Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-09-29
LAW REPORTS.

First CIrcuit COurt-HeiskeII, Judge.
To-dsy's calendar contains the follow
ing cases: IIS6. Frank d Thilmsn, VS.
Louisville and Nashville railroad; 1444,
O'Harra, VS. Louisville and Nashville
railroad: Al, Saunders VS. Cummings ct al;
AZ, McMillen vs. McWtlllams; AZ, Miller
vs. Jones, admir-; so. Powell Va Sugarman;
81, Trent, admir-, VS. Psttison & Jones; 50,
webb VS. Jones ct al; 30, Beck vs. Hup-
pert ct al; SO, Schrsdsr VS. Lattig; SO, Hill
man VS. Thomas; 81. Morris vs Green; 50,
Cochran vs. Peterson ct al; "a, Dufries vs.
Pollock & Johl; 66, Payne VS. Moore; IS,
Houston VS. Bond; 70, Randall vs. Mem
phis and Charleston railroad company; II,
Galloway VS. TOpp; "a, hawthorne VS. Her
ring; 7S Massey VS. Park; so, Brown VS.
Nevis ct al; 81, Tighe vs. Price; "a, Hearu
vs. Young; IS, StrattOn vs. Hayden OF al;
So, Jones vs. Barnes; 81, KetebUm VS.
TObin, Lynn & Co; SO, Carhgrt & Bro VS.
Walls ct al; 81, Allen VS. Boyd; %,
Blades vs. sheppard ct al; "a,
Aydlett VS. Dickens; 50, Smith va Cole;
81, Montgomery vs. Atlantic steamship
company; IS, Mills VS. Bond, ct al; 100,
Moore (trustee) vs. PEttis0n; 103, Martin
VS. Hughes, ct al; 1G4. State use vs. Allen
& CrenshsW; los, Thomas Va B1rrow; lO6,
Terrence vs. Mum, sdm'r; ITO, Saunders
VS. Duff; III, PattisOn vs. Dickens; lib,
Harrigsn vu Deyalle; u5, Adams use vs.
Russell; III, Madden VS. Cleveland; llS,
Phillips VS. Sshring; LIB, Caldwell We
Harding; Ia, Hinmsn vs. Slough, ct ais;
l25, Cole administrator vs. Street, ct ais.
Second Cfrcutt COurt-Halsey,s Judge.
The case Of Sternberg against the Louis
vile and Nashville railroad company has
not yet been given to the jury, though
two speeches have been made. It viii be
resumed this morning by Judge 7. R.
Smith making the concluding argument
for the defense. B. @. Graft will then
close the case. Alter which the following
cases win be called for trial:
SO, Mckinney q Co VS. city Of Memphis;
Ill. Burnett, ex, VS. Ayrss; 1899, Specht
VS.. Sawyer: 5000, Smith VS. Gsrrstt AMI
Specht; lie, Morgan VS. Yelling; III,
OVerton Hotel Company Us Bannon,
admir-; lis, Overton Hotel Company vs.
psny VS. Beckfal, aGmr; 12I, Curtis, sur
part, Va Mayor and Aldermen Of Mem
phis: 10, Krtlsnd vs. BsaAOn OF al; t23,
Pope VS. stephens; 126, Hillmsn Bros VS.
CAN'T: LIS, Eagle Insurance Company vs.
williams; 1T, johnson vs. Smith ct al:
12S, Max Msier VS. ] 81 Smith; l29, Ham.
merskOld VS. Williams & Co ct al; 100,
Fay vs. Msrtin; IS1, Porter VS. Strong; 1S2,
Creighton Va Wesson; 133, Owen vs. = e
Mallory; ls4, Alexander vs. } N White; |
1876, Shall, next friend, VS. Jones ct al;
136, Morgan vs. Mallory; l37, Csssidsy vs.
Mallory; 1873, Graham vs. Munlord; 159, |
vs. Munford; 140, Hawthorne VS.
Hunter; 14l, Hawthorne, by next friend,
Hunter; 142, Psllett vs. T. Dean ct al;
LA, Spencer VS. Woodward ct al; l45, e.
Insurance Company vs steamer Con-
way; 146, williams rs steamer Zstta; l47,
Baum, admir-, vs. @. Carroll; l4S Chase
W BEDFORD ct al; 150, Finnie VS. Murray
Of al; Isl, Corey & Co. VS. Walt 4 John
son; I52, Collins & Co VS. Miller; 153, Bur
chia VS. Jacobs, 154, Taylor, admir-, Va
Memphis and Charleston railroad com
psny; los, Logarmsrzino VS. Buckley; los,
3. Taylor, use, etc, vs. Burnett. l5o, e.
W. Mccoy VS. O'Den; 1872, WhittletOn VS.
164, Ferguson vs Mary Foley;
Mcdonald vs. Titus; 1877, Pickett, gr.,
admir-, vs. J. g. Owen.