Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-10-05

Solomon Va Welch; sos. Tate We Caruthsrs
ct 81; Sll, Pointer vs. Burnet ct al; $40,
Hillmsn vs Healey; BIB. Layton vs. Camp
bell Norvin q Co; sl4, Pierce and Har-
graves vs. Irwin; SIS, Homer w Winters,
sl3, Smith vs. Calhoun; 817 Kendig VS.
yelley; SIS, Pollock VS. Swan; 819, Suell,
Taylor & Co vs. Frank ct al; $50, Sn it'll vs.
Brinkiey ct al; s2l, Cash, admir-, VS. Grant;
81, Dixon, ex'r, etc vs. Cornwall; 324,
Page vs. Williams, Jun: 826, same VS.
same; 326, Mays vs. Zeigler d Col.
gan; 81. Marble vs. Cannovan;
32s, Anderson vs. Davis; 829, johnson VS..
Bank of Memphis, $50, Miller va Issacs ct
a.; ssl. Flynn vs. Hoffman; $50. Harrison.
ex'tr, & 90. VS. Granger; SS3, Rosser VS.
Nixon ct al; SS4, Sharksy VS. Isascs; S85,
Coleman vs. Burr & Co.; 3s6, Rogers vs.
simpson, Haynes d Co.; 1877. Ssffaraus VS.
y alker ct al; 3Ss. Devote VS. Rocco; $40,
Frost VS. Memphis and st. Louis Packet
company; 34l, Myers, ex'tr, vs. Trotter;
$40, Roberts VS. Rsef; $40, Meyers vs.
Levy ct 81; 344, Love vs ~Schoonover,
admir-; S45, Lake vs. Taylor, Cole q Nc
Leod; 346, Selby We Pyne; BAT, Scruggs
st al VS. Heathmau; S48, Fenton & Co. vs.
steamer Kentucky and owners; $50,
Rhodes vs. Jackson insurance company;
35l- Branch VS. Tracey ct al; 952, Hltzield
Il Co, vs. Smith, Bullins & Co.; 1853, Ayers
VS. Hswley; 34, Eldridge va Quinn; 355,
AAASA AALuaA 70 Ouufap OF dlg Olo,
Young VS. Patterson & Brother;
359, Stewart q Brother VS. Lefevere;
800, Hart q Carmack VS. Wsggener; S61,
Rice VS. Burke and wife; 1852, Lesry vs.
Green; 1853, Ramsey We Aldick: 364. Nc
Craskey VS. Holland, Winberly & McOon-
nell; 1855, Cunningham VS. Case; $50, Rich
srdson VS. Bsrnum, admir-; 1858. Ryan VS.
Shea; 369, Kosser VS. Yerger ct al; $40,
Ryan VS. Wolf; 36I, Mclean VS. William
son; S72, Stewart VS. Steinkuhl; 373, Jsh-
ling VS. Fell; S74, Heath VS. Groves; 375,
Merrill VS. Hutton; $40. Droyer VS. O'Ma-
honey; 81, Heath VS. Hughes; S78, Nor
gan vs. Lee ct al; S79, Orr vs. Lutz, Win
die & Co; $50, Fitehner vs Withers; 38l,
Warren, use, etc, VS. steamer Little Rock
and owners; 3S4, Edwards VS. Cunning
ham; 3S7, NJ. q o. r. r. Co. vs. Abrams
ct al; 1888, Dent VS. Healey; $50, Elias vs.
Pollock; 800, Caldwell vs. Brown,
admir-; SOL, Dsshisl VS. Harris;
1913, Manning, administrator, vs. Farris;
394, Hart ct al VS. Farris ct al; sos, Bick.
ford VS. Cogswell & Co.; 1896. Ferro VS.
Shepherd; 997, Booth VS. Fisher; S9S,
Tucker VS. Joyce, S99, Bsgsby ct al VS. Bs-
ker; 400, Walker q Snyder VS. Norvelle,
Boone q Co.; 40l, Graves VS. Brooks 400,
Hsllister vi Flaherty; 403, Jacobs 81 Co.
VS. Williams ct al; 404, Hillmau Bros. vs.
Street; 405, Walt & Johnson vs. Green
wald; Acc, Hayes VS. Lefevere; 407, Willis |
vs. Mcmahon; 4o8. Tucker VS. Swan; 400,
Duvsl vs. Lake; al, Johnston vs. Cook;
s13, Mellon VS. Colby; 415, Harvey, guar
dian, VS. Perkins, admir-; as, same VS.
same; Az, same VS. same: AIS, Dashiel VS.
Downing; 4l9, Fields, B~esrdsley q Co, |
use, etc, vs. Thompson; 40, Blair VS.
Greenwsld; 42l, Fuller et al VS. Mills; |
42IX, Pelegrim VS. Memphis and st. Louis
Packet company; 422, Kirkland VS. Mont
gomery; 1913, mayor and aldermen, of
Mannhfa Maponh4a ord OEfo -ol-o.l 1
company vs. Murphy & Mack /;
424, Bowers VS. Meath; 426, Ball VS. Heus-
ton; AT, Lsnier VS. Creighton; 42S, Barker |
vs. Msrden ct al; 4SO, Schwoob VS. Fuchs;
431, Williams VS. Jones; 432, Trezsvsnt ct |
al VS. Cherry, admir-; 43S, Kirkland vs. Dom
sldson; 434, Bowers VS. Hood; 435, Taylor
W Gibson; 436, Thompson VS. Jackson;
4S7, Hanks VS. HUI: 440, Smith VS. Rsll-
man; AL, Spain & Gormelsy VS. Moran ct
al; 442. Rowley VS. Lille; z43, Hughes VS.
Griffin ct al; AS. Freshman Bros VS. Benas;
446, SchWoob & Co VS. Benss.