Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-10-15
LAW RECORD.

Second Chaneery C~Ourt-waIker, Chan
eefIOF.
To-day is motion day. Court meets
daily at $3.50 O'Clock, in the morning.
First Circuit COurt-Hefskell, Judge.
The call reached the eighth case Of
yesterdays calendar. In the case OF d.
p. Harris, trustee, VS.. D. H. Townsend,
tried before L. l.. Belcher as special
judge, returned a verdict for plaintiff for
one hundred and fifteen dollars and
fOrty-five cents. The case OF Coyne VS..
Haynia is now on trial. After it is con-
cluded, the following cases will be called,
viz: 379, Tennessee National Bank, use,
VS. NJ. +. Stiles; 1859, Weaver, trustee,
VS. Shelby county; 1892, Frank & Whit
man vs. Herzog; 1895, e. II. Flynne
l343, Brown VS. Haynes; 1897, Apr
vs. German Savings Institution; I441,
Pyne VS. Banks, ct al; 1852, Dom
Ohio, Joy & Co. vs. Hays, executor;
1905, Taylor & Rutland VS. Meacham, ct
al; 1912, Frayser VS. Kirkland, ct al;
1913, Williams VS. Crisp; 1914, Hughes
VS. Shelton, ct al, executor and execu-
triX; 1915, Hughes VS. Shelton, ct al,
executor and e~Xecutrix; 1917, Toof,
Phillips & Co. vs. Pacific and Atlantic
Telegraph. Co; 16lS, Dowdle vs. Shane,
Harriss & Co; 1921, Merchants National
Bank, of Memphis VS. Gage & Fisher;
49, Merchants National Bank, Of Mem
phi VS. Cunningham, Wicks & Co.
647, McGavock VS. Larkin; 1924, Trout,
Sons VS. Eustis; 1923. d. Appleton & Co.
VS. Patterson & Co; 1880, Man X Parsons
vs. Hess; 1888, Union and Planters
Bank VS. Day; 1910, Jackson W Mem
phis and Charleston Railroad Company;
164l, Heathman VS. Dixon; 1919, Wat
kins VS. WEIGH; 1858, Bailey VS. Nash;
1867, Meyer VS. Memphis Agricultural
and Mechanical Society; 1862, Dan
heiser VS. Quinn & Co; 1854, Riddle,
Coleman Il Co. VS. J. x NJ. LOwdon.
First Chancery COurt-MOrgAR, ChaneeI-
lOr
The argument in the case of Rucker
VS. Forrest will be concluded this morn
ing, after which the following case will
be taken up: so, Watson VS. Starke; SO,
Phelsn vs. McDavitt; 81, Leftwieh VS.
Buntyn; 9s, Glenn IS Petit; 1874, Pal
mer vs. Hint; 274, TniOn Bank Of Ten
nessee vs. Dickens; 2S2, Blood VS. Hart
ley; 2S3, Robinson VS. Taffe; 2S4, Ora
ham vs. Meaeham; 2S6, Myer VS. Laski;
2sS, Cash vs. Bolton; 323, Forian vs. Hal
lum; 1924, Grigsby VS. Street; ?26, Wright
VS. Craig; 32T, Meacham VS. Mosby; 32S,
Beasley VS. jackson; $50, Edgington VS.
1874, Forsythe vs. Williford; 337,
Green VS. Ward; 9S9; Campbell VS. Nell
son 341, Jones VS. Miller
34S, Storey VS. Perkins; S44, James vs.
345, Iueller VS. Coffee; 347, Win
VS. Smith; 34S, Cloth VS. Mepham;
349, Williamson VS. Payne; 35l, Denni-
son vs. Clarke; 352, Eastland VS. Clarke;
Champion VS. Taylor; 354, Reynolds
vs. Taylor; 355, Salsberry VS. Taylor; 357,
White VS. Dougherty; 1853, GO0dlett VS.
1853, johnson VS. Mehan; 800,
McAlister vs. Brooks; 364, Witt VS.
3644, Green VS. Littlefield; $50,
Montgomery vs. Montgomery; 1858, Geary
vs. Barnett; 1853, Wilhelm VS. Wilhelm;
Roam VS. McSpadden; 372, Bradis VS.
S74, Banks vs. Walker; 3S1,
Hesrl VS. DOnnell; 1872, BloOmingdale VS.
SS4, Wilson vs. Hart; 3S5, |
VS. Topp; 3S8, Davis VS. Kauf-
nan; ass, Torian VS. Horton; 800,
vs.. Kanfinau; 39l, Orgill Vi.
1872, Wickim vs.. Apperson; 1893, |
ZONES VS.. Brinkley; 395, Anderson ex
)arte petition; 397, Cirode vs.. Aiken;
Barrett VS.. Fox; 40l, Jones VS..
.Trotter; 402, Mitchell vs.. Low; 4O6,
VS.. ClaybroOk. Attorneys hav-
ng the papers of Lincoln VS.. Davie, No.
II. d. and Martin VS.. Lincoln,
20. 427, II. D., will please return them
o the Clerks Office.