Austin v. Sellors
This text of 1 Thompson 64 (Austin v. Sellors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The agreement of the infant having had the. effect of preventing the other party from taking the appeal, would operate as a fraud upon him, if he were not permitted to avoid the effect of it in this form.
The reason stated for not appealing is sufficient.
Judgment reversed.
As to what is sufficient cause for certiorari, see Garrett v. Perryman, 2 Tenn. 108; Trigg v. Boyce, 4 Hayw. 100; Perkins v. Hadley, 4 Hayw. 143; Hale v. Landrum, 2 Humph. 32; Smith v. White, 5 Humph. 46; Napier v. Person, 7 Yerg. 300; Belcher v. Belcher, 10 Yerg. 121, 126; Day v. Johnson, 4 Cold, 231; McCormack v. Murfree, 2 Sneed, 46; Allen v. Prim, 2 Swan, 337; Evans v. Evans, 4 Cold. 600; Crouch v. Martin, 4 Sneed, 569; McMurry v. Milan, 2 Swan, 176; Chappell v. Jones, 8 Humph. 107.
Cause for certiorari insufficient, when, see Henderson v. Luckey, 2 Tenn. 110; Stuart v. Hall, 2 Tenn. 179; Crafts v. Stockton, 8 Yerg. 164; O’Sullivan v. Larry, 2 Head, 64; Moss v. Collins, 3 Humph. 148; Porter v. Wheaton, 5 Yerg. 108; Sharp v. Clouston, 4 Yerg. 193; Newman v. Rogers, 9 Humph. 120; Adair v. Davis, 3 Humph. 137;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Thompson 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-sellors-tenn-1850.