Murphy v. Johnson
Decision Date | 11 October 1901 |
Citation | 64 S.W. 894 |
Parties | MURPHY et al. v. JOHNSON et al. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Jefferson county; Jno. P. Smith, Chancellor.
Bill by J. D. Murphy, administrator of the estate of W. C. Newman, deceased, and others, against C. H. Johnson and others. From a decree of the court of chancery appeals affirming a decree for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed in part.
C. A. Frame, E. Holtsinger, and Pickle & Turner, for appellants. Park & Park, for appellees.
This bill denominates itself a "bill of review," for error apparent as to one item, and for newly-discovered evidence as to another item, of the decree challenged and enjoined. It alleges: That C. H. Johnson and his present codefendants, as next of kin of W. C. Newman, deceased, heretofore filed their bill in the chancery court of Jefferson county against J. D. Murphy, as administrator of said Newman, and his present cocomplainants as sureties on his administration bond, for an account and final settlement of Newman's estate. That the complainants in that bill, after stating certain preliminary facts, continued: That defendants to that bill, besides admitting those preliminary facts, in their answer said: but, title to the land having failed, J. D. Murphy, administrator, on advice of counsel, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. First State Bank
...look at substance of bills, and allow or disallow them accordingly." Gibson's Suits in Chancery, 4th Ed., Sec. 719; Murphy v. Johnson, 107 Tenn. 552, 557, 64 S.W. 894. "The particular name given the bill is not of much importance, as the rights of the parties must be determined on the matte......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...enforcement rather than modification of the decree. We find no reason to elevate form over substance in this case. See Murphy v. Johnson, 64 S.W. 894, 895 (Tenn. 1901) (review of pleading seeking equity depends on substance of the pleading, not name given it by Ms. Johnson petitions this Co......
-
Engler v. Knoblaugh
...15 N. J. Eq. 126; Loss v. Obry, 22 N. J. Eq. 52; Wardlaw v. Wardlaw, 50 Ga. 544; Gwinn v. Newton, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 710; Murphy v. Johnson, 107 Tenn. 552, 64 S. W. 894; Palmer v. Bethard, 66 Ill. 529; Chapman v. Hurd, 67 Ill. 234; Henry v. Seagar, 80 Ill. App. 172; Barthell v. Roderick, 34 I......
-
Whitson v. Johnson
...review a decree of the Supreme Court, either for error apparent or new matter. Hurt v. Long, 90 Tenn. 445, 16 S.W. 968; Murphy v. Johnson, 107 Tenn. 552, 64 S. W. 894; Fourth & First Nat. Bank v. Harris, 9 Tenn.App. 301, 305; Clemmons v. Haynes, 3 Tenn.App. (d) No grounds for a bill of revi......