Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-05-22
LAW REPORTS.

y
LAW REPORTS.
FIRST Chaneery Court = Chancellor Nor
gan.
The case Of Seasons vs. Seasons was
taken up yesterday, bat was not finished
at the hour Of adjournment. It will be
concluded this morning, after which the
case of Case vs. Smith, No. 1896, II. D.,
viii be heard.
second Chas,cery Court = chancellor
seost.
Gases set for to-day: Washer VS. Tur-
ner; us, Bender vs. Wilman; 719, Good
lett vs. Cole; 720, Jones vs. Dickens; ~,
Anderson vs. Hunt; 722, Sanderlin vs.
Moncrief; 723, Gaunt vs. Meadley; IA,
Whitby vs. Jones; 725, Moriarty VS. Nor
iarty; 726, Cheek Us Barry; TT, Drake
vs. Isaacs; $50, Allen vs. Dent; 731, Nc
Ginty vs. Armour; 732, CadmOntOni vs.
Mayor and Aldermen; 73S, Kelly vs.
WilIiford; 734, Mueller VS. Mueller; 735,
Golf vs Lundy; T39, Reynolds vs. Kel-
lar; T39, Thompson vs. City; 40, Raines
vs. Raines; 741, Hutchinson Is Metealfe;
743, Brignadello vs. Cune0T'744, Crook
vs. Davidson; 745, Neal vs. Winn; 746,
Angus vs. Angus; az, Robson vs. Stone;
748, Walsh vs. Brown; 74a, White VS.
Rootes; $50, Greenlaw, expaFte; 751,
Etley VS. MeBeth; 752, Sawyers vs. Or
ment; 753, CheFugino vs. CherUginO;
754, Chotes vs. ChOtes; 755, Greeulaw VS.
Low; T56, Cherry VS. Jefferson; T59,
Walker vs. BigeloW; 100, TUggle VS. Tug
gle; 163, Kellar, exparte; go, Ham
mOnd, exparte; 40, Shaversv vs. Shavers;
al, Taber vs. TabeT; ~, Cooke VS. Bige-
low; 773, Riehert vs. Elbia; 776, BOydvs
Walker; 77S, Loft vs. Cochrell; 779,
Koen vs. Rodgers; 761, Cross VS. Cock
rell; 7s2, COckreH vs. Brinkley; 783,
Cross VS. Brinkley; 7S5, QuisenberTy vs.
Brinkley; 7s6, Quinn vs. Lanigan; 787,
Stephens vs. Ingate; 7S6, Ford VS. Iredale;
789, Lally VS. Carrigani $50, Lacey VS.
Moon; 792, Kirk vs. Davis; 794, CToak
vs. Ferguson; 795, Hayes vs. Matt; 796,
Rodgers vs. City; 797, Powers vs. Nee
han; 79S, GOlliday VS. Carr.
First CircuEt Court-HeislSen. Judge.
Hereafter, until this call is completed,
if counsel on both sides are in the city,
and not engaged in the actual trial of
some cause in another court, the cases
will be continued at the costs of the alb
sent counsel in the discretion of the
court. The following is the calendar
for to-day: 90, Blades vs. Shepherd ct al;
412, Cuneo vs. Raggio ct al; 479, Hen
derson VS. Memphis and Arkansas river
Packet Company; 494, CieaIla, admin
istrator, VS. Smith ct al 526, Briggs &
Peterson vs. Finney; 646, EuPhrates
Lodge vs. SamuelsOn; ga, Taylor vs.
Nathan; 676, Moss VS. Hartley, use, ETC.;
$50, Mayor and aldermen Of Memphis VS.
Hempstead; 69l, Mayor and aldermen
of Memphis vs. Hempstead; 702, Mayor
and aldermen of Memphis VS. Newell;
T07, Byrd & Reynolds vs. MeCloud; 40,
Pyne, assignee, VS. CockTell; ~,
Greenlaw; us, Bowman vs. Cock
reIl; 10, Brinlzley VS. Megibben;
729, Algeo & Co. VS. Tate, Able & Co.
733, Crump, Moore q Co. vs. Moody ct
al; 743, FoOte vs. Cicalla, administrator;
736, Hardemaa vs. Heinrich; 73S, FrieF-
son, surviving partner, vs. Apperson, ex-
eeutor; IA, Mayor and Aldermen of
Memphis VS. Staid; $50, Mayor and Al
dermen of Memphis VS. Staid; 763,
Mayor and Aldermen of Memphis VS.
Cunningham; 764, Mayor and Aldermen
of Memphis vs. Fuller; rs, Stephenson
VS. Mcknight; $50, Fowler VS. Riggs;
794, Mayor and Aldermen of Memphis
VS. Martin; 500, Markum VS. Bradshaw;
sos, Mayor and Aldermen of Memphis
VS. Hanstadd; So, Sangster, administers
tor, VS. Laird ct al; Sl9, Baller 4 BAIL VS.
Hesse, Levy & Co.; $50, Brannin, Som
ers q Co. VS. WoTmIey, Beckett & Co. !;
S22, Duke ct al vs. Clayton, executor;
S32, Montgomery, surviving partner, VS.
Devinne; $50, PattisOn, VS. Black, Cam
erOn q Co.; S46, Garin VS. Theilan; S4z5,
Pleifer VS. English ct al S4S, Church VS.
Robbins; $50, Pickett vs. Ball; S67, Nc
GregOr & Co. VS. Jones; S71, Hunter VS.
Shelby county; S75, Stillman, admins
tratCr, VS. Lincoln; S96, Mosby, surviv-
ing partner, vs. Speed & Strange; S96,
Mahan vs. Garvin, executrix; S97, Brun-
ner VS. Waddell; 902, Mesby, receiver, VS. I
Giassick; 9l4, Tardy, agent, VS. Roberts;
9l9, Mayor and Aldermen Of Mem
phis VS. Marie; 922, Mayor and
Aldermen of Memphis vs. Mel
Rae; 92S, Sutherland vs. Reeves;
929, Jones Bro. vs. Terrence, executor;
$50, Garibaldi VS. Palma; 93S, KirkwoOd
vs. Duff; SOL, McDavitt, executor VS.
Hansel & Riggs; 953, Hanson VS. Sim
mons; 95s, Wright & MeKisick VS. Bed
ford; 9e9, Miles VS. COekrel, ct al; S73, |
Cicalla, administrator, vs. Taylor, ct al
974, McHenry vs. Crook; 979, Westlake,
ct al, VS. Rosenbaum Bro. 982, Waddell, I
ct al. vs. Dinsmore; 9S3, Waddell, ct al,
VS. Dinsmore: 9S4, Waddell, ct al, VS.
$50, Griffin VS. Block; 1901,
jr., vs. ROsenbaum Bro; 1929,
Mayor and Aldermen of Memphis VS.
Gallina; 1886, Briggs & Peterson VS.
Taylor, MeBain & Co.; 1893, Winter VS.
Murphy; l043, King VS. Memphis and
Louisville Railroad company; 1047,
Critchley, Faucet & Co. vs. Rosenbaum
+; I04S, Thumel, admipistRtrix, VS.
Jackson Insurance company; 1858, |
Mooring vs. Cameron & Co.; 1854, Scoo- |
vel & Co. vs. Mansfield & Higbee; 1868, |
Peora Mutual Benefit association VS.
Myers; 1913, Semmes Il Co. VS.
Plant fOSS,e Myers VS. Smith !;
1854, Hays vs. Edmondsen; 1885, Smith |
VS. Thorpe; loss, Trousdale VS. Keel & |
Co. 1892, Pickett vs. Musso jr.; 1894, |
Flaherty vs. Sullivan; 1I23, DonOhue vs.
112T, Mayer and Aldermen of
Memphis VS. Tracey; 112S, Mayor and /
Aldermen of Memphis vs. Tracy; 1872, |
Boyd VS. Robins & Co. I137, Bohens VS. !
Memphis German Saving Institute; /
Il39. GOepeI vs. Anderson, administers |
tor; 114S. Perkins vs. R0senbaum Bros. |
& Co: 1856, Boone VS. Quinlan; 1161, |
Bonner vs. Murphy; ll6S, Pointer vs.
Costen, administrators; 1859, Weaver,
trustee VS. Shelby county; HIS, Muller |
vs. Allston; 1850, Mayor and Aldermen |
of Memphis vs. BenOw; I1S1, ConneH VS. /
1852, Boswell, use, VS. Dut- !
tlinger, ct al; 1IS4, Moore and wife vs.
Tugg ct al If attorneys having undis- |
posed Of motions ON the old motion /
docket, desire to have them heard, they |
must re- .enter thena on the new docket. |
second Cireult Court- -TEaasey, udge.
To-day the following eases win be
called for trial 3476, Grand Tower
Mining and Manufacturing Company
VS. Creighton; 3099, Aekernan vs. Louis:
3Io0, Ackernlan VS. Louis; I69, Haria- |
way VS. Coens; III, Kirkland VS. MeDow-
eli: ia, Wv aIlace & Eagaa VS. XVellsf Ie4,
Saint vs. Baum LIS, B0wles vs. Taylor;
1T9, Parker vs. COsten; 1S1, Sale vs. Mil
ler; 1S2, Davys vs. Jackson Life Insur-
ance Company; iSf, Woltering VS. Tufts; /
1S7, Applegate vs. Aldgidge; 18S, Smith /
VS. Duvall, Algco q CO.; 1s9, Erskine vs.
Soners 6 Dam; $50, Grant vs. MeAllis- |
ter; 1913, Martin vs. Aldridge: IS4, Sparks
vs. Williams; 195, Stillnlan VS. Laskf: /
1856, Aydlett Us MeGiIl; 197, Rounan IS
Seibert and wife; 201, Peres VS. Peresv
202, Ensel Us Peres 203. Crowley vs.
E1s.,.a .1f4-. 9nr y4fesots,s.,, 49, !. foc