Nolan v. H. E. Wilcox Motor Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM SHELBY. Appeal from tlae Chancery Court of Shelby County. — FeaNcis Fentress, Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Neil
The bill was brought to recover on an account for services in the sum of $1,321. ■ The defendant filed an answer and cross-bill interposing as offsets an item of $500, alleged to have been paid for the com-' plainant, and a note of $3,953.47. There is no practical controversy as to the validity of the account, and it is clear from the evidence that the offset of $500 should not be allowed. The only difficulty in the case arises over the note. It is in the following words and figures;
“3953.47 Memphis, Tenn., Nov. 11, 1913.
“One year after date I promise to pay to the order of H. E. Wilcox Motor…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Skagit State Bank v. MoodyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- McDonald v. LuckenbachCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1909
- Mercantile Bank of Memphis v. BusbyTennessee Supreme Court · 1908
- Phipps v. HardingCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1895
- Farnum v. FowleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Case v. McKinnisOregon Supreme Court · 1923
- First Nat. Bank v. BachOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Tucker v. MuellerIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
- Lucas v. SwanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1933
- O'Neal v. ClarkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.