Legal Opinion

Moss v. Maddux

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1902PublishedCited by 3 opinions

FROM PUTNAM. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Putnam County. T. J. Eishee, Ch.

1Opinion of the CourtWilkes, J.

Complainant in his bill charges that one Lem Maddux, as principal, and defendants as sureties, executed and delivered to him a note for $185.00, and he seeks to recover the *406same and interest. Lem Maddux, the principal, was not. sued, being a non-resident and insolvent. The note was exhibited with the bill and comes to this Court in its original shape.

The defendants, W. IT. Maddux and K. E. Maxwell, filed a general plea of non est factum.

Upon trial in the Court below, the Chancellor gave judgment for the $185.00, and interest upon it, and defendants appealed. The Court of Chancery Appeals…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Snyder v. McEwenTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
  2. J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. MillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Peevey v. BuchananTennessee Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API