Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-10-03
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT.
A0i Knsay III "S Sn ns,Iv sss a

TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT.
Abstract OF Opinions DeIivered m.
Knoxville on Saturday Last.
The Knoxville Tribune, Of the SOth
ult., furnishes the following legal news
which will be Of interest to Memphis
lawyers:
BY JUDGE FREEMAN.
N. Y. and E. Tenn. Iron Co. VS.. Allen:
The bankruptcy Of the plaintiff cannot
be proved BY his admission Of the fact
as a witness; record evidence is neces-
sary.
Kyle vs.. Kyle ct al: A collusion judg-
ment confessed by an administrator con.
%dltionslly for the purpose Of giving the
creditor a formal advantage is not bind.
ing upon the lien; and in preceding to
sell land TO pay debts will not authorize
a decree therefor.
BY JUDGE sSEED.
Rowan vs. Riley: An allegation of
the insolvency of the creditor is neces-
sary in q bill by the judgment debtor to
ebJoin the Judgment on account OF an
alleged excess Of Indebtedness from the
creditor to the complainant on matters
aliunde.
Marshall VS.. Sewer: An usurious con-
tract for delay, made and executed he.
tween the creditor and principal debtor.
does not operate to discharge the surety.
Spears, admir-, ETC., VS.. Charles: Il is
not necessary, in a bill against the heir.
for the complainant to allege that iudg
ment has been obtained against the ad.
ministrator on a plea Of plene admins.
travit.
Day vs.. Literal: The contract of a
minor, save for necessaries, is not bind
ing, and a guardian is not g~arnishable.
Goodman vs.. Riley: In an account be.
fere a clerk and master, the rule of evil
dence obtains that be who proposes an
item must prove it; and so, when the
only evidence is that of the parties, the
one sustaining and the other denying the
item, and the parties are of equal credi.
blllty, the item must be disallowed.
BY JUDGE MFARLAYD.
Cross vs.. Grow: A sale or removal Of
spirits in violation of the United States
revenue laws is void; and so a debt con.
traeted for the purchase Of spirits so
sold or removed cannot be collected.
East Tenn, Va. and Ga. r. R. Co. vs..
Hamblen Co: The words rights and
privileges in a railroad charter do not
include "immunities and exemptions
and so the plaintiff acting under a char
ter that gives it the same rights and
privileges" as another charter which
grants exemptions from taxation, is not
thereby itself exempt from taxation.
K. and o. R. R. Co. VS.. Hicks: The
general assembly had authority under
the constitution Of 1884 to grant to rail.
road companies exemption from taxa.
ton; and this exemption passed to pur-
chasers of railroads under the sale made
by order of the Chancery Court at the
suit Of the State to enforce its lien
against the railroad company for bonds
given in aid thereof.
BY JUDGE TURNEY.
Susong vs.. Evans: A partial payment
Of an account by the debtor Is not a con-
elusive admission Of the correction of
the same, as claimed and stated by the
creditor.
Williams VS.. Cutshall: A single sale
Of two tracts of land by the sheriff under
a single levy is void; and a conveyance
10 a stranger Of an interest in a tract oil
land by a purchaser at a sheriff s sale
under a levy and sale made when the
land was adversely held by others than
the judgment debtor, is chsmpertous.
BY JUDGE D~EADERIcK.
Larkins vs.. Larkins: Pending a sui
of !orcible entry and detainer by defen
dant, complainant fled his bill to epjoir
the same but was unsuccessful therein
and defendants right to the possession
was established.
Held-Thst defendants counsel is en-
titled to a lien on the land for bis fees.
E. T., Va. and Ga. r. r. Co. VS.. vii
lisms: The receipt of Confederate
money in 1862 upon a judgment by the
attorney of the creditor, acting without
special license or forbiddance therefor,
is binding on the creditor as a s~atisfac.
ton of the debt.
-~---