Morrow v. Malone

37 Tenn. 642
Tennessee Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1858·Published

Opinion

WRISHT, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

There is no error in this record. It was the- duty of the plaintiff to file his declaration within the three first days of the January Term of the Court. Act 1794, ch. 1, § 26. This he could have done in the clerk’s office, though the Circuit Judge did not attend, and there was no Court at that term. Acts of 1794, ch. 1, § 26, and 1809, ch. 49, § 8. C. and Ñ. Rev., 205 and 539. But he failed to do this; and did -not even attempt to file his declaration until the three first-days of the next term had expired, when the. Court, on the application of defendants, dismissed the- suit. After this he came forward with his declaration; hut the reasons given for not filing, his- declaration at an earlier day are altogether insufficient..

Affirm the judgment..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Morrow v. Malone, 37 Tenn. 642 (Tenn. 1858).

37 Tenn. 642 (Morrow v. Malone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.