Legal Opinion
Roy v. Sanford
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided April 15, 1918PublishedCited by 9 opinions
FROM LAUDERDALE. Error to the circuit court of Lauderdale County. —Hon. S. J. Everett, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Neil
The present action was brought on the following promissory note:
$115.25. Henning, Tenn., July 15, 1916.
“Dee. 1st. 1916 after date, I promise to pay to the order of Dr. T. F. Pipkin, one hundred and fifteen and 25/100 dollars, at Bank of Henning, Henning, Tennessee, for value received. If an attorney is *384employed to collect this note or any part, with or without suit, it is agreed that a fee fixed at ten per cent, of the original face value of said note shall be added as an attorney’s fee, and same to he payable by the makers and indorsers at once and the makers and indorsers severally waive…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Haus v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Tatum v. LoftonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · 1812
- Turner v. HugginsTennessee Supreme Court · 1914
- Cummings v. KlappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
3Cited by9 opinions
- Poole v. First Nat. Bank of SmyrnaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1946
- Appolonio v. BaxterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1954
- State v. James Sanford AgencyTennessee Supreme Court · 1934
- Nashville Trust Co. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1932
- Gibson v. ParkeyTennessee Supreme Court · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.