Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1881-02-19

Chaneery Conrs.
The following business has been
transacted in the court during the
present term
sutcliff q Carter vs.. Branch & Crutchfeld;
Grifisy Is. 1ioodlett; decree as to D. Grif-
shacKelfora vs.. Henry; reviving order for
bailey VS.. Riley; confirming report of sale.
Walton VS.. Walt,n; pro confessO.
sale.
Terrell VS.. MeKeage; pro confesso.
johnson VS.. smith; confirming report of
Moore vs.. Dick; ordering writ of possess
sion.
Merit VS.. smith; allowing time to answer.
= Smith VS.. Smith; pro cOnfess0.
W c. Smith, admir-, vs.. Dune King 5
heirs; allowing attorney lien for fee.
Edlin VS.. Foust; decree pro confesso and
appointing guardian ud Item.
smith VS.. Buck; final decree.
Hancock VS.. Dilling; correcting former de-
McCaf1erty VS.. Morrisey; appointing re-
ceiver and order to rent out property.
Taylor vs. Beadle; appointing Guardian
Randle vs.. Lurton; appointing guardian
ad Item.
Hillman vs. Malable; final report
Rives VS.. Dixon; ordering payment of
costs.
Bringhurst vs.. Bringhurst; appointing
guardian ad Item.
West VS.. Wood; leave to supply paper.
Conroy vs. Williams; reyiving order of ac-
count.
Mckay VS.. Mckay; ordering payment of
johnson VS.. Wen; final decree.
ad liten.
Garrett vs.. Gupton; order reference.
ence.
Boardman vs. willis; order to await the
decision of the supreme court in case of
Pettus, executor, VS.. Johnson.
answer.
Williams vs.. Williams; order of sale re
vived.
Anderson vs.. Pollock & Co.; ordsr for re-
Pardue VS.. Williams; reviving order of
Beaumont VS.. Beaumont; order charging
Beaumont with 81 go,
Batson vs.. Phipps; order of sale.
!. 8. 6. Johnson, c & NJ VS.. Bailey; allowin g
johnson VS.. Outlaw; allowing time to
answer.
Gossett VS.. Gupton; appointing guardian
Little VS.. Mimms; order of continuance
and payment of cost.
Radford VS.. Rogers; confirming report of
sale.
Lewis VS.. Erwins heirs; confirming report
of N. Brandon.
Batson VS.. W. B. Batson's heirs: confirm-
ing report of administrators settlement.
Bailey VS.. Bowers; confirming report OF
sale.
d. r. Merritt vs. Smith; pro confesso.
Harper VS.. BOwe; order appointing
guardian ad Htem.
Goodlett, administrators, VS.. Allen; pro
confesso and order for alias sofia.
Terrell VS.. McKeage; order appointing
guardian ad litem.
D. R. Merritt VS.. Smith; consent decree
Fond VS.. Ford; order granting divorce.
Morgan & Co. VS.. Jackson, McKernon &
Co.; confirming report of sale.
X. +. Crabtree VS.. New Providence Mills
/. Co.; confirm ing report of @. Il M.
Morgan d Co. VS.. jackson, McKernon &
Co; ordering deed to Blackford.
BroWder ct ais VS.. Robb, Crusman ct ais;
final decree and appeal to supreme court.
shelton ct ais VS.. Outlaw eft ais; order of
reference as to attorney fees. q
Browder ct ais VS.. Robb and Beaumont;
trial, decree and appeal to supreme court.
Poston VS.. Poston; allowing to pay pur-
chase money.
Merritt VS.. Smith; ordering sale by agree
Planters Bank VS.. James Clark ct ais; de-
cree of title to minors.
Dilworth VS.. Graham; confirming report
Susan Hayes VS. Marion Hayes; dismiss
ing cause at cost of compliment.
J. Elder VS.. w. B. Daniel ct ais; ordering
]. Elder vs.. W. B. Daniel; ordering convey
of property.
&c. Batson's admir- &C., vs.. w. b. Ratsen
ct ais; order of reference.
Lewis.
Dean vs. Halbert; order to resell lots i, 2,
NJ. NJ. Elder ct ais VS.. Earnest Elder; final
decree dismissing cause.
Robt. Walton VS.. Greasy Walton; final de-
cree.
Brow,ler ct ais VS.. Robb ami Seat, trustee;
final decree.
r.
Co; allowing Daniel to withdraw notes.
Johnson VS.. Smith; decree for guardian ad
Items fee.
Browder VS.. Robb. Seat, Kropp & Co.;
James Outlaw VS.. Harmon Outlaw; Civ
ing decree of title to Granville Mimms.
Wall VS.. Wall; giving title to Mrs. Rex
niger.
White vs.. Branch; giving title to Mrs.
Branch.
johnson VS.. Brown; leave to West, as
Brown VS.. Hagood; order to supply papers.
Beaumont VS.. Beaumont ct ais; giving
title to Peterson.
Morgan & Co. VS.. Jackson, McKernon &
Co.; ordering title to VIM. Baggett
Smith VS.. Duncan King; ordering title to
Mallory admir- VS.. Lynn ct ais; order for
title to 5. CrOtzer.
Beaumont VS.. Beaumont; reving order of
reference to fees.
Mckay VS.. Mckay; judgment VS.. johnson
and Munford.
Lockertvs. Brockman; order for sale raised
bid.
Smith VS.. Williamson; decree for title to
Grange Warehouse.
Oneal VS.. Oldham; decree for sale
Landon VS.. Duke; order for sci ia t. F.
Crotzer VS.. Gardner; pro confesso.
Buckner ct ais VS.. VIM. Hay ct ais; pro
confeSSO as to Hay.
Montgomery county VS.. WalthaI; reViving
against heirs of Walthal
Goodlett VS.. Ferrill; confirming report of
sails.
Johnson VS.. Small; order of sale.
:, Manson VS.; HARRISON; order for title to p.
Limbaugh VS.. Paine; confirming report
of G. & NJ.
Evans, Fife, Porter & Co. VS.. Lyle; judg-
ment VS.. Lyle on purchase notes.
johnson VS.. Small; judgment vs. NJ b.
Johnson Tor purchase money.
Morgan VS.. Bryan's heirs; Judgment vs.
Mitchell on purchase notes.
Loekert VS.. Brockman; judgment; Alb
shire.
Morgan vs.. Bryan's heirs; judgment VS.. N.
A. Greenfield.
Davie VS.. Cornell; Judgment VS.. Cornell.
A. Grant admir- VS.. Powers; Judgment vs.
Gardner.
Bell VS.. Glasscock; judgment VS.. Taylor.
Edlfn VS.. Edlin; judgment VS.. Michigan.
Edlin VS.. Edlin; Judgment VS.. Ogburn.
Edlin VS.. Edlin; Judgment VS.. Edlin.
Merritt VS.. Seay; judgment vs.. Merritt.
ment VS.. A. Jordan.
Boardman VS.. Willis heirs; Judgment VS..
=. w. Tyler.
Mckay VS.. Mckay; judgment VS.. R. N.
Rhodes.
Merritt VS.. Smith; Judgment VS.. 1. B.
Peterson.
Merritt VS.. Smith; judgment VS.. Pettus.
Merritt VS.. Smith; Judgment VS.. Gold.
Lewis VS.. Erwin's heirs; judgment VS..
Cherry
Lewis VS.. Erwin's heirs: Judgment vs.
Cherry.
White VS.. White; judgment vs. Goodlett.
Morgan q Go. VS.. jackson, McKernon &
Co; confirming report of sale.
Ford VS.. Ford; final decree.
Merritt VS.. Smith; consent decree.
Ferrell VS.. McKeage; appointing guardian
ad Item.
Goodlett VS.. Allen; order of revivor and
order for sci ia.
Harper VS.. Brown; appointing guardian
ad Item.
Merritt VS.. Smith; pro confesso.
Bailey VS.. Powers; confirming report of !
sale.
Batson VS., heirs of w. B. Batson; confirm
ng report of settlement.
Radford VS.. Rogers; confirming report of |
sic.
Lewis VS.. Erwin's heirs, confirming report |
ON. Brandon.
%TIs the curse of service, prefer