Case law

Nailling v. State ex rel. Lynn

208 Tenn. 372 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 5, 1961

But this Court in its opinion in Brent v. … A very apt observation appears in Loving v. Dugan, 4 Tenn. Civ.

Blanz v. Bain

95 Tenn. 87 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 25, 1895

Jackson v. Rutledge, 3 Lea, 626 ; Hook v. Donaldson, 9 Lea, 60 ; Meagher v. Hollenberg , 9 Lea, 392 ; Browning v. Browning, 11 Lea, 110 ; Federlicht v. Glass, 13 Lea, 487 ; Willingham v. Lake, 7 Bax., 453 . … Lusalle v. Powell, 7 Cold., 277 ; Sexton v. Alberta, 10 Lea, 452 .

State v. Simpson

198 Tenn. 695 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1955

W. (2d) 480, 482 ; Douglas v. Pittman, 239 Ky. 548 , 39 S. W. (2d) 979 ; and that is true even where there remains in office only one member, which is our exact situation in the present case. Barton v. … Glass v. Hopkinsville, 225 Ky. 428 , 9 S. W. (2d) 117 . In Note 87 to the text in C. J. S., the Missouri case of State ex rel. Thurlo v. Harper, 336 Mo. 717 , 80 S.

Lansden v. City of Jackson

142 Tenn. 650 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1920

In Nashville v. … See, also, Mayor, etc., v. Hagan, 9 Baxt., 495 ; Belote v. Wynne, 7 Yerg., 341 ; Muse v. Donelson, 2 Humph., 166 .

Abercrombie v. City of Chattanooga

203 Tenn. 357 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1958

We know of no board, or public official, that may hold an election for a municipal purpose except the complainant Board of Election Commissioners. … In Southern v.

Jackson v. Van Dresser

188 Tenn. 384 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1949

Other than Brown v. Eckhardt, 23 Tenn. App. 217, 230 , 129 S. W. (2d) 1122 , and Pritchett v. … Brown v. Eckhardt, supra; Bradford v. American Nat. Bank, 25 Tenn. App. 413, 419 , 158 S. W. (2d) 366 ; Kirk v. Sumner County Bk. & Tr. Co. *391 et al., 25 Tenn. App. 150, 156 , 153 S. W. (2d) 139 ; Walker v.

Memphis v. Smythe

104 Tenn. 702 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1900

Meaher v. Chattanooga, 1 Head, 76 ; Wood v. Grand Junction, 5 Heis., 440. … The Board took no action until Friday morning, when one of its employees telephoned to the defendant in error that a report of the ease of diphtheria at his house was required.

City of Winchester v. Finchum

201 Tenn. 604 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1957

McCrady, supra, 174 Ténn. 166, 124 S.W.2d 248 ; Batts v. City of Nashville, supra, 22 Tenn.App. 423 , 123 S.W.2d 1099 ; City of Nashville v. Brown, 25 Tenn.App. 340, 347 , 157 S.W.2d 612 , [617]; Osborn v. … '“In Adams v. Brown, supra, plaintiff violated a statute by overtaking and attempting to pass another vehicle in an intersection of highways.

Thomasson v. Thomasson

755 S.W.2d 779 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1988

See also Brown v. Brown, 198 Tenn. 600 , 281 S.W.2d 492 (1955); Canning v. Canning, 59 Tenn.App. 678 , 443 S.W.2d 502 (1968); Schwalb v. Schwalb, 39 Tenn.App. 306 , 282 S.W.2d 661 (1955). … . § 36-820 (1955 Code); Brown v. Brown, 160 Tenn. 685 , 28 S.W.2d 350 (1930). Under § 36-826, if the husband prevailed in a divorce action, his obligation to support and maintain the wife was at an end. In Brown v.

Halliburton v. Flowers

59 Tenn. 25 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1873

Brown, E. Boy-ett, and J. H. McDaniel. On the 1st of July, 1871, two of the arbitrators met with the plaintiff and defendant, for the purpose of arbitrating the cause. … Cooley v. Dill, 1 Swan, 313 . We have already expressed the opinion that the present case was not affected by the statute, and it follows, therefore, that the decision just cited is a controlling authority in this case.

Allison v. Coal Co.

87 Tenn. 60 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1888

Acts of 1875, page 248; M. & V. Code, Sec. 1858. … Horner v. Henning, 98 U. S., 231 . It is no answer to say that the old debt may have been paid off by the creation of a new one.

Tenn. Cartage Co., Inc. v. Pharr

184 Tenn. 414 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1947

Hence in reviewing the Board’s ultimate conclusions, it is not the court’s function to substitute its own inferences of fact for the Board’s, when the latter have support in the record.’’ National Labor Rel. Bd. v. … Railroad Commission v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573 , 60 S. Ct. 1021 , 84 L. Ed. 1368 ; Fulmer v. Board of Railroad Com’rs, 98 Mont. 22 , 28 P. (2d) 849 ; Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v.

State Ex Rel. Thurman v. Scott

184 Tenn. 76 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1946

State ex rel. v. Wright, 57 Tenn. 237 ; Conner ex rel. v. Conner, 67 Tenn. 11, 12 ; State ex rel. v. Burchfield, 80 Tenn. 30 ; Maloney v. Collier, 112 Tenn. 78, 96 , 83 S. W. 667 . … State v. Burchfield, 80 Tenn. 30, 33 ; Blackburn v. Vick, 49 Tenn. 377, 382 .

Landers v. Jones

872 S.W.2d 674 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1994

Brown v. Brown, 155 Tenn. 530 , 296 S.W. 356 (1927). Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court. … Dixie Savings Stores, Inc. v. Turner, 767 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn.App.1988); Tennessee Dept. of Human Services v.

Darnell v. State

123 Tenn. 663 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1910

The contention is based upon the following: The act is entitled “An act to create a board of jury commissioners for counties in this State having a population of not less than 20,292, and not more than 20,400 inhabitants … the provisions of this act will apply to all grand and petit juries in circuit and criminal courts of this State.” .The same question was decided against plaintiff in error’s contention in the case of *666 Allie Damron v.

Davidson County v. Harmon

200 Tenn. 575 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1956

Keith v. Funding Board, 127 Tenn. 441, 464 , 155 S.W. 142 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 1145; Mayor & Aldermen of Morristown v. Hamblen County, 136 Tenn. 242, 246 , 188 S.W. 796 ; Quinton v. … Board of Claims, 165 Tenn. 201 , 54 S.W.2d 953 ; Automobile Sales Co. v. Johnson, 174 Tenn. 38 , 122 S.W.2d 453 , 120 A.L.R. 370 , and American Can Co. v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 491, 501 , 193 S.W.2d 86 . In the Keith v.

Crigger v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

132 Tenn. 545 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1915

Dec., 339 (negligence in sale of unwholesome provisions, but holding that vendor is bound to know that they are sound and wholesome); Craft v. Parker (Mich.), 21 L. R. A., 139; note; Brown v. … However exacting the duty or high the degree of care to furnish pure foods, beverages, and medicines, we believe with Judg’e Cooley, as expressed in Brown v.

Anderson v. Smith

521 S.W.2d 787 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1975

See also Huff v. Department of Highways, 3 Tenn.App. 277 (1926); Ragland v. Davidson County Board of Education, 203 Tenn. 317 , 312 S.W.2d 855 (1958). *790 T.C.A. … Davidson County Board of Education, 203 Tenn. 317 , 312 S.W.2d 855 (1958), in upholding the right of the Board of Education to take a nonsuit after the board of appraisers had returned their report and the board had authorized

George v. Belk

101 Tenn. 625 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1899

Pr., Sec. 947; Brown v. Dean, 123 Mass., 254 ; Nick-elson v. Smith, 15 Or., 200 ; Warren v. N. Y. Cent. R. R., 52 N. Y., 437 ; Johnson v. Rider, 84 Iowa, 50 ; Smith v. Meldron, 107 Pa. St., 348; Roat v. … Sherwood, 6 John., 68 ; Blackley v. Sheldon, 7 John., 32 ; Gardnin v. Appleton, 22 Maine, 453; Rogers v. Sample, 28 Neb., 141 .

Deaton v. Tennessee Coal & Railroad

59 Tenn. 650 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1874

was in reality capable of a full and bona fide performance within the year, without the intervention of. extraordinary circumstances, then it is to be considered as not within the statute. 3 Parsons on Confer., 35; Leinau v. … Brown on Erauds, sec. 282.