페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

BOARD OF COM'RS OF JACKSON COUNTY et al. v. METROPOLITAN TRUST CO. OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al. (March 25, 1895.) No. 231. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas. W. H. Rossington, Charles Blood Smith, and E. J. Dallas, for appellants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

THE CITY OF WORCESTER Y. THOM. AS A. SCOTT. (September 6, 1894.) No. 155. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut. See 42 Fed. 913. Harrington Putnam. for appellant Walter C. Noyes, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

CLEAVELAND FENCE CO. V. INDIANAP. OLIS FENCE CO. et al. (October 11, 1891.) No. 32. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana. See 42 Fed. 911. Augustus L. Mason, for appeilant. Chester Bradford, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule

BOARD OF COM'RS OF KINGMAN COUNTY v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY. (October 22, 1894.) No. 724. George Gray, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Rossington and Chas. Blood_Smith, for defendant in error. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit denied. See 57 Fed. 149.

CHARLES COLLINS BUCK et al. STATE OF LOUISIANA. (October 22, 1894.) No. 735. In error to the supreme court of the state of Louisiana. Duane E. Fox, for plain. tiffs in error. W. Hallett Phillips, H. J. Leo vy, and M. J. Cunningham, for defendant in error, No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

WILLIAM B. BURNET V. JOHN W. JACOBUS. (November 22, 1894.) No. 706. Ap peal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. George Hoadly, for appellant. The Attorney General, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. George Hoadly, for the appellant,

CONTINENTAL INS. CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. UNION INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA. (January 17, 1895.) No. 241. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. See 51 Fed. 884. Thomas H. Hubbard, for plaintiff in error. Joseph H. Choate, for defendant in er ror. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

COUNTY COURT OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY et al. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. WILLIAM F. SHELLEY. (January 25, 1895.) No. 183. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri. See 30 Fed. 603. J. H. Overall, for plaintiffs in error. W. B. Homer, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the sixteenth rule, on motion of Mr. W. B. Homer, for the defendant in error.

COUNTY COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY v. SOCIETY FOR SAVINGS. (February 4, 1895.) No. 209. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia. Jas. F. Brown, for plaintiff in error. Henry C. Simms and F. B. Enslow, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest, by a divided court.

LEONARD DANIELS V. THEODORE S. CASE et al. (September 10, 1894.) No. 211. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Missouri. See 45 Fed. 843. S. B. Ladd, for plaintiff in error. Daniel B. Holmes, for defendants in er. ror. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

EDWARD BYRNE V. UNITED STATES. (December 17, 1894.) No. 12. Appeal from the court of claims. See 24 Ct. Cl. 251. W. J. MO berly, P. B. Thompson, and Allan Rutherford, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, pursuant to the sixteenth rule.

JAMES T. CAMPBELL et al. v. RICHARD T. CARROLL. (April 15, 1895.) No. 382. In error to the supreme court of the state of Missouri. See 19 S. W. 809. John W. Noble, for plaintiffs in error. I. B. Dennis, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed with costs, on the authority of counsel for the plaintiffs in error.

ROBERT CHARLSON v. UNITED STATES. (April 8, 1895.) No. 980. In error to the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Alabama. Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for the defendant in error.

THOMAS DEVLIN v. WILLIAM HEISE et al. (Jannary 25, 1895.) No. 187. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland. See 43 Fed. 795. Benjamin Price, for appellant. W. B. H. Dowse and John R. Bennett, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

ROBERT J. CHESTER et al. v. J. H. & B. T. HILLSMAN et al. (April 26, 1895.) No. 329. In error to the supreme court of the state of Tennessee. J. B. Heiskell, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

CINCINNATI, H. & D. R. CO. V. WIL LIAM R. McKEEN. (January 28, 1895.) No. 892. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellant. W. H. H. Miller, F. Winter, and John B. Elam, for appellee. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. See 13 Sup. Ct. 810; 01 Fed. 36.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. et al. (January 14, 1895.) No. 33. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Louisiana. E. A. O'Sullivan, for appellant. George Denegre and Walter D. Denegre, for appellees. No opinion. Decree aflirmed, with costs, for want of prosecution.

DIEFENTHAL & SALOMON V. HAM. BURG-AMERICKANISCHER PACKET. FAHRT AKTIEN GESELLSHAFT. (March 26, 1895.) No. 237. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Easterni dis. trict of Louisiana. See 46 Fed. 397. J. R. Beckwith, for appellants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

J. J. DILLARD v. E. S. MOORMAN. (November 21, 1894.) No. 96. In error to the cor poration court of Lynchburg, Va. W. W. larkin, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

HARRIET TUTTLE DRAKE et al. . RACHEL REGGEL et al. (January 28, 185.) No. 856. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. See 37 Pac. 583. J. G. Sutherland and J. W. Judd, for appellants. No opinion. Dismisseil, with costs, on authority of counsel for the appellants,

GRATIOT COUNTY V. HENRY M. AYLESWORTH. (April 22. 1895.) No. 292. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan. See 43 Fed. 350. Charles J. Willett, for plaintiff in error. Thomas S. Jerome, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest, by a divided court.

DUBUQUE & S. C. R. CO. et al. v. TIIOMAS SNELL. (January 28, 1995.) No. 201. In error to the supreme court of the state of Iowa. E. S. Bailey and Theodore Hawley, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

EASTERN OREGON GOLD MIN. CO., Limited, v. C. S. MILLER. (April 3, 1895.) No. 247. In error to the circuit court of thé United States for the district of Oregon. See 45 Fed. 315. John Mullan and Frank V. Drake, for plaintiff in error. John H. Mitchell and John M. Gearin, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the sixteenth rule, on motion of Mr. J. H. Mitchell, for the defendant in error.

GREENWOOD DISTRICT OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY v. MISSOURI & A. MINING & LUMBER CO. (January 11, 1895.) No. 147. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas. John H. Rogers, for plaintiff in error. E. D. Kenna, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

EAST LAKE LAND CO. V. ISAIAH C. BROWN. (December 17, 1894.) No. 121. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Alabama. John T. Morgan, for plaintiff in error. D. P. Bestor, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment reversed, with costs, on the authority of Chandell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102, 15 Sup. Ct. 34, and cause remanded to the said circuit court, with a direction to remand it to the city court of Birmingham, county of Jefferson, Ala.

GEORGE T. EMMONS et al. v. THEO. DORE HALTERN. (December 3, 1894.) No. 69. In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Alaska. D. A. McKnight and M. B. Gerry, for plaintiffs in error. H. B. Moulton, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, by a divided court.

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. P. JOHNSON & SON. (May 6, 1895.) No. 350. In error to Coleman county court, Tex. A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, J. W. Terry, and George R. Peck, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Judge ment reversed, with costs, on the authority of Railway Co. v. Hefley (No. 255 on the docket for the present term) 15 Sup. Ct. 802, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the court in that case.

JOEL B. ERHARDT, Collector, V. JOSEPHINE W. WUPPERMAN et al. (January 7, 1895.) No. 235. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. The Attorney General, for plaintiff in error. Edward Hartley, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Maxwell, for the plaintiff in error.

In re EUGENE V. DEBS et al. (January 17, 1895.) No. 10. C. S. Darrow, S. S. Greg. ory, and Lyman Trumbull, for petitioners. Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, as amicus curiæ. No opinion. Petition for writ of error denied.

MAYER HALFF et al. v. JOHN W. PHIL LIPS et al. (November 22, 1894.) No. 98. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas. Rufus W. Thayer, for appellants. Wm. Allen Butler, Gist Blair, and Adrian H. Joline, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

HAT SWEAT MANUFG CO. V. DAVIS SEWING MACH. CO. et al. (January 11, 1895.) No. 145. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York. See 40 Fed. 154. John R. Bennett for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

HAVEMEYER & ELDER SUGAR REFINING CO. v. DANIEL MAGONE, Col. lector. (April 8, 1895.) No. 243. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. Edwin B. Smith, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, by a divided court.

ALEXANDER FRANKENTHAL et al. v. W. SCOTT COOK. (April 15, 1895.) No. 282. In error to the United States court for the Indian Territory. W. T. Hutchings, for plaintiffs in error. Frank P. Blair, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest, by a divided court.

ALONZO GERARD v. DIEBOLD SAFE & LOCK CO. (February 4, 1895.) No. 813. Patrick O'Farrell, for appellant. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. See 61 Fed. 209.

GEORGE A. GINDELE et al. V. JOHN CORRIGAN. (January 14, 1895.) No. 157. In error to the supreme court of the state of Illinois. See 22 N. E. 516. C. E. Kremer, for plaintiffs in error. Hiram T. Gilbert, for defendaut in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

GEORGE D. HAVEN v. ARCHIBALD BORLAND. (October 10, 1894.) No. 23. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of California. See 37 Fed. 394. W. W. Cope, for plaintiff in error. G. W. Towle, Jr., for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the nineteenth rule.

GEORGE HAYES V. VALENTINE FISCHER (October 8, 1891.) No. 257. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. Livingston Gifford, for appellant. Edmund Wetmore, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

JAMES C. HAYS v. MAHLON APGAR. (May 3, 1895.) No. 332. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. D. M. Porter, for appellant. Gilbert Collins, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, each party to pay his own costs, per stipulation.

GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. V. MARY E. TEN.VAIT (May 20, 1895.) No. 1.000. Almon A. Stront, Clarence A. Hight, Henry N. Rice, and Melville Church, for plaintiff in error. Orville D. Baker, for defendant in error. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the first circuit denied. See 66 Fed. 922.

ROBERT HITCHCOCK et al. v. WANZER LAMP CO. et al. (January 24, 18:05.) No. 177. Appeal from the circuit court of the

United States for the Northern district of New York. See 45 Fed. 362. Anthony Pollok, for appellants. E. H. Brown, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

SHERMAN W. KNEVALS V. FLORIDA CENT. & P. R. CO. et al. (May 20, 1895.) No. 1,001. II. Bisbee, James E. Padgett, and Elwin Forrest, for appellant. Samuel F. Phil. lips, Frederic D. McKenney, and Julien T. Davies, for appellees. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. See 66 Fed. 224.

WILLIAM L. HUNTER V. UNITED STATES. (April 15, 1895.) No. 989. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Georgia. Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for the defendant in error.

R. G. HUSTON et al. v. LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN R. CO. et al. (January 24, 1895.) No. 300. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Tennessee. See 44 Fed. 449. J. D. Brannon and J. S. Pilcher, for appellants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for the appellants.

THOMAS F. LAWSON v. W. S. KELLY. (March 25, 1895.) No. 397. In error to the supreme court of the state of Texas. See 17 s.‘w. 717. Walter Gresham, for plaintiff in error. S. R. Fisher, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

CHARLES W. LEACH et al. v. WATERVALE MIN. CO. OF CHICAGO. (May 20, 1895.) No. 556. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. See 33 Pac. 418. A. T. Britton and A. B. Browne, for appellants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne, for the appellants.

JOHN H. LINCK V, SALT LAKE CITY et al. (January 10, 1895.) No. 882. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. See 21 Pac. 459. J. L. Rawlins, for appellees. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. L Rawlins, for the appellees.

OLEMENT T. HYDE et al. v. ANDREW HOGUE et al. (April 9, 1895.) No. 288. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia. T. B. Swann, for appellants. J. F. Brown, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

INLAND & COASTWISE TRANSP. CO. OF BALTIMORE et al. V. JOSEPH CORNELL et al. (January 15, 1895.) No. 159. Appeal from the supreme court of the District of Columbia W. Willoughby, for appellants. J. A. Hyland, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

THE IRON CHIEF. HENRY WINEMAN, JR., V. THE IRON CHIEF. (January 7, 1895.) No. 864. H. C. Wisner, for appellant Harvey D. Goulder, for appellee. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit denied. See 63 Fed. 289.

PATRICK MCALEER et al. 7. ALICE S. HILL. (April 29, 1895.) No. 331. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. See_27 Pac. 557. M. D. Brainard, Charles K. Jenner, and Louis Henry Legg, for plaintiffs in error. J. J. Darlington, for de fendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

GEORGE M. MCDONALD et al. v. UNIT. ED STATES. (December 12, 1894.) No. 849. William H. Barnum, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. See 66 Fed. 255.

CHARLES McSORLEY et al. v. ALICE S. HILL. (April 30, 1895.) No. 340. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. See 27 Pac. 552. Charles K. Jenner, M. D. Brainard, and Louis Henry Legg, for plaintiffs in error. J. J. Darlington, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

JOHN J. JOHNSON KATE VAN WYCK. (March 4, 1895.) No. 929. In error to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. William F. Mattingly, for the defendant in error.

WILLIAM H. JONES V. COMMON. WEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (November 12, 1894.) No. 78. In error to the supreme court of appeals of the state of Virginia. W. W. Larkin, for plaintiff in error. R. Taylor Scott, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

W. D. KENNER V. STEPHEN BITELY. (April 8, 1895.) No. 279. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Virginia. See 45 Fed. 133. John A. Buchanan, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

ROBERT M. KING v. W. S. JACKSON. (March 14, 1895.) No. 334. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Tennessee, Don M. Dickinson, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, the cause having abated owing to the death of the appellant, on motion of Mr. Don M. Dickinson, for the appellant.

THOMAS MADDOCK JONATHAN COXON et al. (January 16, 1895.) No. 163. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. See 45 Fed. 578. F. C. Lowthorp, for appellant. W. B. Preble, Jr., for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

J. J. MALLAN et al. v. JOHN W. BRANSFORD. (November 12, 1894.) No 79. In er ror to the supreme court of appeals of the state of Virginia. See 10 S. E. 977. W. W. Larkin, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

MICHAEL FRANCIS MALOY 1. HERMANN DUDEN. (April 22, 1895.) No. 985. W. D. Davidge, Wm. McArthur, and D. M. Neuberger, for appellant. Ronald K. Brown, for appellee. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See 63 Fed. 183.

ARTHUR KIRK V. JOHN E. DU BOIS. (October 8, 1894.) No. 259. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Pennsylvania. See 46 Fed. 486. W. Bakewell, for appellant. G. A. Jenks, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant,

JEROME F. MANNING v. IRVINE G. Me LARREN. (January 9, 1895.) No. 62. Ap peal from the circuit court of the United States

for the district of Massachusetts. Jerome F. Varning, in pro. per. Joseph B. Warner, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

for appellees. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 01 Fed. 499.

VITILAV MARCUS ». UNITED STATES. (arch 29, 18.3.) No. 692. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. See J3 Fed. 7 8. Abram J. Rose, for plaintiff in error. Sol. Gen. Conrad. for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

MARION COUNTY, TEX., V. V. N. COLER & CO. (May 6, 1995.) No. 992. A. II. Garland and R. C. Garland, for plaintiff in error. W. S. Herndon, for defendants in error. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. See 67 Fed. 60.

CHARLES A. MORGAN V. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. (March 25, 1895.) No. 276. In error to the supreine court of the state of South Dakota. Samuel Wagner, for plaintiff in error. Robert Dollard, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismisserl, with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. See 48 N. W, 314.

H. H. MYERS v. J. C. LEAGUE et al. (May 20, 1895.) No. 996. R. R. Briggs, for ap pellant. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. See 62 Fed. 654.

GEORGE MASON V. HARVEY SPAL DING. (October 24, 1894.) No. 351. Appeal from the supreme court of the District of Columbia. W. L. Cole, for appellant. W. Willoughby, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. W. Lo Cole, for the appellant.

NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. BOSTON CASH INDICATOR & RECORDER CO. (November 1, 1894.) No. 156. Ap peal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. See 45 Fed. 481. C. M. Peck and Edward Rector, for ap pellant. F. P. Fish, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant.

JOHN D. MAYFIELD et al. v. M. T. MATTA. (October 9, 1894.) No. 126. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas. E. H. Graham, for plaintiffs in error. Eugene Williams, for de fendant in error. No opinion. Judgment reversed, at cost of plaintiffs in error, per stipulation, and cause remanded to proceeded in according to law.

NICHOLAS MAZARAKOS v. UNITED STATES. (October 23, 1894.) No. 569. In error to the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois. Woodbury Blair, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule,

NATIONAL DREDGING CO. V. STATE OF ALABAMA. (March 8, 1895.) No. 522. In error to the supreme court of the state of Alabama. See 12 South. 720. Gaylord B. Clark and Anthony Higgins, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. OF MONTPELIER. VT., V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF HURON, S. D. May 20. 1995.) No. 1,005. N. T. Guernsey, for plaintiff in error. R. J. Wells, for defendant in error. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit denied. See 62 Fed. 778.

M. H. MEEKS v. CHRISTINA SCHALL et al. (April 11, 1895.) No. 291. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Alabama. J. M. Head, for appellant. No opinion, Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

NEW YORK. L. E. & W. R. CO. V. ANDREW BROWN. (.) anuary 17, 1895.). No. 202. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. Frederick B. Jennings, for plaintiff in error. F. H. Betts, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

THE MICHIGAV. B. FRANK NEALLEY et al. V. THE MICHIGAN. (December 3, 1894.) No. 817. Eugene P. Carrer and Robert H. Smith, for appellants. J. Wilson Leakin and Harrington Putnam, for appellee. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fourth circuit denied. See 63 Fed. 280, 295.

NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO. v. LAURA F. RUSII. (February 4, 1895.) No. 207. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio. W. E. Cushing and S. E. Williamson, for plaintiff in error. Thomas W. Sanderson and Myron A. Norris, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation.

CHARLES A. MILLER V. WESTERN UNION TEL, CO. (November 14, 1894.) Vo. 88. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio. Thomas McDougall, for plaintiif in error. Lawrence Maxwell. Jr., for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO, v. EUDORA V. SMITH. (April 22. 1895.) No. 961. George W. Hubbell, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiora ri to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 67 Fed. 091.

THE MONTCLAIR. THE MONTCLAIR V. EASTOS & A. R. CO. (April 22, 189.) No. 9St. George Bethune Adams and Franklin A. Wilcoy, for appellant. W. W. Goodrich, for appellee. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See 67 Fed. 156.

NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. HENRY BUSH. (October 8, 1891.) No. 28. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois. George Willard, James McNaught, and A. H. Garland, for plaintiff in error. No oninjon. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. A. H. Garland, for the plaintiff in error.

CHARLES BIORAN et al. v, J. C. HAGERMAN et al. (March 11, 1895.) No. 309. Wheeler II. Peckham, for appellants. Horatio C. Kirg, W. E. F. Deal, and Edmund Tauszky,

v.15s.C.-66

NORTHERN PAC, R. CO. V. GEORGE C. RAGSDALE. (May 1, 1995.) No. 314. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota. See 42 Fed. 383.

[ocr errors]

error.

James McNaught, A. H. Garland, and W. J. error to the supreme court of the state of Curtis, for plaintiff in error Moses E. Clapp, Washington. See 32 Pac. 1022. Edward B. for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed. Whitney. for defendants in error. No opinion. with costs, on motion of Mr. R. C. Garland, for Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion the plaintiff in error.

of Jr Edward B. Whitney, for the defendants

in error. OAKLAND ELECTRIC LIGHT & MOTOR CO. v, NATHANIEL S. KEITH. (April 9, CHARLES SCHEELE JEREMIAH 1895.) No. 287. In error to the circuit court

LORDAN. (November 12, 1891.) No. 80. Apof the United States for the Northern district of

peal from the circuit court of the United States California. M. A. Wheaton, for plaintiff in er

for the Eastern district of Texas. J. M. Bur. ror. M. M. Estee, W. W. Dudley, L. T. Mich

roughs, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, ener, and John H. Miller, for defendant in er

with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. ror. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

DAVID SCHREINER v. JULIA S. SMITH

et al. (January 16, 1895.) No. 210. Appeal PACIFIC COAST STEAMSHIP CO.

from the circuit court of the United States for UNITED STATES. (February 4, 1895.) No.

the Northern district of Illinois. See 38 Fed. 123. Appeal from the circuit court of the Unit

897. I. C. Sloan and A. R. Bushnell, for appeled States for the district of Washington. J.

lant. Jas. L. High, for appellees. No opinion. C. Haines, A. H. Holmes, and Stephen M.

Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel White, for appellant. The Attorney General,

for the appellant. for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Assistant At

HARRIET S. SELLERS v. H. C. MILLER torney General Conrad, for the appellee.

et al. (November 6, 1894.) No. 252. Appeal

from the circuit court of the United States for O. W. RASE V. JOHN W. S. FARLEY.

the Northern district of Texas. F. Chas. Home (May 6, 1895.). No. 325. In error to the court

and E. H. Graham, for appellant. No opinion. of appeals of the state of Kentucky. John H.

Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for Rogers, for plaintiff in

No opinion.

appellant. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Emert v. Missouri (No. 120 on the docket for the present term) 15 Sup. Ct. 367.

J. W. SEXTON et al. v. HENRY JONES et

al. (March 28, 1893.) No. 246. Appeal from JAMES H. RICE v. JOHN V. RICE et al. the circuit court of the United States for the (May 31, 1894.) No. 320. Appeal from the cir

district of Oregon. Frank V. Drake, for appelcuit court of the United States for the district

lants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pur of Delaware. See 36 Fed. 858. George H.

suant to the tenth rule. Bates and Edward G. Gradford, for appellant. Anthony Higgins, for appellees. No opinion.

ROLAND H. SMITH et al. V. PITTS. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

BURGH GAS CO. (October 12, 1894.) No.

42. Appeal from the circuit court of the Unit. THOMAS M. RICHARDSON et al. ed States for the Western district of Pennsylva. CLARINDA GREEN et al. (October 22, 1894.)

nia. See 42 Fed. 145. D. F. Patterson, for ap No. 823. William A. Maury and J. N. Dolph,

pellants. W. Bakewell, for appellee. No opinfor appellants. Lewis L. McArthur, for appel

ion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the lees. "No opinion. Petition for a writ of cer

tenth rule. tiorari to the United States circuit court of_appeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 61 Fed. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. V. JOSEPH R 23.

GRAHAM et al. (March 7, 1895.). No. 116.

Appeal from the circuit court of the United EDWARD S RITCHIE V. GEORGE W. States for the Southern district of California. MERRILL et al. (April 23, 1895.) No. 315. J. Hubley Ashton, for appellant. W. B. WalAppeal from the circuit court of the United lace and J. H. Call, for appellees. No opinion. States for the Southern district of New York. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr, J. Charles A. Peabody and Charles H. Drew, for Hubley Ashton, for the appellant appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. SAMUEL ME

CUTCHEON. (March 7, 1895.) No. 115. Ap ROYAL CLAY MANUF'G CO. v. CHICA. peal from the circuit court of the United States GO SEWER-PIPE & COAL CO. (May 20, for the Southern district of California. J. Hub 1895.) No. 672. In error to the circuit court ley Ashton, for appellant. W. B. Wallace, of the United States for the Northern district of George W. Merrill, and J. H. Call, for appellee. Illinois. S. S. Gregory, William M. Booth, and No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion James S. Harlan, for plaintiff in error. No opin of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for the appellant ion, Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error.

SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. V. UNITED

STATES. (October 8, 1894.) No. 35. Appeal HERMAN ROYER v. SHULTZ BELTING from the circuit court of the United States for CO. (January 29, 1895.) No. 213. In error the Northern district of California Henry to the circuit court of the United States for the Beard, Charles H. Tweed, and J. Hubley AshEastern district of Missouri. See 45 Fed. 51. ton, for appellant. The Attorney General, for J. 0. Broadhead, for plaintiff in error. Chester the United States. No opinion. Dismissed on H. Krum, for defendant in error. No opinion. motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for the appelDismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth lant. rule.

JOAN S. STANTON et al. 1. UNION ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. S. P. TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al. (April LEEP. (December 10, 1894.) No. 722. In er 30. 1895.) No. 335. Appeal from the circuit ror to the supreme court of the state of Arkan court of the United States for the District of sas. John F. Dillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for Kansas. Lucern Birdseye, for appellants. No plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the costs, on motion of Mr. John F. Dillon, for plain tenth rule. tiff in error. See 25 S. W. 75.

JOHN H. TENNANT et al. v. H. W. DUDW. P. SAYWARD et al. . THOMAS NU LEY et al. (March 4, 1895.) No. 93. In er NAN et al. (January 7, 1895.) No. 881. In ror to the circuit court of the United States for

« 이전계속 »