Cases

646 S.W.2d 920 (1982) FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred TEMPLETON, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy Joe FREEMAN, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section. October 22, 1982. Application for Permission to Appeal Denied February 22, 1983. *921 W

It is necessary for the determination of the questions presented to mention the material facts, which we will now proceed to do. During the year 1930 and for a considerable period of time prior thereto, the claimant Leach was engaged in the contract business of moving dirt on primary roads. Immediately preceding the transaction involved in this litigation, he was engaged in the prosecution of his work at Independence, Missouri. It was his purpose to file bids with the Iowa state highway commi

Although there is no provision in the policy of insurance prohibiting the alienation or change of the interest of the assured, it is earnestly and ably contended by appellant that when Barnhart and White assigned to Maughan the contract for the purchase of the land and "released" their interest in the insured crop, they thereby lost any and all rights under the policy to recover for loss to the insured crop and that the right of the bank to recover on the policy was no greater than that posse

Evans, J. In the early part of 1920, the defendants Kriegel became the owners of a farm in Delaware ■ County, and entered into possession thereof. They executed first and second mortgages thereon, one of which was taken and held by the intervener* Cloud, and is the mortgage under which he claims in this case. In September, 1921, the Kriegels executed a chattel mortgage to J. M. Leeper, intervener, to1 secure a note' of $3,000. U

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. In this case it was clear from the outset that Merchants and Farmers Bank applied for the branch bank in Marvell to benefit existing customers. The bank’s amendment to its application dated December 29, 1988, states as much: Our bank has a substantial customer base in this area (we have used the zip codes for Marvell (72366), Poplar Grove

STARCHER, Justice: In this appeal from the Circuit Court of Putnam County, we are asked to review a circuit court order granting summary judgment to an insurance company in a declaratory judgment action. The circuit court was asked to interpret language in a liability insurance policy that defined persons insured as including “your relatives if residents of your household.” In its order, the circuit court ruled that a tortfeas

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES G. MIXON, Bankruptcy Judge. On November 1, 1984, John and Mary Sanders filed a joint voluntary petition for relief under the provisions of chapter 11. Because of a potential conflict of interest separate counsel was employed by each of the debtors-in-possession. On May 6, 1985, Mrs. Sanders filed this complaint to set aside The Merchants & Planters Bank, Camden, Arkansas’ (M &

767 F.Supp.2d 880 (2011) In re DAIRY FARMERS OF AMEICA, INC. CHEESE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Direct Purchaser Actions. Master File No. 09 C 3690. MDL No. 2031. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. February 4, 2011. *885 Anne Kristin Fornecker, Peggy J. Wedgworth, Milberg LLP, Chris

341 S.C. 32 (2000) 533 S.E.2d 312 Alethia SIMMONS, in her fiduciary capacity as personal representative of the estate of P.J. McBride, deceased, Respondent, v. TUOMEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Einar Anderson, M.D., and Sandy T. Cooper, M.D. Defendants, of whom Tuomey Regional Medical Center is Petitioner. John H. Cooper, Respondent, v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center, Coastal Physician Services of the Southeast,

928 F.Supp. 760 (1996) Josephine SCHIMIZZI, M.D., Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE CO., Defendant. No. 3:93-CV-173RM. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. May 23, 1996. *761 *762 *763 Frederick R. Hovde, Townsend, Hovde a

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT MARY D. SCOTT, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The trustee initiated this action alleging counts sounding in fraud, conversion, breach of contract, tor-tious interference with contractual rights, and equitable subordination. The defendant

THOMAS, Judge. In March 2010, International Management Group, Inc. ("IMG"), through its owner and president, Michael Carter,1 executed six promissory notes to Bryant Bank ("the Bank"); Carter personally guaranteed the notes. At that time, IMG was the mortgagee of a mortgage executed by James L. Banks and Martha R. Rembert ("the mortgage"). In July 2010, Carter organized Liberty Assets, LLC ("Liberty"). I

THOMAS, Judge. In March 2010, International Management Group, Inc. ("IMG"), through its owner and president, Michael Carter,1 executed six promissory notes to Bryant Bank ("the Bank"); Carter personally guaranteed the notes. At that time, IMG was the mortgagee of a mortgage executed by James L. Banks and Martha R. Rembert ("the mortgage"). In July 2010, Carter organized Liberty Assets, LLC ("Liberty"). I

The appellee sued the appellant on an employees' fidelity bond and also the defaulting employees. The decree awarded judgments against the employees and also *Page 767 the appellant, who executed the bond. The appeal is by the appellant, the surety, only. The case presented by the record, in so far as is necessary for an understanding of the questions decided, is, in substance, as follows: On the 28th day of December, 1928, the appellant exe

Sutton, J. 1. Where in a suit on a note against two defendants as apparent joint makers, an amended plea was filed by one of the defendants, setting up that he signed the note as surety only, which fact was known to the plaintiff, that the note sued on was a balance of a larger note, that at the time of making the original note there were delivered to the plaintiff bank by the principal, as collateral security, described notes ag

Jenkins, P. J. 1. Prior to tlie passage of what is known as the uniform negotiable instruments law, the holder of a promissory note was not protected from the maker’s defense that the consideration thereof was immoral and illegal, even though the holder may have purchased the note before it was due, and without notice of any defect therein or *669defense thereto. Thus, a

ACCEPTED 01-14-00870-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 12:33:22 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CONNOR, District Judge. The bill, answer, and evidence disclose the following case: J. J. Piland, 58 years of age, engaged in farming, residing on his farm, about 6 miles from the village of Winton, N. C., purchased a *184stock of goods from a merchant, and with his son-in-law, W. H. Lassiter, began business in Winton, under the firm name of J. J. Pila

Robb, Judge. Case Summary and Issue [1] D.H. ("Child"), through her mother and guardian, A.M.J. ("Mother"), and Mother individually (collectively, the "Appellants"), bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the issue of negligence in favor of Mary Whipple, Mother's mother and Child's maternal grandmother. Appellants prese

George, J. (After stating the foregoing facts.) In' the view we take of this case, a continuance or postponement of the hearing of the contempt case should have been granted. The motion for continuance or postponement was technically complete. So far as *447the merits of it are concerned, it appears without dispute that upon the filing of the original petition for injunct