Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. City of South Fulton

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1935PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice DeHaven

Defendant, on August 1, 1928, issued its bonds to the amount of $10,500' for street improvements. Por the payment of these bonds, and attached interest coupons, at maturity, the full faith, credit, and resources of defendant were irrevocably pledged. Complainant is the owner and holder in due course of nine of said bonds, of $500 each, and of certain semi-annual interest coupons attached thereto. Pour of the bonds so held by complainant matured August 1, 1932, and five matured August 1, 1933. Default having been made in the payment of said bonds, and coupons, at maturity, complainant filed…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Memphis Street Railway Co. v. ByrneTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
  2. House v. CrevelingTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Palmer v. Southern Express Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Ryan v. Terminal Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Hyman v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1888

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. City of ChattanoogaTennessee Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority v. City of ChattanoogaTennessee Supreme Court · 1979
  3. McDaniel v. Textile Workers Union of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1952
  4. Southern Photo & Blue Print Co. v. GoreTennessee Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Redmon v. LeFevreTennessee Supreme Court · 1973

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API