The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1921-04-22
THIRTY GASES
ARE DISMISSED
RYJu.DlGE LYLE
CHANCELLOR CONTINUES HIS
POLICY or CLEARING DOCKET
II OF OLD CASES.
the TRIAL DOCKET IS SET
One Hundred and Twelve Gases Are
Listed for Trial at This Term and
Judge Expects to Put IN at Least
Two Solid Weeks Here.
lFrom Tuesdays Daily Herald.D

(From Tuesdays Daily Herald)
About thirty cases We're dismissed
from the docket OF the chancery court
on Monday by Judge Lyle who open
ed the April term OF the court here.
Most OF these cases had been on the
docket for long time, some of them
>for several years and they were gen
orally dismissed at the cost Of tho
complainant and with orders that ex-
ecntion issue for the payment of the
costs.
This action of Judge Lyle was in
strict accordance with his policy OF
getting rid OF cases in the chancery
court. Unless the lawyers could
show good reason why case should
be continued on the docket 1t was
thrown out. The judge is determined
that the docket shall not continue to
be clnttered up with cases that will
never come to final hearing.
In addition to dismssing about
thirty cases, the court called the en-
tire docket and set no less than 1872
cases for trial at this term. He stat
ed that II necessary he could remain
here all OF this and all of next week
and get rid Of every case that could
be tried.
The cases set for trial at this term
are as follows:
No. 1854. Farmers & Merchants
Bank VS.. Equitable Life Assurance So
ciety.
No. 1853. A. P. Roberts vs.. w. NJ.
Roberts.
No. 1886 Dawson ct al VI. Garner,
trustee.
No. 154S. Legg vs.. Mayberry ct al.
No. 1894. HUFF vs.. Huff.
No. 1919. Mantloe VS.. Crews.
No. 1s43. Curry ct al VS.. Frierson
ct al.
No. 1857. Rountree Admx, ct al VS..
Ronntree ct al
No. 1862 Webster VS.. Kennedy ct
al.
No. 1873 Gordon VS.. Noles
No. 1889. Ballanfant vs.. hill ct
al.
No, 1914. Webster VS.. Pngh ct al.
No. 1887. erson-Brantingham I'm
plement Co. vs.. Howell ct al
=, No. 1869. Hardy VS.. Ruhm Phos.
Co.
No. 1877. Sutton, Gdn., VS.. Cook
ct al.
~ No. 1894. Phoenix National Bank
vs., Edgerton ct al.
mo. 1895. Carpenter & Howard VS.,
fWheelerEet al
No. 2014 |. A. c. VS.. Ruhm Phos-
phate Co.
Il No. 2O44. Sands, trustee, VS.. In
gram ct al,
No. 1906 Mack Baird VS.. Kincade
ct al.
No. 2O9O. C. e. Kord VS.. J. H.
Woody.
No. 2l3O Ragsdale VS.. Branham &
Hughes School.
No. 2143. Aetna Oil and Gas Co. VS..
Akin ct al,
No. 1881 S. B. Locke vs.. J. L.
Cheatham ct al.
No. 21S9. Rufus Fl. Peyton vs. Bal,
ley Peyton,
No. 22lS. Ida Powers vs.. James II.
Powers.
No. 1928. Harlan, Ex., ct al vs..
Napier ct al.
No. 22S3. Columbia Baking Co. vs..
Sanders.
No, 2290. J. S. Gray VS.. Pigg ct al.
No. 23i0. Hardison ct al VS.. Wilcox
ct al.
No. 234s. W.. e. Voss VS.. Maury
hauhufy 70. Ell VI.
No. 1858. Cowsert ct al vs.. Cowsert
ct al
No. 1856. Fenstermacher ct a! VS.
S. o. Thomas.
No. 1884. Church ct al vs. Church
ct al.
No. 2431. Peerless Chemical Co. VS.
Warner ct al
No. 1888 Trimble VS.. Nichols.
No. 243S. Mrs. Annie Allen, Gdn.
vs.. Mooten ct al.
No, 2443 McGahey VS.. Dennis ct al
No. 2449. Regen ct al VS.. Tenn. Pro
ducts Co. ct al.
No. 2451. Mrs. Susan f. Holt vs.
Warden ct al.
No. 246O. Mrs. ~ NJ Morris VS.
/, Miller ct al.
No, 1880 Mckee ct al VS.. McKee
ct al.
No. 24S3 Kncade VS.. Kincade.
No 25ll. HuEherson VS.. Haddo,
ct ux
No. 2513. James Wilson VS.. vii
liam Alexander.
No. 2515. sharp ct al VS.. Williams
ct al.