Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee Volume 115

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee Volume 115

By (author) 

List price: US$11.62

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ...issue may well be the subject of a bill of review." Story's Equity Pl. sec. 416. Such a supplemental bill may be filed not only by a complainant, but also by a defendant. In the work just referred to, it is said: "Hitherto we have chiefly considered supplemental bills on the part of the plaintiflf; but they may also be brought in behalf of the defendant in the suit. Where the matter is newly discovered evidence on the part of the defendant after the cause is at issue, or after the publication is passed or even after a hearing or decree, the defendant may by petition to file a supplemental bill, obtain relief." Id., see. 3370. The subject was recently gone over to some ea-'tent in an opinion by Judge Lurton in the case of Deitoh v. Hardwick v. American Can Company, Staub, 115 Fed. Rep., 310-316. In that case it appeared that Staub, as receiver of the Knoxville Building & Loan Association, brought suit againt Deitch in the federal court to enforce two mortgages which had been executed for money loaned. Deitch, the defendant, raised the question of usury. On an interlocutory decree, Judge Clark decreed that there was no usury, and referred the case to the master to report on the indebtedness. While the matter was pending before the master new evidence was discovered and offered, showing usury. The master declined to consider the new proofs, and there was an exception for this reason. On appeal it was held in the circuit court of appeals that the master could not consider the newly-discovered evidence because of the interlocutory decree and that the proper practice was for the defendant to bring a supplemental bill setting up the newly-discovered evidence and seeking to rehear the interlocutory decree. Such more

Product details

  • Paperback | 194 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 10mm | 354g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236766377
  • 9781236766373