Contract to deliver 200,000 pipe staves on or before March 1885

Shaw rented a farm to Walton. In the rental contract, Shaw required Walton to "sow thirty acres of land in wheat, with the right reserved in the contract" that Walton could "sow grass on the thirty acres of wheat." After the wheat was cut and removed, Shaw turned a large amount of cattle out on the land that destroyed and trampled all Walton's grass. Walton "brought this suit enjoining the defendants from turning cattle into this particular field."

John Wilson bought a large quantity of supplies for himself and family on the credit from Harvey & Keith, a business firm in Kentucky. Wilson didn't want to pay so Harvey & Keith pressed charges. The sum that Wilson owed was $1,476.00.

Cloud contracted to buy an "Indiana Gasoline Tractor and a double disc trip plow" from Dyersburg Vehicle & Implement Co. to be delivered to his farm in Crockett County. Cloud claims that he was induced to buy the tractor by the defendant who demonstrated "its capacity to do certain work." Cloud paid part of the purchase price up front and gave a note for the balance. The plow was never delivered and the tractor didn't work as demonstrated. Cloud seeks "to avoid liability upon the remaining note."

Bohm Mack & Co. is a business in Cincinnati .

Ex B: letter from brother Robert Roths; Ex C: second letter from brother; Ex D: statement from Christian Brothers College President; Ex A: letter from Robert to Shannon Transcript, warrant and statements in WT Box 1299

Wilson was indebted to this company in the amount of $1, 719.00.

Nichols sold 275 bales of cotton to dfnt., who eventually decided to withdraw purchase. Nichols was forced to resell at $543.70 less than dfnt. offered to pay, and sued to claim that amount due to breach of contract. Ex. mat: Bank note, telegrams, letters, receipts, etc.

Plaintiff sued to recover on a road contract for the year 1904. Had contracted with the county to grade, widen & maintain in good condition roads in the 4th Civil Dist.; plaintiff was to provide his own equipment, but would be paid $218 for his services out of the county road fund. County has not paid plaintiff the agreed upon sum, arguing that he is not entitled to the money as he failed to keep the roads in good condition as stipulated in the contract.