Case law

Memphis v. Brown

16 F. Cas. 1343 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Mar 15, 1872

Co. v. Fisher, 1 Stockt. [9 N. J. Eq.] 667; Morris C. & B. Co. v. Lewis, 1 Beasley [12 N. J. Eq.] 323; Wheeler v. Newbould, 5 Duer, 29 , on appeal 16 N. Y. 392 ; Brown v. Ward, 3 Duer, 660 ; Garlick v. … Callanan v. Brown (1871) 31 Iowa, 333 .

Brown v. Memphis

4 F. Cas. 412 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · Jul 1, 1879

BAXTER, Circuit Judge, decided in the Brown mandamus case that under the former judgments of the court, the plaintiff was entitled to have a tax levied sufficient to realize the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand

Patton and Erwin's Lessee v. Brown

18 F. Cas. 1336 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · Jul 6, 1812

Brown v. United States Casualty Co.

88 F. 38 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · May 5, 1898

A pertinent illustration is found in the case cited by counsel of Bassell v. Insurance Co., 2 Hughes, 531 , Fed. Cas. No. 1,094. … Insurance Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U. S. 519, 529 , 6 Sup. Ct. 887.

Brown v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.

181 F. 246 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Jan 29, 1909

Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202—209, 13 Sup. Ct. 44, 36 L. Ed. 942 . In 1 Rose’s Code of Federal Procedure, § 903, p. 844, it is said that: “The conformity requirement of Rev. St. § 914 [ü. S. Comp. … the defendant the sum of $100.00' per day as a penalty provided by said statutes,” comes within the aforesaid statute of limitations, especially in view of the language used by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Woodward v.

Railroad & Telephone Cos. v. Board of Equalizers of Tennessee

85 F. 302 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Tennessee · Dec 23, 1897

And the supreme court of Illinois, in Board of Sup’rs of Bureau Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. … Co. v. Board of Com’rs of Atchison Co., 54 Kan. 781 , 39 Pac. 1039 ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Board, etc., of Republic Co., 14 C. C. A. 456 , 67 Fed. 411 ; Andrews v. Kings Co., 1 Wash.

Africa v. Board of Mayor & Aldermen of Knoxville

70 F. 729 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · Oct 19, 1895

The complainant, holding the older franchise, with an ordinance of the city giving its consent, and having entered upon the street with express permission, as appears, from the chairman of the board of public works of the … city, which is the real administrative board ovér the streets thereof, is entitled to a preliminary injunction, having clearly made out a prima facie case therefor, unless the defenses set up in the answer defeat this right

Stuber v. Louisville & N. R.

102 F. 421 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · May 15, 1900

And this must be so, for, as Judge McKinney says in Washburn v. … Justice Brown, in Railroad Co. v. Hambly, 154 U. S. 349, 357 , 14 Sup. Ct. 984, 38 L.

O'Neil v. Memphis & W. R. Packet Co.

41 F. 627 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Feb 10, 1890

The coalilat was lashed to the Chickasaw, by the agents of Brown & Jones, for the purpose of enabling the needed supply of coal to be taken therefrom on board the steamer. … Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100 ; The Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 230 .

Lockhart v. Little Rock & M. R.

40 F. 631 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · May 25, 1889

The court thought both of them were liable, and was almost willing to so direct a verdict, but, mindful of the cases, one of which counsel for defendant cites, — O’ Neill v. … Mill. & V. Code, §§,3687, 3688; Knott v. Cunningham, 2 Sneed. 204; Parris v. Brown, 5 Yerg. 267 .

Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co.

3 F. Cas. 755 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Feb 12, 1876

Charge of the court delivered by BROWN, District Judge: Gentlemen of the jury: This is an action to recover of the defendant the sum of $3,135, lost by the plaintiff while riding upon a sleeping car owned and controlled by … The keeper of a private boarding or lodging house, or of a restaurant or coffee house is not an inn-keeper in the view of the law, notwithstanding he may furnish lodgings or food, or both, for the entertainment of his guests

Marks v. Marks

75 F. 321 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · Jun 24, 1896

Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646 ; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112 ; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694 , 11 Sup. Ct. 449. Persons may be citizens of the United States without being citizens of any state. … Ct. 555; Grace v. Insurance Co., 109 U. S. 278 , 3 Sup. Ct. 207; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112 ; Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 8 .

Davis v. Chattanooga Union Ry. Co.

65 F. 359 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · Jan 1, 1895

Clark and Foster V. … Brown.

Arrowsmith v. Nashville & D. R.

57 F. 165 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · Jul 27, 1893

Board of County Com’rs v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 4 Dill. 277 . On the same subject, Judge Shiras, in Dow V. … Rep. 578; Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445 . None of the decisions are in point.

Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Taylor

86 F. 168 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Tennessee · Mar 15, 1898

The board of equalizers construe the statute as requiring them to take the curious and self-inconsistent position that they are created a board of equalization, but without power to equalize. In Osborn v. … The truth is that the tax system of the state, executed through different boards, prescribing duties for one board not prescribed for another, is just such a system as would, in its execution, not probably result in an equal

United States v. Bell

81 F. 830 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Jun 10, 1897

In the case of Brown v. … S. v. Brown. 1 Sawy. 531 , Fed. Cas. No. 14,671. And in State v.

Bradford v. Bradford

3 F. Cas. 1129 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Nov 15, 1878

(Ed. 1838) 27; Id., Append. 433; Cootes, Adm. 52, 252; 1 Browne, Civ. Law, 361; 2 Browne, Civ. Law, 357, 411: Clerke, Praxis Adm. tit 11,13, 14; 1 Dom. Civ. Law (Strahan Ed. 1722) p. 393, tit. … R. 1 Adm. & Ecc. 335; The Great Britain [Case No. 5,736]; Polydore v. Prince, supra; The Arctic, Case No. 509a].

Carver v. Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Trust Co.

73 F. 9 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · Mar 3, 1896

.; and the cases of Jackson v.Gould, 74 Me.564; Ranlett v. Lead Co., 30 La. Ann. 56 ; Manufacturing Co v. Sprague, 76 Me. 53 ; Mr. Justice Brown, in Wolcott v. Mining Co., 34 Fed. 821 ; Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. … Browne v, Strode, 5 Granch, 303; Worm ley v. Wormier, 8 Wheat. 421 ; Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467 ; Bacon v Rives, 106 U. S. 99 , 1 Sup, Ct. 3; New York Const. Go. v. *13 Simon, 53 Fed. 1, 4 ; Shattuck v.

Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co.

42 F. 729 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · Jun 17, 1890

In Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. … Dimpfell v. Railroad, 110 U. S. 209, 211 , 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 244, 248 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 520.

Southern Ry. Co. v. Machinists' Local Union No. 14

111 F. 49 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · Oct 1, 1901

Dewey v. U. S., 78 U. S. 510 , 521, 20 Sup. Ct. 981, 985, 44 L. Ed. 1170, 1174 . See, also, U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 399 , 2 L. Ed. 304 , where Mr. … Justice Brown reviews the cases most instructively in Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 419 , 20 Sup. Ct. 157, 44 L.