Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-05-31
law REPORTS
EIrst Circuit caurt-HaIsksil. Iudna.

First Circuit C0urt-Heiskeil, Judge.
Calendar for to-dsy-lO33, Harris, admir-,
VS. Harvey; 1884, BOggau eL al vs. Harvey
1917, Ayrgs vs Mississippi Railroad Conn
pany; IO7s, Allen VS. Mississippi Railroad
Company; ll47, Baird, use, rs Gilmore /;
1852, Shire, use, VS. Knott; 1920, GsIin vs.
GsOghegan; 1921, Hill VS. Peace; 1923,
Reaves vs. Galloway; 1225 Memphis Life
and General Insurance Company vs. Cage;
1892, Frank q Thillman VS. HerZog; 1897,
Law & Douglass vs. Allen; 1873, Tyler &
Spencer VS. Hartlage; 1888, Newkirk vs.
Tucker IL Bayne; l24l, Walt VS. Spell
man; l242, Black vs. Glenn ct al I;
1913, Selden VS. Long & Bro; 1915,
Hay vs. Follz, Wolf q Co; 1916, Hay
VS. Foltz. Wolf & Co; 1247, Burk vs. Gilbert
lE Smith; l24S. Washer & Wolfe VS. Dsw-
ling; 1850, Ksstingvs Polk & Dixon; 1851,
Creamer VS. Cole; 1872, Walt VS. Spellman;
1858, Mitchell, Hoffman * Co VS. Dickens;
1856, Wright VS. Partee, BurlesOn & Co;
1853, MOllitOr & league vs. Joiner q Kirk
ley: 1850, HubbOrd VS. Kelley; 1861, Lain
VS. Russell; 1888, Key 81 Son vs. DickensOn,
Williams & Co; 1877, Brady VS. House;
1873 Folweu VS. Hall; 1880, McLe-
more vs. Townsend; 1881, TOof, Phil
lips & Co VS. Van BOddie d Aakin;
1855, Stewart vs. Moore ct al; 1856, King
VS. AmmOns; 1857, State of Tennessee vs.
Dismukes; 1892 Hile & C0rwiL VS. Dick
ems; 1898, Williams VS. Clark; 1876. Wick
ham vs. COnaway; 1897, Porter, sdmX, VS.
MOllitOr; 1898, Martin vs. Young; 1901,
State Of Tennessee vs. CaraWay ct al; 1902,
Bfosses vs. Perkins; 1914, City of Memphis
VS. Bume; 1922, City of Memphis vs. Allen;
1924 City of Memphis VS. Ssibert; 1925,
City of Memphis vs. SchOenfeldt; 1927, Gri-
der VS. Stone; 1923, White q Co vs. Gallo
way; 1880, McDsvitt ct al vs. TreZsvants
1892, Wickham d Pendleton rs Jones, surv
part; 1888, Planters Insurance Company
VS. Jones; 1884, Eland vs. Morgan ct al; 1885,
Jones VS. Fight; 1887, School VS. Waddell at
al; 1885, Wait & Lewis VS. Matthews 1889
BrittouYs League and Curry; 134O, Finn vs.
City Railroad Company; 1912, Harris, trus-
tee, VS. Townsend ct al; l343, Brown VS.
Haynes & Co; 1874, Jehn VS. Miller; l345,
O'MaIley vs. Miller; l34s, GOrgetOn vs.
Etchsvsrne; 1851, Hsrtz VS. FrilDg; 1853,
Locker vs. Graves, Jones & Co; 1855,
Low & Douglass VS. Allen; 1853, Dob
bit q Co We Burning & Griffin :;
1860 TOmeny VS. Bingham ct al; 1851, Gal
lOwav, trustee, VS. Woodruff q Co; 1882
Quinn vs. Brown aud wife; 1865, Mcclure
VS. Bulletin Publishing Company; 1866,
.StOvall & Laird VS. Vance; 1867, Boiling
assignee, VS. B8nfel; 1870, Swain VS. Kemp;
1871, Mcdonald, guardian, vs. Jones,
Brown & Co; 1874, Chambers Bros & Co
Holmes VS. Tomeny; 1876, Ferguson vs
-E5na Life Insurance Company; 1873,
Williams vs. O'DOnnell3 1880, Parhsm q
Walker VS. Sturm; 1881, Sheppard VS. the
ST. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Com
psny; 1882, Tnggaly vs. city Of Memphis;
1888, GOOdhue use, ETC., vs. Page & Nc
Keen; 1884, GoOdhUe, use, ,,etc., vs. Page &
McKeOu; 1888, Laird vs. Dixon:
1887, Iz3u vs. Levy; 1858, lien VS. Ross;
1889, Szsn vs. Gr6enwald; 1880. IZsn vs..
SchlCssi 1891, IE5n vs. Kline; 1892, Coward vs.
the County OF Shelby; 1898, Coward VS. the
County of Shelby; 1894, the Mississippi
River railroad VS. Simmons; 1895, State of
Tennessee VS. Knox; 1897, Memphis Ger
man Savings Institution vs. App; 1399
Hanks, Porter & Co vs. Merrimsn, EJmr;
l40O, Robbins & Bradley vs. Barber, Wilder
Simpson; l40l EinDie, use of, etc, VS. Finnie;
1902 Garvin vs. MCCsuister; l4G3, PO,k q
Co vs. Sullivan; 1904, Van Kirk q Co vs.
Powell,