Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-11-17
LAW REPORTS.
First ChaDeery Cour,-Chaueellor Nor

First ChaDeery COurt-ChaBeeIlor Nor
Court will sit on Tuesday, November
18th, at ten O'Clock. The two following
cases are set specially for hearing: Beck
tel VS. Brinkley, Gone vs. Pante (second
chRneery)s The regular calendar is as
follows: No. 1850, Bridges vs Austin:
!. 1851, Stacker vs Feldman; 1866, Mosbv.
administrator, VS. Stovall, executor: 1855,
Lincoln VS. Coggswell ct al; 1867. Davis
administrator, VS. Meredith ct al: 1858
Blckford VS. Dickinson ct al; 1861, Swan
wick vs. Stillman; 1862, Keck, admins
traitor, VS. Jackson ct al; 1868, Bleckley
vs. Mellersh ct al; 1865, State Of Tennes-
see, ex. rel, VS. J. ]. DuBose ct al; 1856,
Morgan vs Nelson ct al; 1868, Beatty vs.
ITomlinsOn; 1870, Moon VS. HaTTell ct al;
1874, Woodbridge VS. Cheek ct al; 1875.
Greenlsw VS. Miller ct al; 1879, Corbett
ct al VS. McDuffy; 1880, Crow vs. Lewis
ct al; 1851, Harris VS. Sears ct al; 1852, |
Philler VS. Haines ct al; 1883, Luz |
cas- vs. Lucas; 1891, Davis ct al |
vs Thornton ct al; 1892, Johnson |
vs. Kortrecht ct al; 1898, Ford |
ct al VS. Larkin ct al; 1895, Tilby VS..
Winn ct. al; 1886, Cannon ct al VS. WOr-
den ct al; 1897, Brooks ct al vs. Brooks
ct al; 100, Renkert VS. Mynott ct al;
170l, Noblin VS. Hughes ct al; 1902,
Meath ct al VS. Craig ct al; 1903, Macy
VS. Ayres ct al; 1907, Knott vs. Mercer ct
al; l7l3, Tennessee national bank VS.
Ebbert ct al; IVA, Wilder vs. Greer ct al;
l715, Dickson VS. Coffee, ct al; I7I8,
Smith, administrator, VS. Smith ct al;
l72O, Crisman VS. Belts ct al; 172I, Par
tin ct al VS. Butler ct al; 1722, Moores,
administrator, VS. Williamson ct al; 1923,
Cunningham vs. Register ct al; UPS,
Abingdon ct al VS. Arlington ct al; 172S,
Gibson ct al VS. Hogan ct al; 1929, Kirk,
administrator, VS. Jones ct al; 1871, Boyd
ct al VS. Martin ct al; 1885, Allen ct al
vs. Walt ct al; 1876, Kirkland ct al vs. !
Mississippi and Tennessee railroad COM
pany ct al; 1887, Miller ct al VS. Speed ct .
al; 1879, Hardwood ct al vs. Glenn ct al: {
1740, Hamilton vs. Leftwich ct al; I74l,
Jones VS. Sharpe ct al; 1742, Jones, ad.
ministrator, VS. Sharpe ct al.
Second ChaneeEy Court - Chancellor
walker.
On account of sickness in his family. L
Chancellor Walker was unable to hold ,
court yesterday, which was adjourned u
until this morning. :
First Circuit COurt-Jadge HeiskeII. =
Out tWO CdSSSs NUS. llOS alG ZOOO, IL,
were tried yesterday, the first and sixth :
on the calendar. The case of the Mis-
sissippi and Tennessee railroad compa- u
ny VS. Psmplin and others, was taken X
up and is now on trial. To-day the fol-
owing cases sre arranged for trial, viz:
L726, State VS. Donovan and others: Z
2554, Thomas VS. Cooney; 2557, Hfrsch
: Co VS. Doyle and others; 1884, Rice &
Davis VS. Milan ct al; 259S, Sparks VS. o.
M,Dougal; 2606, Mueri VS. Koffod; 26OS,
billiard ct al VS. Wai ner; 261O, Memphis Al
Try dock company VS. Anderson, admin y
stratOr; 1912, Bond VS. HanIy; 1926,
Meyer ct al VS. Chalmers; 1852, Jones VS. =,
Algeo; 1888, Fraim VS. Joplin ct al; 1888, =
Anderson, administrator, VS. st. Louis
mutual life insurance company; 1887.
dOore, Hebrew & Co VS. German nation s.,
| bank; 2642, Riley VS. HOllenberg; da
643, Randle & Heath VS. Phillips &
rawford; 2644, Trsutman & Bonshy VS. -
ienniger; 1854, Allschuler VS. AItsehule.
CALL at $40 Main aud get SOS suit II
IT So. S