Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-10-03
LAW RECORD.
Pirrt CIrcuis COurs-He,s,,eII. Judr.

Pirsf Cfrcuit COurt-HeiskeII, Judge.
The following is che calendar for to-
day: No. 1895, Mckinney vs. Giles; 7OS,
Cayne vs. HAMA; 1868, Peoria Mutual
Benevolent Association vs. Myers; 1887,
Bohms vs. Memphis Germans Savings
institution; 1850, Heating VS. Polk ct al
1885, Jones vs. Fite; 1860, Tommy vs.
Bingham ct al; 1867, Cirode VS. BanfI;
1873, Williams VS. OiDOnnen; 1882, Trfg-
gally VS. city of Memphis; 1888, Goodhue,
use, VS. Page ct al; 1884, GoOdhue, use,
vs. Page ct al; 1894, \ ississippi River
Railroad Company VS. Simmons; 1896,
State vs. George Knox; 1897, App vs.
Germans Savings Institution; 1899,
Hanks, Porter & Co. vs. Merriman; l4O6,
Ger5 ans Savings Institution VS. Rein
hart; l4l5, Asbe vs. Jewell; I416, Currie
4 Co. vs. Bingham; 1920, Cole VS. Hodges:
1872, Miller, administrator, vs. Williams,
executor; 1924, Strong vs. Memphis and
Louisville Railroad Company; 1425,
Rowan vs. Higgins, Administrative; 1929,
Massman vs. Musso, jr.; 1883, Harbert
ct al VS. cityof Memphis; 1874, Southern
Express Company vs. Selden; 1887,
Dougherty vs. Wright; 1443, Jones vs.
Brown, surviving partner.
HecOHu SAEcuAN NcuFt-batseys Judge.
The eases for trial to-day are as fol-
lows: No. $50, Pelham Co. VS. Memphis
and st. Louis Packet Company; $50,
Graham VS. Delap; 100, Moergel 4 Held
sick VS. Freitag; l0l2, Bironv vs. Sullivan;
lOl5, Alexander vs. Dexter; l0l6, Fen
nerty VS. Weber ct al; 1913, Bush ct al
vs. Bauer 1922, Nelson VS. Rocco ct al;
! 1923, McBain vs. Hall; 1924, Bruce vs.
| INafnhn & 1 hTns TnDE D.Lg-.-- -
tesla; 1O2S, Price VS. Clark: 1885, Hill VS.
Bates; 1885, Moore VS. Bates; 1887,
Walsh VS. Bates; 1888, Falwell VS. Wat
son; lO4S, Harris VS. MeDermOtt; 1914.
Means VS. Graham; l046, Vance vs.
SlidelI & Harrison; IO47, Browleg VS.
Harris ct al; l04S, Vaccarro vs. McMaban
ct al; l051, Connolly vs. Larkin et nj.
1854, Blackman vs. TOpp; 1855, Brinkley
VS. Hopkins, administrator; 1853. Pares
& Co. VS. Ehrlieh; 1868, Lewis ct al VS.
Leftwich ct al; 1904, Lewis VS. Leftwich
ct al; 1865, Bethel VS. Hammond; 1866.
Fox VS. Taylor, McEwen & Blew; IO7l,
Cornell, surviving partner, vs. Bickford:
1912, Bates vs. Welsh; 1919, Claybrook
& Williams VS. Grant; 1875, Memphis
and Cincinnati Packet Company VS.
Lewis Matthews & Co.; 1919, Wood
ward VS. Jones; 1850, Anderson, Cav &
Co. VS. Rankin; 1851, Partee & Harbert
VS. Anderson, Gay d Co; 1852, Herman
vs. Howley; 1854, Hudson VS. Martin:
1857, Good ct al vs. Jehle; 1889, Davis VS.
Taylor, McEwen & Blew; 1890, Hall ct |
al VS. Wyatt 4 Shaw; 1901, Thomas vs.
Walt; 1904, Cicalla, administrator, VS.
Coleman d Co; 1897, Friend d Bach
man VS. Lindauer & Pollock; 109S, Dent
& Co. vs. Plummer & Co.; 1893, Mhoon
VS. Holmes; HOO, Harrison vs Brooks:
llO2, Cohen VS. Lehman & Co.; IlO4 |
ROseDthal VS. P-fennensteihl; l107, Mem
phis Overton Hotel Company vs. Hardin;
HOS, Memphis Oyerton Hotel Company
vs. Elder; ITO, Daucey ct alvs Fowlkes: |
I'LL, First National Bank VS. Mickle,
Mason d Smith; 1112, Duncan 4 VIII
liams VS. Peres & Co.; 1923, Ford vs.
Larkin; 1924, Ford vs. Larkin; 1925.
Kremer & Co. VS. Atlantic and
Mississippi Steamship Company; 1927,
Stephens VS. Flynn; ll2S, Hewitt & Co.
VS. Greenfield; 1923, Winchester, admin
VS. Montgomery; 1871, Walsh
vs. COgswell; 1872, Owen vs. Larkin:
1888, Stem VS. Saffarans ct al; 1874.
Woodbury. & Jones VS. Hughes:
1888, Fisher & Co. VS. Nathan Brothers
& Co; ll43, Dill VS. Mayor and Alder
men OF Memphis; ll44, Sharpleigh.
Rue d Co, VS. Petit d Siddons; Il45,
Dubose VS. Patterson; 1I4S, McCarty vs.
and Aldermen of Memphis; 1852,
Lownas VS. O'Dell; 1853, Jones VS.
Woods; ll55, Houston VS. Dare: 1856,
Bond VS. Beurer; 115S, Schoenfeldt VS.
Heron; 1850, Bond vs. Beurer; 1851, /
Dare VS. Mccain; 1852, Mailman vs.
ll65, Lee VS. Pyne; II66. Coes-
we'll VS. Grayson; l173, Sullivan VS.
1l75, Buerer vs. HUM; Il76,
Walker VS. Black; IT'S, Dromgode VS.
3eecher; ll79, Bond VS. Beurer ct al;
ISL, S~chultheirs vs. Zallinger; 1852,
crawford VS. Fluid; 1888, Crawford vs.
Fuld; llS5, Marecon ct al VS. Mallory;
lS6, Kennett VS. Worsham; llS9,
holmes vs. Cogswell; 1892, Parker vs.
1907, Gayoso Savings Institu-
vs. Davidson ct al; 1913, Robertson
g Greenwald 4 Lobe; 1916, Clarke VS.
Neatherford, Simpson & Co; 122G, {
reed VS. Thomas ct al; 1921, Galbreath {
s Kennedy; l222, Tucker vs. Farrows; {
223, Edgington vs. Elf; 1927, Wolf vs. '
Winters; 1880, Smithet al VS. Meacham |
lS4, Memford VS. Boone.