Tennessee Supreme Court, 1855

Mayor of South Memphis v. Howard

Tennessee Supreme Court · Decided April 15, 1855 · Archibald, Caruthers, McKinney, Totten

1 Thompson 98

Cases that cite this one

40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Mendes v. Johnson (D.C. 1978)
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks (La. Ct. App. 2019)
SIX C PROPERTIES, LLC v. Welsh (La. Ct. App. 2011)
Manhattan Place, L.L.C. Versus Rita M. Borne Cpa, LLC (La. Ct. App. 2020)
Old Gentilly Lane LLC / Daniel Valverde v. Alex Robles (La. Ct. App. 2020)
State v. LG Elecs., Inc. (Wash. 2016)
State v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Wash. 2016)
State v. Barbain (La. Ct. App. 2015)
State v. King (La. Ct. App. 2015)
Holt v. Ace American Insurance Co. (La. Ct. App. 2014)
Evelyn Thiels Holt, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company (La. Ct. App. 2014)
Apex Realty, LLC v. Vidrine's of Gonzales, LLC (La. Ct. App. 2013)
Gorman v. City of Woodinville (Wash. 2012)
State v. Pleasant (La. Ct. App. 2012)
In re August (La. 2010)
In re Petal (La. 2008)
Bill Fennelly, Scott County Treasurer Vs. A-1 Machine & Tool Co. (Iowa 2006)
In re Heisler (La. 2006)
Barnhill v. Remington Oil and Gas Corp. (La. Ct. App. 2005)
Doré Energy Corp. v. Bohlinger (La. Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Hebert (La. Ct. App. 2003)
In re Cantrell (La. 2003)
In re Holmes (La. 2003)
STATE DEPT. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. Caldeira (N.J. 2002)
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Caldeira (N.J. 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Totten., J.,

delivered an oral opinion, affirming the decree of the chancellor, and concurring substantially in the grounds assumed by Dixon, for the complainants. McKinney and Caruthers, JJ., concurred. Judge Totten promised to reduce his opinion to writing, in view of the importance of tne case, but never found time to do so.

Decree affirmed.

*122As to a map or plat as eviden.ee of a dedication, see Ely v. Bates, 5 Wis. 467; Weisbrod v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 18 Wis. 35; Weisbrod v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 21 Wis. 607. Child v. Chappell, 9 N. Y. 257; 2 Smith’s Lead. Cases, 208, 222; Washburn on Easements, 154; Angell on Highways, § 149.

As to user as evidence of a dedication, see Hobbs v. Lowell, 19 Pick 405; Valentine v. Boston, 22 Pick. 75; 22 Texas, 94; 35 N. H. 303 Washburn on Easements, 139, 140; Angell on Highways, § 150.

As to the acts of the proprietor as evidence of a dedication, see 24 Conn. 236. And see Bolus v. Smith Infra and note. (3)

As to the enhanced value of adjacent property, as sufficient consideration for a dedication, see, Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. 438; Rowan v. Portland, 8 B. Mon. 246; Bissell v. N. Y. C. R. Rd., 23 N. Y. 66.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.