Case law

Boyd v. Sims

87 Tenn. 771 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1889

This rule is not only sound in reason, but unquestioned in authority. *777 Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S., 450 ; Dimpfel v. Railroad, Company, 110 U. S., 209 . … Huntington v. Palmer, 104 U. S., 482 ; Gas Company v. Williamson, 9 Heis., 314, 338-9.

McCrowell v. Mayor of Bristol

73 Tenn. 685 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1880

them liable; but it is not averred that they constituted the board of mayor and aldermen. … Barksdale v. Mayor, 5 Hum., 153 ; M. & A. of Chattanooga v. The State, 5 Sneed, 578 ; The State v. M. & A. of Murfreesboro, 11 Hum., 217 ; and also that the mayor and aldermen are individually liable to indictment.

Andrews v. Page

49 Tenn. 634 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1871

And it was held in Brown v. … Tedder v. Odum. 1 And in the case of Gillespie v.

Pedigo v. State

191 Tenn. 691 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1951

defendant from a conviction of participation in the killing of Charles Cantrell, and it is the fourth time the Court has reviewed the facts of the crime on appeal by Pedigo and his codefend-ants, Milburn Adcock and James Brown … Accordingly, for failure to comply with the provisions of Code Section 11749, the judgment is reversed and the *694 case remanded, and a copy of the former opinion of this Court in the case of Adcock v.

Fay v. Jones

38 Tenn. 442 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1858

But it is said the bill is multifarious, because it also seeks to subject Jones’ interest in another tract of land, but we do not think this is so, under the rule laid down in Johnson v. Brown et al., 2 Hum., 327 .

Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Schatten Cypress Co.

530 S.W.2d 277 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1975

State v. Grosvenor, 149 Tenn. 158 , 258 S.W. 140 (1923); Moulton v. George, 208 Tenn. 586 , 348 S.W.2d 129 (1961); Mason v. … McCanless, 163 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn.1942); Knoxville v. Park City, 130 Tenn. 626 , 172 S.W. 286 (1914); Johnson City v. Booth, 37 Tenn.App. 231 , 261 S.W.2d 820 (1953). See also Chattanooga v.

State Ex Rel. Harned v. Meador

153 Tenn. 634 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1925

Demoville v. Davidson County, 87 Tenn., 214, 10 S. W., 353 ; Quinn v. Hester, 135 Tenn., 373 , 186 S. W., 459 ; Hill v. Roberts, 142 Tenn., 215 , 217 S. W., 826 . … by the board; provided citizens at the place selected donate $4,000 as a supplementary fund.

Memphis Publishing Co. v. TN. Petroleum Underground

Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1998

-3- Board on September 1990. After a contested case hearing, the Board denied the application by a final decision and order. … Meadows v. State, 849 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tenn. 1993); Adams v. State, 547 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn. 1977); Street v. Calvert, 541 S.W.2d 576, 587 (Tenn. 1976); Bryan v. Aetna Life Ins.

Holston v. Coal & Iron Co.

95 Tenn. 521 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1895

Bream v. Brown, 5 Cold., 168 ; Loague v. Railroad, 7 Pickle, 459 . … Hall v. N. & C. R. R. Co., Thomp. Cas., 204 ; Flatley v. M. & C. R. R., 9 Heis., 230; Bledsoe v. Stokes, 1 Bax., 312 ; Trafford v. Express Co., 8 Lea, 99 ; Loague v. Railroad, 7 Pickle, 459 .

Tippit v. Obion County

651 S.W.2d 211 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 23, 1983

Upon petition for certiorari to review the action of the beer board, appellant was granted a de novo hearing pursuant to T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d). … Coffman v. Hammer, 548 S.W.2d 310 (Tenn.1977). No such preponderance of evidence is shown in this case. The Gratio community is located near the Obion-Lake County line.

Cleek v. State

189 Tenn. 302 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1949

, some tip boards and baseball tickets. … Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 537 , 64 S. W. 476 .

Putnam v. Robertson

140 Tenn. 456 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1917

S.), 746; Underhill v. Roden (1876), 2 Chy., D494; Eaton v. Hewitt, supra; Brown v. Hammond (1858), Johns V. C., 210 (Eng.); Meeds v. Wood (1854), 19 Beav., 215; Jordan v. Holkham (1753), Ambl., 209; Brown v. … This was substantially a devise durante viduitate, and falls directly within Luxford v. Cheeke, *467 3 Lev., 125, and Gordon v. Adolphus, 3 B. P. C. Toml., 306. See, also, Brown v. Cutter, T. Raym., 427.

West v. State

140 Tenn. 358 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1918

Riggins v. Tyler, 134 Tenn., 581 , 184 S. W., 860 ; Wise v. Morgan, 101 Tenn., 273 , 48 S. W., 971 , 44 L. R. A., 548. … Life & Casualty Co. v. King, 137 Tenn., 698 , 195 S. W., 585 ; State v. Chadwick, 131 Tenn., 354, 174 , S. W., 1144.

State ex rel. Lyle v. Willett

117 Tenn. 334 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1906

In Foley v. … In State v.

Estes v. Estes

194 Tenn. 96 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1952

Eq. 89, 60 A. 521 ; Browning v. Browning, 89 Kan. 98 , 130 P. 852 , L. R. A. 1916C, 737; Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1288; Ferlat v. Gojon, 1 Hopk. Ch., N. Y., 478, 14 Am. Dec. 554 ; Pretlow v. Pretlow, 177 Va. 524 , 14 S. … In Antoine v.

Gilbreath v. Willett

148 Tenn. 92 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1922

Clements v. Roberts, supra. … Mullan v. State, 114 Cal., 578, 578 , 34 L. R. A., 262, 46 Pac., 670 ; Collier & C. Lithographing Co. v. Henderson, 18 Colo., 259 , 32 Pac., 417 ; Boyers v. Crane, 1 W. Va., 176 ; May v. Rice, 91 Ind., 546 .

Frix v. State

148 Tenn. 478 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1923

Brown, you are welcome to go anywhere on my place you want to and search. Go to it.” … Defendant relies upon the language used by this court in the case of Hampton v. State, 252 S.

Harwood v. State Ex Rel. Pillars

184 Tenn. 515 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 3, 1947

¡See also Glazier v. … Kelley v. Wolfer, 119 Minn. 368 , 138 N. W. 315 , 42 L. R. A., (N S.) 978 Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1248; In re Linden, 112 Wis. 523 , 88 N. W. 645 ; Uram v. Roach, 47 Wyo. 335 , 37 P. (2d) 793 , 95 A. L. R. 1448; Stagway v.

Alexander v. Wilkes

79 Tenn. 221 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1883

This rule of the common law was recognized in Johnson v. Branch, 11 Hum., 521 , and Brown v. Reynolds, 5 Sneed, 639 . … In Brown v.

Tennessee Enamel Mfg. Co. v. Hake

183 Tenn. 615 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 4, 1946

The act provides that the manner in which disputed claims shall be presented shall be'in accordance with the regulations of the board of review, and it is reasonable to assume that the board of review would be as much interested … Also, see State ex rel. v. American Trust Co., 161 Tenn. 570 , 32 S. W. (2d) 1036 ; Kutsche & Co. v. Keith, *620 169 Tenn. 399 , 88 S. W. (2d) 454 ; and Porter v. Investors’ Syndicate, 286 U. S. 461 , 52 S.