Smith v. Croom

Smith v. Croom

Lower Court

  • Leon County


  • 1839


  • 452


  • 805


At Law of Charleston formerly of Tallahassee. The defendants objects to Mr. Memminger believing he is Counsel for Complainants and also on the ground that he has taken some of the ex parte affidavits of the same witnesses alluded to in defendants answer by which witnesses are committed. The defendant will agree to any two gentlemen the judge may name discarding all nomination

J.D.W for B. Croom December 11[th] 1839

Tallahassee 11[th] December 1839

The Complainants by their attorneys object to the appointment of James L. Pettigan commissioner in this case because he has been retained as counsel for the defendants. As proof of the fact they enclose a certified copy of a receipt of said Petigree [?] filed as a voucher by the administrator of the Estate of Hardy Croom deed. They object to the appointment of all the other persons nominated by the defendant for the reason that the attempt to have Pettigan appointed, who is proved to be a retained lawyer of theirs affords probable evidence that the other persons nominated by them may be equally objectionable. As to the defendants objection to the appointment of the persons nominated by the