Rook v. Godfrey

58 S.W. 850, 105 Tenn. 534
Tennessee Supreme Court·Decided October 27, 1900·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

0 at.tvw kll, J.

Action of forcible entry and detainer; demurrer to evidence of the plaintiffs sustained, and appeal in error by them.

[535] The action of the trial Judge was correct, for two reasons, (1) hecanse the plaintiffs failed to show that they were in the possession of the land when the defendants entered (Greer v. Wroc, 1 Sneed, 247; Elliott v. Lawless, 6 Heis., 129; Chamberlain v. Coal and Coke Co., 92 Tenn. 21), and (2) hecanse the defendants were put in possession by the Sheriff nnder writs of possession issued from the Chancery Court. Scott v. Newsom, 4 Sneed, 457.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

Rook v. Godfrey, 58 S.W. 850, 105 Tenn. 534 (Tenn. 1900).

58 S.W. 850 (Rook v. Godfrey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Czaza
86 S.W.2d 1096 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1935)
Kates v. Anderson, Dulin, Varnell Co.
9 Tenn. App. 396 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1929)
Southern Ry. Co. v. McKinney
276 F. 772 (Fifth Circuit, 1921)
Dancik v. Rappold
109 Misc. 354 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1919)
Turney v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
127 Tenn. 673 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1913)
In re Estate of Harris
3 Coffey 1 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1908)
State ex rel. Lane v. Ballinger
82 P. 1018 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
Cope v. Payne
111 Tenn. 128 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1903)