Austin v. Sellors ( 1850 )

McKinney, J.:

The agreement of the infant having had the. effect of preventing the other party from taking the appeal, would operate as a fraud upon him, if he were not permitted to avoid the effect of it in this form.

The reason stated for not appealing is sufficient. ⁽¹⁾

Judgment reversed.

(1) As to what is sufficient cause for certiorari, see Garrett v. Perryman, 2 Tenn. 108; Trigg v. Boyce, 4 Hayw. 100; Perkins v. Hadley, 4 Hayw. 143; Hale v. Landrum, 2 Humph. 32; Smith v. White, 5 Humph. 46; Napier v. Person, 7 Yerg. 300; Belcher v. Belcher, 10 Yerg. 121, 126; Day v. Johnson, 4 Cold, 231; McCormack v. Murfree, 2 Sneed, 46; Allen v. Prim, 2 Swan, 337; Evans v. Evans, 4 Cold. 600; Crouch v. Martin, 4 Sneed, 569; McMurry v. Milan, 2 Swan, 176; Chappell v. Jones, 8 Humph. 107.

Cause for certiorari insufficient, when, see Henderson v. Luckey, 2 Tenn. 110; Stuart v. Hall, 2 Tenn. 179; Crafts v. Stockton, 8 Yerg. 164; O’Sullivan v. Larry, 2 Head, 64; Moss v. Collins, 3 Humph. 148; Porter v. Wheaton, 5 Yerg. 108; Sharp v. Clouston, 4 Yerg. 193; Newman v. Rogers, 9 Humph. 120; Adair v. Davis, 3 Humph. 137;