Legal Opinion

Machine Co. v. Compress Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1900PublishedCited by 23 opinions

EROM SHELBY. • Appeal in error from. Circuit Court of Shelby County. L. Ií. Estes, J.

1Opinion of the CourtBeard, J.

The plaintiff in error, in the year 1891, was engaged in the iron foundry business in Memphis, Tennessee, and the TJnion Compress & Storage Co. owned at that time a plant erected at Clarksdale, Mississippi, for compressing cotton in bales for shipment to market. The power used by the latter company in doing this work was furnished by two sets of cylinders, in part steaih and in part hydraulic, one of which was high and the other low pressure. In the winter of 1896-7 the low pressure hydraulic cylinder and some of the pipes communicating between it and the compress proper were permanently…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Witherbee v. . MeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. Vicksburg & Meridian R. R. v. RagsdaleMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Bruce v. BeallTennessee Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Railroad v. Cabinet Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1900

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State v. BanksTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Burr v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Railroad v. AbernatheyTennessee Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Turner v. BensonTennessee Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. McCardleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964

18 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