Legal Opinion

Snapp v. Purcell

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1884PublishedCited by 2 opinions

PROM HANCOCK. Appeal from the Chancery Court at Sneedville, H. C. Smith, Ch.

1Opinion of the CourtFreeman, J.

This bill was filed to settle the estate of James L„ Purcell, and in order to do this, have an account of advancements.

As said by the Referees, there is a large amount -of irrelevant testimony taken, both by complainants and *694respondents. The only questions presented in Referees’’ report by exceptions are, first, the correctness of allowing Mathew V. Purcell to hold about fifty acres of land under a parol gift, and adverse possession.

We have carefully looked through the mass of testimony on this question, and have no doubt of the correctness of the chancellor’s decree and the report of the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ezell v. HakeTennessee Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Ezell v. HakeTennessee Supreme Court · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API