Brady v. Oliver
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM MARION. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Marion County.— T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lansden
This is a hill and a cross bill. The main purpose of the original bill is to recover damages against the defendant, Oliver, for the alleged breach of a building contract entered into between the parties, by the terms of which Oliver contracted to construct a power house, a lock and dam, and a core Avail extending from the power house on the east bank of the Tennessee river back to the face of the mountain at Hale’s bar. The complainant alleges his damages to amount to $1,750,000. The defendant filed his answer as a cross bill, by which he sought to .recover from Brady, for an ¿lleged breach…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Anvil Mining Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Wolf v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- McClain v. Kimbrough Const. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1990
- GRW Enterprises, Inc. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1990
- Forrest Construction Co. v. LaughlinCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2009
- General Supply & Construction Co. v. GoeletNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Lamons v. ChamberlainCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1993
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.