Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-01-16
First Cireult CouTs-Helsken, Judge.

Tbe following cases constitute to-dsy'a
calendar: 1907, Thompson VS. Busby ct al
| 1860, WcOton VS. Kellsr CT al; 1862, Dan
heissr VS. Q1inn et al: 1858, DOnegsn VS.
Jordan, sdmr; 1854, Riddle, Coleman q
! Co. vs. Louden; 1865, Pindell vs. Eddins
| 1867. Scott VS. Colemsn; 1865, thornley, VS.
Pfsnnensteil; 1869, Schroeder VS. Msdigsn
1870, Boswell, use, VS. County OF Shelby
1911, Mostly, receiver, VS. uhapsky o. al;
! 1872 MOsbY, receiver, VS. Robbins q Co.
| 1873. Morris VS. Veuable; 1874, Bickford
vs. GAtsns & Bro. 1875, Gregory VS. Sigter
/ 1877, Harris vs. Beverly; 1880, Psoen1 We
| Gordon; 1851, Flynn VS. Guyoni 1852 Jack
| son vs. Rawlings; 1858, Southern vs. Fos'
/ burgh; 1854, Stewart VS. Dlggs; 1858, HaE-
kIns VS. MunroWe; 1856, Ward vs. Rose
1857, Donoho VS. Pope; 1858, This City
OF Memphis vs. Tracey; 1853, The
| CITY OF Memphis vs. Frank; 1880, TIE
CITY of Memphis VS. Mare; 1892, City
| OF Memphis vs Rousch; 1893, Walt VS.
| Franklin; 1895, SchOenfeld VS. Saunders
and wife; 1896, Lumusruse VS. O'D0nDelli
1897, Erich VS. Black Bros. & 90; 1898,
Ames, Besttie & Co. VS. Guion, agent; 1893
| ~SomsTvills, agent, VS. O'Donnell; I7O0i
williams VS. Graves; 17Ul, Moody vs.
Thomas; 1902, Hslstesd, administrator
Gallsger & Elliott; l70l, Sutton VS. Wet
| Ter: l7Of, FftzEersld & Neal vs. Elias; l7O5
Hurdin vs. HRshsnbush; 1706, Pilkin
Wesrd & Co vs. Black ct al; l7O7, Hnrdin
vs. H~sshenbUsb; I70S, Steinkuhl VS. Hoist
1903, Fenwick vs. Spears; I'LL, Green s
Richmond VS. Martin; 17l2, Smelling v:
Fields; 17i5, PIummor & Co VS. GOOdletI
ct al; I717, Vance VS. Jones' I7lS, Rsinmsn
use, VS. COrcOrsr; l720, Memphis GaycsC
Gas Company vs. Lsgure'
Second Cireait Court-HaIsey, Judge
Persons summoned as gsTnishees FOL
this term are required to answer to-day
and If they fail TO do so, OOnd tiOns1 1udg
ments msy be rendered against them 81
any motion day during the term. The
following cases viii be called for trisl
49,, Foster, Gwyn & Co. va MsphRm s
Bro; S0i9, Brochvasgel vs. Green; s52
Wstson, trustee, vs. Donaldson Of 81; S5S
Watson, trustee, VS. Donaldson ct al; S54
Watson, trustee, VS. Donaldson ct al; So
Watson. trustee, Va Mississippi sDd Ten
nessee RsilrOsd company; S6S, Watson
trustee, vs. Mississippi and Tennessee
Railroad company; 95l, Bracket & &c. vi
Mickle, Mason & Smith; 1851, Connolly
use, etc vs. Lsrkin OF al; Ills, WhestoI
q Co. VS. Mickle, Mason & Smith; 1877
Orgin Bros. & Co. vs. Mickle, Mason 6
Smith; 1910. Goldsmith VS. Mickls, MssOE
& Smith; 1863, GUyOn, use, etc, vs. Ksl
lar: 1887, Bsksr VS. Stoner; 1888, COgsWel
VS. Heron; 1899, Barnes st al vs. Carroll
1870, Mscksy VS. Seaman; 1912, Cumming
vs. Cooper ct 81; 1913 Martin VS. Brestbsti
and others; 1874, Rs rs VS. SesbsFt
| 1915, Bssley ct al vs. Bank of Tennessee.
1876. Morton VS. MclitOr, Mason ct al 1881
Vredsnbsrg, vs. Wright & FOnte; 1882
Wynne vs Mcdonald; 1853, Light VS. Nc.
| Donald; 1854 Wslssy VS. Peyton; 1855
Ohsse VS. Hickey; 1856, Fonld, trustee, vs.
YUnksn; 1857, Anderson VS. Jericho; 1858
Union Bank Of Tennessee VS. Rogers; 1850
/ Tunslatt & Holmes vs. Postal; 1852, War.
ner vs. Conrad & Co. ct al; 1868, Warner VI
| Costa, Ssngster ct al; 1854, CroDan vs.
mayor and aldermen Of Memphis; 1865
| Watson VS. Lathsm ct al; 1868, Junker,
man vs. futile; 1859, Brown VS. Obermeir
| 1871, Dickinson VS. First National bank
| 1872, Gals vs. Ed. Pelham; 1875, Hardwiss
81 al VS. Wm. clover; 1873, Taylor VS. Nc
Balm; 1875, Martin vs. Gsibreath, Stewart
& 60; 1881, HOllsnd & Vance vs. Bridges
I 1884, John Harris VS. Bond; 1885, Nshlt
q wife VS. Goodman; 1889, Cox ct Al We
I Charles Myers; First NSsionsl bank vs
| Rice, Ware & Epgle.