Legal Opinion
Fehn v. Schlickling
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Decided July 3, 1943PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, -J.
Three questions are raised on this appeal, to-wit: (1) Are the original and amended bills repugnant or inconsistent? (2) Is the claim of the original complainant (Magdalena Schlickling Fehn) barred by the statute of limitations? Code 1932, secs. 8600, 8601, 8582. (3) Can a court of chancery declare a lien on real property purchased by the defendant Albert Schlickling before the money was furnished with which he placed improvements on the real property?
The chancellor answered the first two questions in the negative and the third in the affirmative.
The complainant (below), Magdalena…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Grizzard v. FiteTennessee Supreme Court · 1916
- Woodruff v. RoysdenTennessee Supreme Court · 1900
- Bowers v. ThomasTennessee Supreme Court · 1871
- Motley's Administrators v. TaborCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
3Cited by14 opinions
- McAllester v. Aldridge (In Re Anderson)District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1983
- New York Life Insurance Co. v. Nashville Trust Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1956
- Central Bus Lines, Inc. v. Hamilton Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1951
- Eslick v. FriedmanTennessee Supreme Court · 1951
- Akers v. GillentineTennessee Supreme Court · 1948
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.