Case law

Gillam v. Looney

48 Tenn. 319 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1870

See Smith v. Brown, Nashv., 4th January, 1871, in which this case is cited. … See also McDowell v. Kellar, post —. See Naff v. Crawford, ante 119; Tedder v. Odum, Nashv., 1870.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Stacker

86 Tenn. 343 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1888

on board. … Railroad Co. v.

Standard Life Ins. Co. of the South v. Adams

174 Tenn. 405 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1939

Rogers v. Colville, 145 Tenn., 650 , 238 S. W., 80 ; Board of Equalization v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 148 Tenn., 676 , 257 S. W., 91 , 93. … It distinctly appears in Rogers v. Colville, supra, that the stipulation of facts was so entered upon the minutes of the trial court and, referring to Rogers v. *408 Colville, this court said in Board of Equalisation v.

Conner v. Marshall

58 Tenn. 706 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1872

Marshall was to board him and find him at his own house. Conner has, without sufficient cause, left his house and gone to a neighbor’s. … Under these circumstances, it would be to make a contract, not execute one, to require Marshall to pay his board at another place. • The contract in this case is not like the one in the case of Keeler v.

Dickens v. Bransford Realty Co.

141 Tenn. 387 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1918

Moore v. Mayor, etc., Chattanooga, 8 Heisk. (55 Tenn.), 850; Board of Directors v. Bodkin Bros., 108 Tenn., 700 , 69 S. W., 270 . … The case of Board of Directors v. Bodkn Bros., supra, dealt with an attempt to attach the funds of the St.

Karns v. Vester Motor Co.

161 Tenn. 331 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1930

Johnson v. Brown, 138 Tenn., 395 ; Farabee-Treadwell Co. v. Bank & Trust Co., 135 Tenn., 208 ; Plesofsky v. Kaufman & Flonacker, 140 Tenn., 208 . Writ denied.

Heiskell v. Knox County

132 Tenn. 180 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1915

Brown, as county judge thereof, together with the owners of said Cherokee tract of land, were made defendants. … Brown, county judge, and Jesse L.

James v. State

196 Tenn. 435 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 21, 1954

Underwood v. Brown, 193 Tenn. 113, 119 , 244 S. W. (2d)168; McCall v. State, 167 Tenn. 329, 332-333 , 69 S. W. (2d) 892 .

Skelton v. Baker

54 Tenn. 292 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1872

In Brown v. … intended than that it must be at the place where he performs the official act of rendering or accepting confession of the judgment which is to be stayed, that is his office for that purpose and occasion; and in Cheatham v.

Dobbins v. Carroll

137 Tenn. 133 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1916

v. … The instrument was in the custody of the law as a part of the court file in the case of Brown v.

Dennis v. Dennis

105 Tenn. 86 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1900

This case is referred to and commented upon in Laughlin v. Johnson, 18 Pickle, 460 . The case of Shepherd v. Carlin, 15 Pickle, 67 , is also referred to and relied on by defendants, as well as Brown v. … Taking up the case of Brown v.

Steele v. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BD.

950 S.W.2d 345 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1997

State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn. 1993); Worrall v. Kroger Co., 545 S.W.2d 736, 738 (Tenn. 1977). … In Shields v.

SNPCO, INC. v. City of Jefferson City

363 S.W.3d 467 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2012

Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tenn. 2010); Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d at 700. Accordingly, in reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Tenn. R. … Code Ann. § 13-7-201(a)(1) provides, in part: For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare, the board of aldermen, board of commissioners

Shipley v. Wellwood Silk Throwing Mills

164 Tenn. 281 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1932

to the board for payment of money out of the state insurance fund. … In Barbee v. Baker Car Co., 154 Tenn., 130 , 289 S.

Madison v. City of Maryville

173 Tenn. 489 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1938

incorporated cities and towns in the State are authorized to pass proper ordinances governing the issu- *493 anee and revocation of licenses for tlie storage, sale, manufacture and distribution of beer, providing for a Board … Richardson v. Young, 122 Tenn., 471 , 125 S. W., 664 ; Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn., 487 , 15 S. W., 364 . This rule holds true as regards municipal ordinances.

Melvin v. Bradford Special School Dist.

186 Tenn. 694 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1948

The balance of this section relates to the other special school districts, providing for the collection of special taxes in different amounts by the trustee and paid out by the County Board of Education. … Mattei v. Clark Hard *699 ware Co., 155 Tenn. 184 , 290 S. W. 977, 978; State v. Bradt, 103 Tenn. 584 , 53 S. W. 942 .

Murphy v. Emery

629 S.W.2d 895 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1981

On the first occasion when you served on the Board, were you dismissed from the Board, or not re-elected, or did you resign? A. I resigned. Q. For what reason? A. … Ledford v. Lee, 29 Tenn.App. 660, 672 , 200 S.W.2d 393 (1946). Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, 5th Edition, § 81. Both Mr. and Mrs.

Baker v. Dew

133 Tenn. 126 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1915

In Prewitt v. … Brown’s Adm’r v. Brown’s Adm’r, 25 Tenn. (6 Humph.), 126, 127.

Coleman v. Henry

184 Tenn. 550 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 3, 1947

Board of Registration Com’rs v. Campbell, 251 Ky. 597 , 65 S. W. (2d) 713 . “A declaration will be denied which is sought to determine rights not of persons nor property, but of a purely political character.’’ … Board of Com’rs of Wyandotte County, 128 Kan. 516 , 279 P. 1 ; Adams, Judge, v. Slavin, 225 Ky. 135 , 7 S. W. (2d) 836 ; Bouchard, Declaratory Judgments, p. 29.

Conner v. Marshall

58 Tenn. 706 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1872

Marshall was to board him and find him at his own house. Conner has, without sufficient cause, left his house and gone to a neighbor’s. … Under these circumstances, it would be to make a contract, not execute one, to require Marshall to pay his board at another place. • The contract in this case is not like the one in the case of Keeler v.