The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1880-02-05
NO 9
THE SUPREME COURT.
Important Decisions In Giles County
Cases.

For the first time Ia nearly four
years the Giles county docket has
received the attention OF the su-
preme court, and the important de.
cisions growing out of the investi-
cation of the cases originating in
the courts here are to a high de-
gree complimentary to the mem.
bers of the Pulaski bar, whose in
genuity. penetration and profes
sional cleverness have raised ques-
tions OF law which are likely to az
tract the attention Of the legal fra
ternity of the entire state.
In the case of George w. Nc
Grew VS.. @. b. Reasons, the court
delivered an opinion which, in all
OF its bearings, is of vial impor-
lance. IL decides that all judg-
meuts and DEGREES not satisfied, or
new suit brought on, within ten years
from their rendition, are fully and
etfectually barred from enforcement
at the option of the defendant. As q
matter of course, the defendant will
always claim this option. This de.
cIsion practically wipes out of ex
istence hundreds, il not thousands,
Of judgments and DEGREES, possibly
involving millions of dollars, now
standing in the courts of the state;
thus, in effect, operating as a kind
of bankrupt law. The American
says the decision was received with
approval by the members of the bar
in attendance upon the court.
The decision in the case of the
State VS.. II. NJ. Stanley is also in
teresting-particularly to clerks of
courts. The questions raised we're:
Is a clerk responsible for the state
tax on law suits when he has col
lected an amount insufficient TO
pay said tax and all other costs In
the cause? And when the amount
collected is sufficient To pay part
only of the costs adjudged should
he pay the state tax first, or the
officers, witnesses, etc, or should
the payments to all be made pro r0fd2
The court decided that the clerk
was liable in the first instance, and
as to the other the state tax had
precedence over the private claim
of the citizen and should be first
paid and not postponed until the
officers and witnesses have been
satisfied. The decision of the low.
er court was, therefore, reversed.
Opinions were delivered in the fol-
lowing Giles county cases Saturday:
BY Chief Justice Deaderick-
Rainey VS.. White, State VS.. Mason,
Mayor of Pulaski, affirmed.
MofFatt vs.. McGrew ct al; Ezell
vs.. Wright ct al. affirmed; Cox vs..
Mcdonald, reversed, and bill DIS
missed; Dougherty vs.. Kellum, Of
firmed; McEwing d. Tompkins vs..
auberger, Bloom & Co., reversed
and bill dismissed.
By Justice Turney-Bannett vs..
State, Stephenson VS.. Stephenson,
Kellum VS.. Gordon, Ingram VS..
Dickinson ct al, Dishoughn vs.. Raj
ney, affirmed; Hill VS.. Carr, motion
dismissed; Gates vs.. Gaines ct al,
application refused, and the case
remanded for collection of purchase
money; Andrews, Mayor IL Co. vs..
Thomas ct al, modified.
BY Justice Freoman--Kimbrough
vs.. Hammons; Haley and wife VS..
Lanier Q. al, WIN. Collum VS.. Ed
monds ct al, affirmed.
By Judge McFarland-Briggs vs..
State. petition dismissed; Cox ct
al, affirmed aud remanded: Orr ct
al, reversed and remanded; Bran
non & Co., VS.. Hill ct. al, affirmed I;
Buchanan ct. al, VS. Gillem. revers-
ed; Pendleton VS.. Helm, modified /;
State ct. al, vs.. Duncan et al, APP.
peal dismissed. Giles County VS..
Spofford, writ of error dismissed.