In re Chadwell
Tennessee Supreme Court
EKOM DICKSON. Smith v. Deaderielc, 6 Hum., 134, has no application here. It is conceded that for one Chancellor to interfere with the decrees of another would involve confusion worse confounded.’ But here the petition was addressed to the Chancellor at Charlotte, and the Chancellor at Nashville simply granted a fiat upon it, just as he might have done upon an original bill similarly addressed, and to be filed in the Chancery Court at Charlotte.
Read the full summary
EKOM DICKSON. Smith v. Deaderielc, 6 Hum., 134, has no application here. It is conceded that for one Chancellor to interfere with the decrees of another would involve confusion worse confounded.’ But here the petition was addressed to the Chancellor at Charlotte, and the Chancellor at Nashville simply granted a fiat upon it, just as he might have done upon an original bill similarly addressed, and to be filed in the Chancery Court at Charlotte. The power in question belongs to the interchangeable and concurrent jurisdiction exercisable by the Chancellors irrespectively of the boundaries of…
1Opinion of the CourtSneed, J.
In the case of Watkins et al. v. Crutcher, pending in the Chancery Court at Charlotte, an execution had *631been issued, whereupon, the petition of plaintiff in error had been presented to Chancellor East, of the Chancery Court at Nashville, asking that said execution be suspended by injunction until the merits of the petition could be heard and determined. The petition was returnable to the Chancery Court at Charlotte and was presented to Chancellor East at Chambers, as one of the Chancellors of Tennessee. He granted the fiat of injunction in obedience to the prayer, and the papers were returned…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Montgomery v. WhitworthCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1873
- Smith v. St. Louis Mutual Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1877