Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-06-08
Second Circuit urs HaI-ey, Judge

To-day's calender contains the follow
ing cases: 24l2, Duer VS. Smith ct al;
2746, Stone vs. League; 2754, Matthews
VS. League; 2755, Burnham VS. League;
27J7, Sildner VS. SehlOss & Bros; 275S,
Stiles VS. Fisher; 2765, Cox VS.
Tate ct al; 2766, Sluivers vs. VIII
Iiams; 2767, Schafferet al VS. Thomas
ct al; 276S, Goldsby VS. Goldsby;
2772, Roger vs. Winters; 277S, Apex
~executrix VS. CAN'T ct al; 2776, Schu-
maker Manufacturing Company VS.
Mcclure; 2777, Taffe VS. Irvine, trustee;
27S1, CAN'T, trustee VS. Lanford; 27S2,
Brown VS. Leftwich, administrative
27S4 Kohn vs. Lanford; 27S5, Wilkins
VS. Farabee; 27S6, McLefresh VS. NAL
lory; Psi, Lucas VS. NJ. q c. r.. r. Co.;
27SS, p. & d. Bank of West Tennessee
VS. Parttee; 27S9, Tate VS. Stewart &
Stewart; 2790, Meath VS. Page q Page;
1892, COcran & Co. VS. Alexander; 2793,
Parker Bros VS. Koch Sons 81 Co. ct al;
2795, Kincannon vs. M. d r.. r. Co;
1896, Hnry VS. Cans ct al; 279S, Hopton
VS. Menken ct al; 279S, Hartley ct al VS.
Happeck; 2s041, TaIley, administrator,
VS. SaxtOn; 2S05, Browning VS. Jones
Bros; 2SO6, Mcbride VS. Allison; 2S0S,
Lofiand & Co. VS. OiMallOy; 2S0S, Cow
erdale VS. Ball ct al; 2S14, Thompson VS.
Cross; 2SI7, Wedelstadt VS. Widrig; $500,
O'Connor VS. Schuyler; 1921, Welle-
ford VS. KeIlar; 2S23, Ready ct al VS.
Newmoth: 1924, Twohig VS. Mayor and
Aldermen of the city of Memphis;
2s25, Walker & Bros. VS. Ragesky ct al;
282S, Mayor and Aldermen of Memphis
VS. Hughes ct al; 1892, Smith VS. Henil
ct al; 1885, Lena VS. City of Memphis;
2S4l. Gourgers VS. Bell; 2945, Luken. VS.
Hartley & Gurley; 2S47, Williams vs.
White; 1855, HUM VS. Mayor and Al
dermen of Memphis; 2S70, Potter VS.
Smith; 2S7l, Durham VS. Anderson;
2S75. Scheibler & Co vs. Maginnis; 1892,
Bruce VS. Brasner; 1899, Perkins VS.
Tighe & Co; 1900, Perkins VS. Tighe
& Co; 1902, Schuber VS. Rawlings;
1904, Everdon VS. House; 1905, Kinney
VS. WHEELER; 2911, Walker VS. Worsham
29I3. Edwards VS. O'Laughlin; 2915,
Winter VS. Lusk; 2916, Hoegel VS. john
son; 29IS, Stack vs. Walker; 1881, White
We Cartere ct al; 2943, Williams VS. john
son; 1854, Hagge VS. Anderson; 1856,
Maloney VS. O'Brien ct al; 297l, Wat
kins vs. Parker Brothers; 1916, Drum vs.
Semmes; 1919, Dawson VS. Mesmer;
1884, Miller vs. Wait d Lewis; 298S,
ClOustOn VS. CROOK; Z9S5, Nlahan vs. Iay-
Tor, MeLever & Blew; 2692, Somervilee
VS. Bath; 1894, @ d J e Everett VS. q
NJ Flaherty; 1895, Meath vs. Street ct al;
1896, Gallagher VS. Garvin; 1901, Zen VS.
Cronna & Co; 1902, Austin vs. City of
Memphis; 3009, Sharpe VS. Allston; 1904,
Thurston VS. Wahan; 9006, Hutchinson
ct al VS. Hampe; 1907, Curry VS. Plum
mer; 300S, Aargan VS. O'DOnnell ct al;
3009, Brinkley VS. Beaumont; 3010, Ven
able VS. Swegringer; 3012, New York
Life Insurance Company VS. Raiford;
3012, Shaw VS. Young & Co. ct at; 3014,
OnIey & Prolis vs. same; 3018, Douglass
ct al VS. Calhoun Go; 30lS, Baker VS.
Podesta; 3016, Brochvogel VS. Green d
Green; 1920, Richmond VS. Newark
Machine Works; 302I, McLea VS. Ex-
partee; 3026, Hogle VS. Johnson; 1898,
oliver, Finnie & Co. VS. Memphis and
Louisville Railroad Company; 2047, Fis-
dale VS. Mccoy; 3059, Payser VS. Church;
5000, Sherwood VS. Herman; 3089, o.
Donnell VS. Memphis and Louisville
Railroad Company; S072, Jones VS.
Steele.