Finley v. McCormick
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM HAMILTON. Appeal from the decree of the Chancery Court, June Term, 1870. D. C. Tjrewhitt, Chancellor. 1. The demurrer is a nullity: citing Kirkman v. Snodgrass, 3 Head, 371; 1 Heis., 240. 2. The bill does not disclose usury, and there was in fact none in the transaction: citing Turney v. State Bank, 5 Hum., 407; Hamilton v. Moore, 7 Hum., 35; Stuart v. Mechanics Bank, 19 Johns, 509.
1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.
The Chancellor erred in allowing the demurrer to the bill. The ground of demurrer is that “said complainant is not entitled to the discovery prayed by his bill against this defendant.” This is not a special demurrer, and does not state the objection relied on, as required in Code, s. 2934, which extends to suits in equity as well as law. See also ss. 4384, 4388; Fowler v. Alexander, 1 Heis., 425; Chesney v. Rodgers, 1 Heis., 241; Kirkman & Kills v. Snodgrass, 3 Head, 372.
The bill, among other things, charges that complainant loaned to McCormick, on the 1st November, *3941866, $200 in gold,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bowen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1933
- Aztec Properties, Inc. v. Union Planters National Bank of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1975