Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-05-18
second Circuit Halsey Judge.

Second Circuit COurt-Halsey Judge.
on Monday, after the juries are inn
paneled, the following cases viii be
called, being those passed at the Janu-
AIRY term: 24S2, Hines VS. M. and o. r.
r. Co.; 297l, Watkins VS. Parker ct al;
I 30i6, Douglass VS. Calhoun & Co; 1888,
Oliver, Finnie & Co. VS. Memphis and
Louisville and Nashville railroads; 1868,
0'Donnell vs. Memphis and Louisville
r. r. Co.; 3099, Ackerman VS. Louis;
800, Ackerman VS. Louis; S146, Juniper
VS. O'DonneH; 314S, Dunham VS. Cam
eron; 31S0, Rice VS. Kingdom; 1882, Reed
VS. Dwyer; 31S7, johnson VS. Louisville
and Nashville Railroad Company; 3199,
Wiggin VS. Coward; 3202, Douglass VS.
Douglass; 1908, Proudfit VS. Larkin; 1906,
Burns ct al VS. Hauns ct al; 32l5, Cow
gill VS. Douglass; 1921, KrOcker vs. Dur
worth 3222, Shickle VS. Ed
wards; 9223, Mahon VS. Clapp &
Co.; 1924, Mahon VS. Delap & Co,
3227, Thompson VS. Bescher; 1892, For
rest VS. Severson; 1896, Jahuke VS. Held
eiberg; 1898, Casino VS. Wolf; 3249,
Schaaf VS. Brown; 1866, Schroeder VS.
Vandyke; 327S, Becker VS. Foltz ct al;
1898, Schroeder VS. Wicks; 1898, Diggs &
Wafford VS. Peters; 1904, Schoolfield,
Hanauer & Co, VS. Isaacs; s366, Brown
VS. Peterson; 1878, Gimpsey VS. Memphis
and Little Rock Railroad Company;
1887, Cassanetti VS. Frayser; 1890, Har-
din vs. Overton; 1899, johnson VS. F'rier-
son ct al; 3400, Dillon VS. City Of Mem
phis; 3405, Lane Il Co. VS. Whites 3406,
Taylor & Co VS. Oates; 3407, Dent VS.
Elliott; 34l0, Fransioli VS. FransiOh;
34l3, Thompson VS. Anderson; 34lS,
Winters VS. Donovan ct al; 1924, zim-
norman VS. Bras & Storey; 342S, Adams
d Co. VS. Hickey; 1886, Chapsky VS.
Armstrong; 1886, Divine VS. Moftett;
3447, Mason VS. Beverly; 1855, Ford VS.
Wirid; 3475, McHenry VS. Stoltz; 3476,
VS. Creighton; 1882, Taylor VS. Sweizer;
1896, Witkousky VS. Saltalamanchias
1896, Oliver VS. Bovine & Bovine; 3497,
Hart vs. Ashford;, 1888; Grinble VS.
Seedg; 3499. Mulcahy VS. Scanlan; $500,
Black VS. Kirwin; 35I0, Carter VS. Luckett
ct al; 3511, Harrison & Sinons VS. Quinn
& Co; 3512, Neweomb, Buchanan & Co.
VS. Paiter; 3516, Stephenson VS. GHrley;
35I7, Gallina vs. Marsh & Bro. !; 35lS,
Long VS. Memphis and Charleston Rail-
road Company; 3519, Shelley vs. Powell
ct al; $500; StepheIson vs. Lynch; 3521,
Stephenson VS. Gurley; 3522, Go6shaw
VS. Slater; 1923, Pronisinski VS.
Mosley; 1923, Plummer VS. Musso;
3525, Erskine, vs. Mccullough; !;
1896, Erskine VS. Mccullough. After the
foregoing cases are disposed of, the court
viii commence at first Of docket and
call the following: /, MerriweatheT VS.
Brown; 3, Howard VS. Williams; 4, Able,
ct al, Us Smith, ct al 5, Pittman VS.
Memphis and Ohio Railroad company;
6, Smith VS. Armour; Z, Gill VS. Forrest;
S, Lockhrrd VS. Gibson; 8, Miller VS.
Brannan ct al; 10, Prick VS. Finlay, ct
al; II, Levy VS. Bloom, ct al; 13, Rice
VS. Meath. Ia, eager vs. Hume & Boyte;
16, Bradley VS. Austin; IL, Thompson vs.
MyRatt; Is, Mayor and Aldermen Of
Memphis vs. Austin; 10, Bradley vs.
Austin; 20, Greenlaw vs. Williams; q,
Churchill & Co. VS. Fifhean: q, Ford VS.
AUSTIN ct al; "A, Wiekersham vs.
Fowlkes; 25, Smith VS. DuvalI, AIgeo &
Co; 26, Smith VS. Duvall Algeo & Co. !;
q, Rice vs. Glapceys 2s, BuFrset al, VS.
Felts; %, Jones VS. Little. "a X ~