Legal Remedies Commons^™

Equity--1959 Tennessee Survey, T. A. Smedley

Vanderbilt Law Review

The amazing versatility of the chancery courts in Tennessee has been demonstrated again in two decisions handed down during the past year; but on the other hand, two cases decided in this interval disclosed evidence of the regrettable "decadence of equity" which Dean Pound deplored more than half a century ago.' In most of the other decisions which may be classified under the ambiguous heading of "Equity," only normal application of established principles to routine situations seems to have been involved.

Equity -- 1957 Tennessee Survey, Thomas F. Green Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

JURISDICTION:

Among what is said' to be the largest number of public laws ever passed by a Tennessee Legislature, the General Assembly passed an act which creates a statutory exception to the doctrine that equity will not enjoin the commission of a crime unless the conduct comes within some recognized head of equity jurisdiction.

EQUITABLE REMEDIES:

Hall v. Briton was a suit in the chancery court to enjoin defendants, who were complainant's former employees, from selling a product produced with the aid of complainant's trade secret.

CONTEMPT:

One of the peculiarities of equity is that its decrees frequently consist of …

Sales Taxation Collection Problems, Paul J. Hartman, E. William Henry, George L. Foster

Vanderbilt Law Review

This treatment is designed to gather together a number of legal problems concerning collection of taxes in the field of sales taxation, which may confront attorneys who represent either the taxing authority or the taxpayer. Some of the problems taken up are not related to each other. They are, nevertheless, troublesome and ofttimes recurring problems. For convenience of discussion, they are grouped under the two main categories of procedural problems that arise in sales taxation collections, and the problems of the substantive liability of various parties for the tax.

Restitution -- 1955 Tennessee Survey, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

"A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other."' This principle is a pervasive one, running throughout the common law. It is implemented by many remedies, both at law and in equity; and only in recent times has the single idea underlying the several remedies been clearly perceived. The Tennessee cases on Restitution will here be collected according to the remedies involved.

Bills And Notes, Paul J. Hartman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Parol Evidence Rule as Applied to Bills and Notes. The Tennessee Supreme Court case of Lazarov v. Klyce' presented the problem of when an agent who has signed a negotiable instrument can use parol evidence to exonerate himself from personal liability on the instrumentat the suit of the payee. The payee of a note sued the defendant, Arnold Klyce, to hold him individually liable on the note of a corporation of which defendant was an officer. The defense was that the note was an obligation of the corporation, that defendant signed as an officer of the corporation and that …

Should The Doctrine Of Implied Warranties Be Limited To Sales Transactions?, Robert B. Deen Jr., Charles H. Warfield

Vanderbilt Law Review

The purpose of this discussion is to examine implied warranties in order to determine if their application is limited to sales transactions. In approaching this problem, it is necessary to understand the development of warranty. In the early law, warranty was a pure action of tort.' Special assumpsit developed over a hundred years later than warranty and was based on the tort action of warranty. Thus, at the beginning, assumpsit was thought of as a tort action. Later assumpsit came to be regarded as similar to covenant and hence became classified with contract actions. Warranty was still considered a tort …

Agency To Make Representations, Merton Ferson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Representations, commands, threats and other utterances are a species of acts and may have legal consequences. An utterance may, for example, constitute fraud, negligence, slander or intimidation. The person who speaks is responsible and it may be that another person, in whose behalf the utterance was made, also is responsible. This discussion has to do with the question of what must be shown to establish the ability' of one person to speak in behalf of another, and thus to make the other liable for the legal consequences.