sessions thereof,
for the present, will be from 8 I'm. to II
m, and from 2 to O'Clock pm.
ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR TIL TERM,
1. Impsnneling juries.
2. Answer of garnishes.
3. A call of the Reference docket. Such
orders will be made in the cGses thereon,
as the Court deems advisable.
4. After this call is concluded, there
will be q call of the trial docket, for the
purpose of disposing of unlitigsted cases.
Upon this call, either party may call upon
the other to state whether he has a bona
ride cause of action or defense, and upon
his answer in the negative, the will
be dismissed or judgment taken, and upon
his failure to answer in b affirmative,
the court win impsnnel q jury to try the
cause
5. Each Saturday of the term will be
motion day.
8. Writs of inquiry returnable to his
term, may be executed any Monday
morning.
z. Upon the second Monday of the term
there will be q call of the appearance
docket for the purpose of taking Judgment
of dismissal for want of declaration, and
of default for want OF plea, and making
such other orders in the cases thereon as
the court shall deem proper, in order to
expedite business.
Rules of court to which especial stten-
ton is called:
l. The clerk viii allow no papers to be
from the hles.
2. No case will be tried in which the
plesdings are not fully made up; and if
such case Is called for trial, it will be con-
tinued at the cost of the party in default,
or remsnded to the appearance docket, in
the discretion of the court.
8. But one counsel-one on each side ]
of any cause, shall address the jury or the
court, without permission of the court,
4. Motions for new trial must be heard
the first m~otion-day following the day
which the case is tried. II any such
is called for hearing, and no coun-
sci is present to represent, it will be dis
posed of by the court, snd viii not after /
ward be heard unless for matters arising ,
since the trial. !
5. Bills OF exception must be made out
presented to the court for signature
three weeks after the motion for
new trial is overrulsd. {
Us, Bedford VS. Carter ct al; 276, Mason VS. ]
Dennis ct al; 2Sl, Weaver, trustee, vs. {
.lssves; $40, HillmSn VS. Smith; AL, Cow
ard VS. county Of Shelby; 632, Montgome {
~ VS. Pulliam; 534, Lowenstein VS. Ksuf-
55S, Hsrgan VS. German Savings {
Institution; $50, Lacey & MCGEE vs. '
Brown; 668, Gibson ct al VS. Elliott; '7S3,
Waterhouse, Pearl q Co, vs. Robbins; 7S9,
StoVsll vs. Ferguson; sos, Dibble & 90. vs.
S4S, Church VS. Robbins; S72,
Memphis; S95, Powell & Bush vs. Black q
Bro; 500, CicaIla, sdmr, Vi Taylor; 9l6, I
& Co Va Ogden; 924, National
Branch Bank VS. Cheek q Malone; $40, '
.lne vH Brittop; 96l, Cook vs. Cooke; 947,
McHenry VS. Crook; $50, Frsyser vs. Rosel; '
cheek & 90 VS. White; 1852, Watkins VS. [
Insurance company; l06S, Peoria /
Mutual B A VS. Myers; 1917, Ayers vs. /
Mississippi River railroad; 107S, Allen VS.
Mississippi River railroad; 1i03, Bsuman /
70 Reid; 1l07, Stsnisies vs. Theme; l126, 8
Iscobi vs. Mitchell; 1l31, White VS. Bigbee
Z Co; 1872, Boyd VS. Robbins ct al; 1lSS, S
2atsford vs. Mulcshy; 1139, Goebels VS. I
Anderson, admir-; 1852, Devine VS. Berigsn, /
ll64, johnson, admir- VS. RaggiO; b
l60, Luccsrini vs. Williams; 1lSS. Frank
/ Thilman Va Louisville and Nashville (
silrosd; 1880, billiard ct al vs. Wsrner;
221, Hill VS. Pearce; 1928, Reaves VS. T
galloway; 1881, Law & Douglass vE h
Alien; 124S, Washer & Wolf VS.
1850, Resting VS. Polk, ct al d
256, Wright VS. Psrtee, Burleson & 90; I
Isl, Toof, Phillips & Co., VS. Boddie ct al;
202, Moses VS. Perkins; 1928, While VS. o
galloway; 1885, Jones vs. Fite; 1856, Low o
Douglass VS. Allen; 1866, Stovsl & q
1sird VS. Vance; 1867, Boiling VS. Banfel Q
t al; 1870, Swain VS. Kemp; 1874, Cham b
Bros q Co VS. Hendrix ct al; 1873, b
'atrick VS. Morse ct al; 1892, Coward VS. 81
iheIby county; 1898, same VS. same; l409, d
VS. Ferguson; l414, Moore, Eader b
/ Co VS. Eddins; 1927, Overton VS. Reed; @
4S6, Smith VS. Taylor; 14SS, Pratt, Fox q o
70 VS. BeScher; l44I, Pyne VS. Banks & 81
1444, O'Hsrrs, VS. Louisville and :
Nashville railroad; 1850, Louden vs. city p
( Memphis 1451, Zehring VS. Ward & Bro; 81
45e, Memphis Gsyoso Gas Company VS. 3
Winters; 1863, White VS. County of Shell n
y; 1466, Jenny VS. Hagge ct al; 1885. 9,
VS. Shane; 1892, Heathmsn VS. q
1900, Gsylor, Son @ VS. NJ & A l:
Iiver Packet Co; 1902, McCann VS. Payne; &
o12, Harrington, admir-, vs. Moon; 1885,
,iehbsrg, use, VS. Beshler; 1889, Cousins q
9 Memphis and Arkansas River Packet ~
ompsny; 1912, Mebane, guardian, VS. o.
ones; 1914, West VS. Irby; 1858, Eddins a r
Williams vs. Wheat; 1851, Roberts VS. fo
1eni 1885, Coopwood VS. Strickland; N