Clodfelter v. Cox
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM DAVIDSON. This bill of interpleader was filed in chancery at Nashville, by the complainant Clodfelter, upon the state of facts fully given in the opinion. At the May Term, 1853, Chancellor Brien decreed in favor of respondents Oox and Loftwick, from which Langley, another respondent appealed to this court.
Read the full summary
PROM DAVIDSON. This bill of interpleader was filed in chancery at Nashville, by the complainant Clodfelter, upon the state of facts fully given in the opinion. At the May Term, 1853, Chancellor Brien decreed in favor of respondents Oox and Loftwick, from which Langley, another respondent appealed to this court. HoustoN for Langley, with whom was Cabl'os DimicK who said : 1. Is Langley’s right to the fund in controversy, defeated by his failure .to give Glodfelter notice of the assignment to him ? None of the English cases,- except those in bankruptcy, go the length of requiring notice as…
1Opinion of the CourtMoEjNNEy, J.
This was a bill of interpleader. The case as presented by the pleadings and proof, is briefly this. On the second day of June, 1852, one Gilman recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Davidson, against the complainant for the sum of $467 68. Instantly, upon the verdict being announced,- and perhaps before the jury had retired from the box, Gilman, by a writing-under seal, assigned and transferred the said recovery and judgment to the defendant Langley, for the indemnity of himself and one Smiley, as the endorsers of Gilman on a note for $500, which liability was incurred upon the faith…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Union Livestock Yards, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1976
- Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC v. Prentice Delon HylerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2014