case out rule in Tennessee

1961Por example, see Granert v. Bauer, 17 Tenn. App. 370, 373 , 67 S. W. (2d) 748 (where driver ran out of road trying to miss a hole); Oliver v. Union Transfer Co., 17 Tenn. App. 694, 698 , 71 S. W. (2d) 478 (where side of road caved in taking the bus with it).

1961Por example, see Granert v. Bauer, 17 Tenn. App. 370, 373 , 67 S. W. (2d) 748 (where driver ran out of road trying to miss a hole); Oliver v. Union Transfer Co., 17 Tenn. App. 694, 698 , 71 S. W. (2d) 478 (where side of road caved in taking the bus with it).

1961Por example, see Granert v. Bauer, 17 Tenn. App. 370, 373 , 67 S. W. (2d) 748 (where driver ran out of road trying to miss a hole); Oliver v. Union Transfer Co., 17 Tenn. App. 694, 698 , 71 S. W. (2d) 478 (where side of road caved in taking the bus with it).

1961Por example, see Granert v. Bauer, 17 Tenn. App. 370, 373 , 67 S. W. (2d) 748 (where driver ran out of road trying to miss a hole); Oliver v. Union Transfer Co., 17 Tenn. App. 694, 698 , 71 S. W. (2d) 478 (where side of road caved in taking the bus with it).

1976This alone takes this case out of the framework of Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 , 83 S.Ct. 917 , 9 L.Ed.2d 922 , where the police officers corroborated the testimony of the defendant in regard to the coercion used to solicit her confession.” The facts of this case are consistent with those in Smith v. State, supra. We therefore think that the case does not support the appellant’s defense contention.

1976This alone takes this case out of the framework of Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 , 83 S.Ct. 917 , 9 L.Ed.2d 922 , where the police officers corroborated the testimony of the defendant in regard to the coercion used to solicit her confession.” The facts of this case are consistent with those in Smith v. State, supra. We therefore think that the case does not support the appellant’s defense contention.

1956A sale of property such as we are considering for reinvestment necessitates a conversion and a direction by the testator that the property shall not be sold operates to take a case out of the rule stated in Henderson v. Vaulx, supra. It is so recognized in that case and also in Vancil v. Evans, supra. An examination of the decisions leads to the conclusion that the rule requiring a conversion or apportionment of income is not favored and a slight indication that testator desired the life tenant or the trustee for the life tenant to hold the property operates likewise to defeat the application

1945A sale of property such as we are considering for reinvestment necessitates a conversion and a direction by the testator that the property shall not be sold operates to take a case out of the rule stated in Henderson v. Vaulx, supra. It is so recognized in that case and also in Vancil v. Evans, supra. An examination of the decisions leads to the conclusion that the rule requiring a conversion or apportionment of income is not favored and a slight indication that testator desired the life tenant or the trustee for the life tenant to hold the property operates likewise to defeat the application

1956A sale of property such as we are considering for reinvestment necessitates a conversion and a direction by the testator that the property shall not be sold operates to take a case out of the rule stated in Henderson v. Vaulx, supra. It is so recognized in that case and also in Vancil v. Evans, supra. An examination of the decisions leads to the conclusion that the rule requiring a conversion or apportionment of income is not favored and a slight indication that testator desired the life tenant or the trustee for the life tenant to hold the property operates likewise to defeat the application

1945A sale of property such as we are considering for reinvestment necessitates a conversion and a direction by the testator that the property shall not be sold operates to take a case out of the rule stated in Henderson v. Vaulx, supra. It is so recognized in that case and also in Vancil v. Evans, supra. An examination of the decisions leads to the conclusion that the rule requiring a conversion or apportionment of income is not favored and a slight indication that testator desired the life tenant or the trustee for the life tenant to hold the property operates likewise to defeat the application

1956As was said by Mr. Chief Justice Green, speaking for the *466 Supreme Court in Leach v. McCreary, 183 Tenn. 128, 132 , 191 S. W. (2d) 176 , 178: “All the authorities recognize as of proper application in such cases the general rule that the intention of the testator must control.

1956As was said by Mr. Chief Justice Green, speaking for the *466 Supreme Court in Leach v. McCreary, 183 Tenn. 128, 132 , 191 S. W. (2d) 176 , 178: “All the authorities recognize as of proper application in such cases the general rule that the intention of the testator must control.

1955Hence, there is nothing to take the case out of the bar of the statute.” The petitioner below relies upon Ogle v. Tennessee Eastman Corporation, 185 Tenn. 527 , 206 S. W. (2d) 909, 911 .

1955Hence, there is nothing to take the case out of the bar of the statute.” The petitioner below relies upon Ogle v. Tennessee Eastman Corporation, 185 Tenn. 527 , 206 S. W. (2d) 909, 911 .

1950Taylor the court permitted Coleman to amend his hill so as to allege that the suit was brought on relation of the State of Tennessee for the use of the county, etc., also that Coleman sued as a taxpayer and that by reason of the unlawful acts of the defendants his tax would be increased, etc., thus taking the case out of the rule announced in Patton v. City of Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 197 , 65 S. W. 414 .

1944These conditions im *137 pairing vision ahead take the case out of the rule relied on for defendant announced in West Const. Co. v. White, 130 Tenn., 520 , 172 S. W., 301 .

1936In Bodne v. Austin, 156 Tenn., 353 , 2 S. W. (2d), 100, 103 , it was insisted that the plaintiff in error was kept in ignorance of the wrong, and that the statute did not run until its discovery.

1936In Bodne v. Austin, 156 Tenn., 353 , 2 S. W. (2d), 100, 103 , it was insisted that the plaintiff in error was kept in ignorance of the wrong, and that the statute did not run until its discovery.

1935West v. Poore, 196 Mass., 183 , 81 N. E., 960 , 11 L.

1935West v. Poore, 196 Mass., 183 , 81 N. E., 960 , 11 L.

1921The stipulation appearing on the minutes does not make a case where the court’s action appears as a part of the technical record so as to take the case out of the rule of cases which “harmonizes the practice in all cases coming to this court from the common-law courts.” 123 Tenn., 257 , 130 S. W., 768 .

1921Town of Mountain View, 136 Tenn., 133 , 188 S. W., 595 , and Elrod v. Franklin, 140 Tenn., 228 , 204 S. W., 298 .

1921Town of Mountain View, 136 Tenn., 133 , 188 S. W., 595 , and Elrod v. Franklin, 140 Tenn., 228 , 204 S. W., 298 .

1895Accessorium non ducit, sequítur ]}rincijqc¿Led'‘ This case was followed and approved by the same Court in the case of Kenicot v. The Board of Supervisors of Wayne County, 16 Wall., 452 .