Essenkay Co. v. Essenkay Sales Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM SHELBY. Appeal from tire Chancery Court of Shelby County. —FRawcis Fentress, Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Neil
The bill in this case was filed to collect a note of $8,000 made by the defendants to the complainant. An answer and cross-bill were filed. The cross-hill presented certain matters of equity which could not properly appear in an answer. The complainants were nonresidents, and therefore personal service could not be had on them. The defendants asked that service be made upon the solicitors of record for the complainants. The chancellor refused to make this order. This was error. The practice is laid down in 1 Daniell’s Chan. Prac., marginal page 447 (Cooper’s Ed.). It is there said:
“The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dunn v. ClarkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Guthrie v. Indemnity Ass'nTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
- Pacific Railroad v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1880
- Lowenstein v. GlidewellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1878
- Life Insurance Co. v. SpratleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Keicher v. Mysinger, Adm'rTennessee Supreme Court · 1946
- Saranac MacH. Co. v. Nants and Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1932
- Lawson v. American Laundry MacHinery Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1932
- Martin v. WoodTennessee Supreme Court · 1963
- Hood Lumber Co. v. Five Points Lumber Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1952