Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. Butler

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1942Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION.

Me. Justice Chambliss

delivered the concurring opinion.

I concur, with this comment:

This is a case in which the foreign statute invoked was (1) a death statute, and (2) not pleaded. Certainly, as said by Mr. Justice Neil, in Whitlow v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 114 Tenn., 344, at page 348, 84 S. W. 618, 68 L. R. A., 503, “The courts of this state have the power to enforce, and constantly do enforce, rights of action granted under foreign statutes. . . . But in such cases, where the right of action is one unknown to the common law, the foreign statute must be pleaded, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whitlow v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Hubble v. Morristown Land Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Commission Co. v. Carroll & McCallumTennessee Supreme Court · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API