CITY OF CLEVELAND v. HAWGOOD & AVERY TRANSIT CO. (Circuit
Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 5, 1898.) No. 544. Error to the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern
District of Ohio. George L. Phillips and Miner G. Norton, for plaintiff in
error. Harvey D. Goulder, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment
affirmed.

CITY OF WABASHA v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. (Circuit Court of
Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 4, 1896.) No. 760. In Error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. A. H. Young and
Daniel Fish, for plaintiff in error. H. H. Field and W. H. Norris, for defend-
ant in error. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs.

CUYLER & WOODBURN R. CO. v. ANNISTON NAT. BANK. (Circult
Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. November 23, 1896.) No. 548. Appeal
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of
Georgia. Docketed and dismissed pursuant to the sixteenth rule on motion
of W. K. Miller, for appellees.

DEL MONTE MINING & MILLING CO. v. LAST CHANCE MINING &
MILLING CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.) Questions of law
certified to the supreme court of the United States. See 18 Sup. Ct. 895.

DEPOSIT BANK OF FRANKFORT v. STONE et al. (Circuit Court, D.
Kentucky. June 4, 1898.) No. 275. Frank Chinn, for complainant. W. S.
Taylor, Atty. Gen., for Samuel H. Stone and others. Ira & W. H. Julian,
for city of Frankfort. James H. Polsgrove, for county of Franklin. Before
HARLAN, Circuit Justice, and TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges.

TAFT, Circuit Judge. In an injunction suit brought by the Deposit Bank
of Frankfort against the county of Franklin, in the Franklin circuit court,
to prevent the collection of any taxes under the revenue act of 1892 in excess
of those imposed by the Hewitt act (Act Ky. May 17, 1886), it was expressly
adjudged on appeal by the court of appeals that the bank had, by its due
acceptance of the terms of the Hewitt act, an irrevocable contract of ex-
emption from taxation in excess of that imposed in the Hewitt act, and that
the revenue act of 1892 violated this contract. In a similar injunction suit
brought by the bank against the city of Frankfort, a decree in all respects
similar was entered on the same ground. In accordance with our decision
in the case of Bank of Kentucky v. Stone (just decided) 88 Fed. 383, we must
therefore grant the motion for a preliminary injunction, and overrule the
demurrer to the bill.

THE FAVORITE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 12,
1898.) No. 576. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the
Northern District of Ohio. Orestes C. Pinney, for plaintiff in error. Goulder
& Holding, on brief for defendants in error. Dismissed for want of jurisdic-
tion.

FLINT v. CHRISTALL. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.) Questions of law certified to the supreme court of the United States. See 18 Sup. Ct. 831.

FARMERS' BANK OF KENTUCKY v. STONE et al. (Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. June 4, 1898.) John W. Rodman and W. S. Pryor, for complainant. W. S. Taylor, for Samuel H. Stone, etc. Ira & W. H. Julian, for city of Frankfort. James H. Polsgrove, for county of Franklin. James F. Clay, for Henderson county. Before HARLAN, Circuit Justice, and TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges.

TAFT, Circuit Judge. This case is controlled by the points already decided. The Farmers' Bank, in prior adjudications with the county of Franklin, the city of Frankfort, and the city of Henderson, was conclusively adjudged to have an irrevocable contract under the Hewitt act, exempting it from any taxation in excess of that provided therein. There was no such adjudication, however, between the Farmers' Bank and either Scott county or Henderson county. It therefore follows from what has already been decided that as to Scott county and Henderson county the demurrers to the bill should be sustained, and the bill must be dismissed, while as to the other defendants the demurrers will be overruled, and the motions for a preliminary injunction granted.

FOLSOM v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 4, 1896.) No. 579. In Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

FRANTZ v. WEIGAND. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 17, 1897.) No. 575. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. W. O. Hart, for plaintiff in error. Frank McGloin, for defendant in error. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.

GLYNN et al. v. KEYSER et al. KEYSER et al. v. GLYNN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 24, 1898.) No. 652. Appeal and Cross Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. J. P. Kirlin and John Eagan, for Dashper E. Glynn & Son. John C. Avery, for W. S. Keyser & Co. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and PARLANGE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. The questions raised in this case are identical with those in Wood v. Keyser, 87 Fed. 1007, and Steamship Co. v. Keyser (just decided) 87 Fed. 1005, and for the same reasons the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

HOWISON v. ALABAMA COAL & IRON CO. (Circult Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. December 21, 1896.) No. 541. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama. Alexander T. London, for plaintiff in error. John B. Knox and S. J. Bowie, for defendant in error. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.

INTERSTATE SAV., LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SHAW et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 12, 1898.) No. 579. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. Michael G. Heintz, for plaintiff in error. E. C. Pyle, for defendants in error. No opinion. Affirmed.

JOHNSON v. CITIZENS' ST. R. CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS, IND. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 10, 1898.) No. 568. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. W. B. Sanders, for plaintiff in error. W. H. H. Miller, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed.

LOUISVILLE BANKING CO. v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE. (Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. June 4, 1898.) No. 6,562. Helm & Bruce, for complainant. Henry L. Stone, for city of Louisville. Before HARLAN, Circuit Justice, and TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges.

TAFT, Circuit Judge. This case presents the same questions as are presented in the case of Louisville Banking Co. v. Stone, infra, already disposed of, but involves the taxes for 1893 and 1894. The taxes for 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898 were involved in the prior case. The order will be that the preliminary injunction prayed for shall issue, and that the demurrers to the bills be overruled.

RES JUDICATA.

LOUISVILLE BANKING CO. v. STONE et al.

SAME v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE.

(Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. June 4, 1898.)
Nos. 6,561 and 6,562.

Helm & Bruce, for complainant.

W. S. Taylor, Atty. Gen., for Samuel H. Stone, etc., board of valuation and assessment of the state of Kentucky.

Henry L. Stone, for city of Louisville.

Before HARLAN, Circuit Justice, and TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges.

TAFT, Circuit Judge. These cases present substantially the same questions as those already passed upon in the case of Bank of Kentucky v. Same Defendants, 88 Fed. 383. The complainant company was a corporation organized after the act of 1856, but before the Hewitt act. It duly accepted the provisions of the Hewitt act. After the passage of the revenue act of November, 1892, and the adoption of the ordinance by the city of Louisville imposing a license upon the gross receipts of banks doing business within its limits, a warrant was sued out by the city of Louisville, in its police court, against the Louisville Banking Company, for a failure to pay the license. This bank filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the circuit court of Jefferson county against R. H. Thompson, the police judge, averring that the ordinance of the city of Louisville was void, as impairing an obligation of the complainant's contract with the state under the Hewitt act, and that any authority given to the city of Louisville to pass such ordinance by the revenue act of November, 1892, was likewise void, as impairing the obligation of the contract. The petition prayed that the police judge might be prohibited from taking jurisdiction of the proceeding against complainant for a violation of the ordinance. Issue was joined on this petition by the

defendant, the judge of the police court of the city of Louisville. The city of Louisville, though not a party in name, was in reality the party defendant, and appeared by counsel. Indeed, the proceedings were taken for the purpose of testing the validity of the license ordinance by agreement between the city attorney and the complainant bank. The Jefferson circuit court found the issues in favor of the defendant, and entered a decree dismissing the petition. Thereupon the complainant banking company caused an appeal to be taken in its name from the judgment of the Jefferson circuit court to the court of appeals, and to that appeal it made the city of Louisville and R. H. Thompson, the police judge, parties. In the court of appeals the cause was argued by the counsel for the city of Louisville. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the Jefferson county circuit court (31 S. W. 1013), and in its opinion held that the ordinance of the city of Louisville was void, for the reason that the Louisville Banking Company had an irrevocable contract with the commonwealth upon its due acceptance of the terms of the Hewitt act, limiting the amount of taxes to which it was subject to those imposed by that act during its corporate existence. For the reasons already stated in the case of Bank of Kentucky v. Same Defendants, we think it conclusively established, as between the parties, by a former adjudication, that the complainant had an irrevocable contract, under the Hewitt act, with the commonwealth of Kentucky, by which no greater taxes than therein provided could be imposed upon it by the commonwealth, or under Its authority. For the reasons stated in the same opinion, we think the complainant entitled to equitable relief to prevent a violation of that contract by the taxes assessed under the revenue act of 1892. An order for a preliminary injunction therefore must issue in these cases, and the demurrers to the bills must be overruled.

LOUISVILLE CITY NAT. BANK v. STONE et al. SAME v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE. (Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. June 4, 1898.) Nos. 6,565 and 6,566. Helm & Bruce, for complainant. W. S. Taylor, Atty. Gen., for Samuel H. Stone and others. Henry L. Stone, for city of Louisville. Before HARLAN, Circuit Justice, and TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges.

TAFT, Circuit Judge. These cases are controlled by the case of Bank of Commerce v. City of Louisville, 88 Fed. 398. On the principle of privity and res judicata laid down in that case, we grant the motion for a preliminary injunction, and overrule the demurrers to the bill.

LYONS v. OTERI. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 17, 1897.) No. 579. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-third rule, for failure to print record.

PERRIS IRR. DIST. v. SAVINGS & TRUST CO. OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. California. June 29, 1898.) No. 659. Wm. J. Hunsaker, for Savings & Trust Co. and others. Works & Lee, for Perris Irr. Dist.

ROSS, Circuit Judge. The cross bill in this case is substantially similar to that in the case of Alessandro Irr. Dist. v. Savings & Trust Co. of Cleveland (just decided) 88 Fed. 928. For the reasons given by the court for overruling the demurrer to the cross bill in that case, an order will be entered herein overruling the demurrer, with leave to the defendants to answer within 20 days.

RIVER MACHINE & BOILER CO. v. DUFFY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 12, 1898.) No. 576. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. O. C. Pinney, for plaintiff in error. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. AVERA. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. April 22, 1897.) No. 586. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. R. T. Dorsey and Sanders McDaniel, for plaintiff in error. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.

THIRD NAT. BANK v. STONE et al. SAME V. CITY OF LOUISVILLE. (Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. June 4, 1898.) Nos. 6,573 and 6,574. Helm & Bruce, for complainant. W. S. Taylor, Atty. Gen., for Samuel H. Stone and others. Henry L. Stone, for city of Louisville. Before HARLAN, Circuit Justice, and TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges.

TAFT, Circuit Judge. These cases present the same question which arose In the case of Louisville Banking Co. v. Same Defendants (already decided) 88 Fed. 988. The suit against the city of Louisville relates to the taxes under the revenue act of 1892 for the years 1893 and 1894, and the suit against Stone and others and the city of Louisville relates to the taxes for 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898. In the prohibition suit brought by the Third National Bank against the judge of the police court, to which the city of Louisville became a party on appeal, it was held by the court of appeals of Kentucky (31 S. W. 1013) that the Third National Bank, by its formal acceptance of the provisions of the Hewitt act, had acquired a contract right, irrevocable by the state, exempting it from all taxes except those provided under the Hewitt act, and that the license tax imposed by the city of Louisville under a statute of the state was therefore a violation of the contract, and void under the constitution of the United States. The demurrers to the bills are therefore overruled, and the motions for preliminary injunction against the defendants are granted.

THE THREE FRIENDS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 1, 1897.) No. 563. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida. No opinion. Taken to the supreme court of the United States before argument by writ of certiorari, and by that court reversed, and remanded to the district court. See 166 U. S. 1, 17 Sup. Ct. 495.

UNITED STATES ▼. BOWERSOCK et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 11, 1893.) No. 306. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. Solon O. Thatcher, for defendants in error. Dismissed for failure to print record, pursuant to the twenty-third rule.

UNITED STATES v. SALAMBIER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Oircuit.) Questions of law certified to the supreme court of the United States. See 18 Sup. Ct. 771.