Legal Opinion

Hedges v. Shipp

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1933PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chambliss

The question presented on this appeal is whether or not certain notes belonging to M. M. Hedges on the 10th of January, 1929, were lawfully subject to assessment for taxation ad valorem in Hamilton County. The stipulated form of the notes in the record shows that they were each negotiable instruments, being (1) in writing and signed by the makers, (2) an unconditional promise to pay, (3) payable on demand and (4) payable to order, (Acts of 1899, Chap. 94, Code 1932, ¡Sec. 7325.) These notes were loans on call, that is, on demand, made in the City of New York for Hedges and from his funds…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Williams v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879
  2. Hamilton National Bank v. City of ChattanoogaTennessee Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Phillips & Buttorff Mfg. Co. v. CarsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Hamilton Nat. Bank v. McCanlessTennessee Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Western Pipe Line Constructors, Inc. v. DickinsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Cummings v. SharpTennessee Supreme Court · 1938
  5. In Re ArmisteadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952

5 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