Legal Opinion

Ingersoll v. Coal Creek Coal Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1906PublishedCited by 34 opinions

PROM ANDERSON. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Anderson County. —Hugh G. Kyle, Chancellor.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Wilkes

The facts found by the court of chancery appeals are set out in its opinion as follows:

“The dominant facts appearing in'the record, proper to be stated, raising the question or proposition involved in this assignment of error, are these:
“Messrs. Ingersoll & Peyton are a law firm resident of and having offices at Knoxville, Tennessee. They are practitioners in the courts of this State. Complainant Chandler is a much younger member of the Knoxville bar.
“Some seven years ago he entered into a contract with the firm of Ingersoll & Peyton, under the terms of which he was to have one-third of the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ex Parte WallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Carpenter v. BellTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Wood v. . Erie Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  5. People ex rel. Moses v. GoodrichIllinois Supreme Court · 1875

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. KinslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. In Re Disbarment of John D. GreathouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  3. Hightower v. Detroit Edison Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Gould v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
  5. Chreste v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API