Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-06-02
LAW REPORTS,
suprsms Couri.

Supreme Court
MEMPHIS CHANCERY DOCKET.
81, GreenIaw vs. Miller; So, Holmes vs.
Ssarcy; SO, Mcknight VS. Dill; 90, 81, %,
63, "a, Cladiin, Silk, WiX, Harris and
Hartley, and McCabe vs. BsthOp and Low
eustein, consolidated; 50, Rodgers VS.
BRYANT: So, TOpp vs. White; O., 60, 90, 20,
Mer Ger. COml Bank, and Cook vs. Nc
Csrgsr, consolidated; Il, Duval vs. Duval:
=, Brown VS. Johnson; %, Gsrvn vs Han
ma; "A, White & Co, and Fisher, Amis d
"a. vs. Haps; IS, Burett Us Fox; 76, MOsby
vs. Hunt; =, Carson vs. Wagner q Jones;
~, Jones vs. Moore; 79, Chaplin vs.
Mem. & o. r. r 50, Brsden VS. Wiley;
81. Harrington vs. Mayor, Aldermen, ct
a.; 81, GHggs vs. Jones; s., Ham
lton VS. Lshwich 81, Austin VS.
Mem, and Lou. Is. r. Co.: IS. Polk vs.
Day; s., Midwell VS. Midwell; 81, Stanton
exparts; IS, So, 90, 81, 90, Harris, Ne
D0Weu, Williams, Hulmsn Bros, and
Boyd vs.. Weaver, consolidated; 50,
Fleece VS. Rodgers; 81, Harris vs. Flynn;
s.. %. Sav. ms. vs. COnwelli So, ChOate
VS. Tighe: 81, Durant VS. Bsvis; SO, Buff
ford vs. Memphis Bull Co; SO, Hurt vs.
Wing: 100. James vs. Kennedy; l0l, Ruff
in vs. johnson; 102, King vs. Williams
I03, McMahOn vs. Carey; l04, Meath vs.
Brooks; los, Elliott Ts Smith; loo, POdes
IA vs. Arolt; I07, Thiern VS. Pollock; les,
TrsadWeu vs. McKeOu; l09, Hill
man VS. Weaver; ITO, Kendall vs.
Titus; III, Jackson Insurance Company
vs. Psrtee; IL Clay VS. Jack. ms. Cos
lis, PrOvine IS MCLemOre; ia lbs, Jones
VS. Sharp; 1I8, Van Hawk VS. Berke; III,
Meath VS. Porter; lis, Baker vs. Hardin;
lI9, Davis vs. Willis; 10, Booth vs. NJ and
Al Memphis; l2i, 10, TrOWb bridge and
Edgerton vs. Horton; l23, Sharp vs. Hor-
ton; I24, Webb rs Hendrix; Us, Shaw vs.
Curlish: l26, Mulen vs. same; 1T, Mid
well vs. Wicksrshsm; 123, Brosnan vs.
DAVIS; l29, Boyd vs. Martin; $50, Shelton
We Parhsn; l3l, Wicks vs. LeltWiCb; l32,
WicksrshEm VS. MerIW6Uher; l33, Apper-
son vs. Lemday; 1874 l35, WOlCOtt VS.
Ladd I35, Hare vs. King; 136, Miller vs.
WarheId; l37, BOrO vs. Hartley; lS8, Bry-
ant vs. Hays; 139, Bsrrinds vs. D5vamp;
40. FreelingWald & Co. vs. Mullins; IA,
Rsiney. McGiVeOy & Leonard, n q G and
NJ I q R r CO; IE2, SPECIAL VS. Hill; 143,
Pleasant vs. COrtriOk; ia Rsder vs. Moore;
JAS, Brethel vs. MCLshin; l46, Morris Us
Sellen & Co; I47, StiIlmHn vs. Bluff ms Co;
l45, Mann vs. Douglas; l49, Christian VS.
McErisT Bros; 49, Kirk vs. Jones; Isl
Alden vs. Walt; l52, Freeman vs. Freeman;
I53, Hsuey vs. Coine; 154, MCGEE
Cook; 156, Mitchell vs. Ryan; I57
Clayton vs. Field; l58, Watson vs
Marshall & Bro; I59, Cubbins vs. Neal;
100, Anderson vs. Tighe; l6l. FarrOW VS.
Doyle; l82, Hadsell VS. Chalmers; 163.
Burke vs. Ford; I64, Harrison vs. Barr;
I65, Buck VS. LowndFs; I66, P5srcs vs. Ad-
ans Express Company; l67, Lumpkin vs.
Wilson; los, C'.Ok vs. Jones; 100, Holmes
vs. wilton; 40 Brown vs. Jack0by; III, |
Taylor Us Hurt; ~, Jones vs. Allen. Thus /
endsth the First Chsncsry docket.
Special 70 Memphis APPEAL1
JACKSON, Tenn, June L, 1S7L-Court is /
stiu engaged on Laird vs. Scott. Judge 1
Wright is making the concluding argu-
meut.
First GlroUlt Court-Hslsksll, Iadss.
Calendar for to. dsy-iO34, Boggsn vs.
Harvey; 1467, Jenny vs. JUnkermsn;
1865, Jenny, receiver, vs Burke; 1863,
Jenny, receiver, vs. Schneider; 1870,
Jenny, receiver, vs. Psnte l47I,
Jenny, receiver, vs. HCegel 1872,
Jenny, receiver, v Curry; 1873, Al
bright vs. S0uthsl 1474, Brooks
W Daniel; 1875, McClusky VS. Smith
Brennan; 1916, M8sby VS. Crowley, 1477
Moore & Co vs. Brewer; 1881, Robertson
VS. Lanier, McCallum & King; 1482, Roper
q Bro vs. Dickinson, Williams & Co;
1874, Rsnfr0 VS. Burkeshire; 1885,
Reeves vs. Shane; l4S5, Sullivan VS.
Moore; 1891, Memphis Agricultural As
ISOLATION VS. Newkirk; 1892, Hsathmsn vs.
Dixon: 1893. Webb & Watson vs. Taft;
vs. Ssfsrt; 1895, Bates & Bro vs. Watts q
Co; l493, NesbitJ vs. Pope; 1899, Fsrris vs.
Life Association of America; 1900, Gay
lord, Son 81 Co VS. Memphis and Arkansas
River Packet Company; 1901, Brewer VS.
Williams; 1902, MCCsnn vs. Payne; 1893,
Cicslla, sdm'r, vs. Rsis; 1904, Far
gasOn & Clay vs. Pittman: 1905,
MumuHaNA - N.na.gna NTHT EnanImm "a
Simmons; l508, CsudOn Va FOutsIne;
1903, Brooks & LawhOm VS. Beecher; 1910,
IZsn vs. German National Bank; 1911,
R0ystsr, Trcz5vaut & Co. vs. Hubert;
1912, Harrington agent, vs. Noon; 1913,
Crook, agent, vs. Ayers; 1914, Robinson vs.
Brewster; 1915, White vs. Hin. Fontsin &
Co 1916, Humes & PostOu vs. Jackson In
sursncs Company; 1917, Mansfield vs.
Wesson; 1919, Sparks VS. Sherrell; 1926,
williams VS. SueChliD; 1921, Biddy VS.
Strickland; 1925, Taylor, Cole & Co. vs.
Mullins; 1926, Gallagher vs. Moore; 1927,
Mansfield & Higbee vs. Brewer; 1873,
Cochran vs. Ssrdis Agricultural
Society, ct al; 1880, Cox VS. Wilson;
1881, Dickinson, Williams & Co VS. ROOtes, !
Vance & Co; 1888, Allison, Smith & John
son vs. Kellar; 1886 Eichberg, use, etc, VS.
Beehler; 1887, Sutton, Trigg & Co vs. War
uer & Co; 1888, Wright vs. StOddard: 1888, |
Cousins vs. Memphis and Arkansas River
Packet Co; 1910, Williams vs. Huber: 154l, |
Haddsn & Avery VS. SlaLeral542, Mebsne, /
guardian, VS. Jones; 1913, Morgan vs. Fan
son; 1916, Diggs vs. Planters Insurance Co; /
1877, Allen vs. Planters Insurance Co; /
l548, Bunch I'd Weld, sdmr; 1913, State Of
Tennessee VS. Liude ct al; 1850, BurfOrd, 1
admir-, vs. Memphis Bulletin Co, ct al; 1851, /
Burf1rd. admir-, vs. Memphis Bulletin Co, /
90 al; 1852, State Of Tennessee vs. GOsbels; |
1853, Columbus vs. Owens; 1854, State Of i
Tn 80 AHm-nhma Xxx AnnmmnH va Sane Il
ster; 1866, Stratton vs. Jones; 1857, Fer
guson & Privitt rs Brsnner, ct al; 1858, |
Eddins q Williams vs. Wheat 1859, Moore
vs. WOlcott, Smith g Co.; 1860, Sbivers vs.
Williams; 1852, D0n0hO, Joy q Co. vs.
Hays, extrX.; 1866, Bitterlick & Co. vs.
Glassick; 1867, COOpw0Od vs. Strickland;
l666, White VS. Bigley, M6ll6rsh & 20.
The calendar to-day contains all the
cases nov left for trial at the present
term, except those continued e until
after the supreme Court.
CFlniRaI csurt-FIlpplH, Judge.
The following csses are set for trial to-
S2o. Fannie Gray, keeping house Of liz
5g7. Mary Smith, keeping house Of
m-fame. 1876, Annie Fisher, keeping house /
of Ml-fams; 81, Harvey Seviere, attempt
to Kill: 38L, James SchOoles, arson 38l,
James Hays, arson; 40, Jeh. Walker, lar
cenv. AIS, Henry O'Nesl, larceny; 4l6,
Good, laroenys 4l6, ". shannon, lar
SIS, VIM, Ward, larcenyi 7o5, VIM.
Foster. failing 20 settle IS administrator;
7O8 q, X. Bullock, falling to settle as adj
ministrator; 708, j.. n. Snowden5 falling
10 settle as administrator; 40, ". b.
Greenlaw, falling 20 settle as a~dininlstra-
tor; 7I5, Jas. Gallagher. falling to settle as
gdministr 20, Ann Thompson, larcenyi
7e5, Nj. d. WEIGH, assault and battery;
SO, Thos. Callahan, assault ana batterY5
sS8, Th0s. Callahan, attempt to kills $50
Antoine McCarty, attempt TO XIII SO,
VIM Crosby, attempt to Kill; 834, Solo
mon Ray, larceny; 845, Henry Morgan,
larcenyi 81 Mary Banks, larceny; $50,
Dr. f. A. Schreyer, larceny; 854. Mary
coleman. lareenyi $50, Mack Brown, lar
cenyi s5ls Joe ~Foppiana, assault and bst-
terry; SIS, Henry Morgan, carving cor
$50 Len VsnPelt, larceny.
Witnesses in any Of the above cases
must be IN attendance promptly. or al.
tachments viii be issued for their bodies
Dafandauts on bonds must also appear ~