ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

REPUBLICAN MIN. CO. v. TYLER MIN. CO. (March 29, 1897.) No. 750. W. B. Heyburn for petitioner. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 25 C. C. A. 178, 79 Fed. 733.

RUSS v. TELFENER. (March 29, 1897.) No. 755. Joseph Wheeler and Clarence H. Miller, for petitioner. J. L. Peeler, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. See 57 Fed. 973; 8 C. C. A. 585, 60 Fed. 228; 24 C. C. A. 688, 79 Fed. 1001.

RYAN v. STAPLES. (March 8, 1897.) No. 703. C. S. Thomas, W. H. Bryant, and Frederic D. McKenney, for petitioner. Hugh Butler, opposing. No opinion. l'etition for a writ of error or a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit denied. See 23 C. C. A. 551, 78 Fed. 503.

ST. LOUIS CAR-COUPLER CO. V. SHICKLE, HARRISON & HOWARD IRON CO. (March 8, 1897.) No. 698. Chester H. Krum and Frederic D. McKenney, for petitioner. George H. Knight and Melville Church, opposing. No opinion. l'etition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit denied. See 23 C. C. A. 433, 77 Fed. 739.

SAFETY INSULATED WIRE & CABLE CO. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF BALTIMORE. (February 1, 1897.) No. 694. Wm. Pinkney Whyte, for plaintiff in error. No opin

ion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fourth circuit denied. See 20 C. C. A. 453, 74 Fed. 363.

SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. FLORIDA FRUIT EXCHANGE. (May 24, 1897.) No. 141. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. John E. Hartridge, for appellant. C. M. Cooper, for appellee. Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

The conclusions announced in the case just decided (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. Co., 17 Sup. Ct. 896) dispose of this, and for the reasons stated in that opinion the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the case remanded to the circuit court, with instructions to enter a decree for the defendant dismissing the bill without prejudice. Mr. Justice HARLAN dissented.

SCALES et al. v. DILLINGHAM et al. (November 2, 1896.) No. 79. In error to the court of civil appeals of the state of Texas. See 24 S. W. 975. J. J. Darlington, for plaintiffs in error. J. Hubley Ashton and R. S. Lovett, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

SHORT et al. v. PIERCE et al. (October 13, 1896.) No. 315. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. See 39 Pac. 474. James N. Kimball, for appellants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellants, and cause remanded to the supreme court of the state of Utah.

SHREVE et al. v. CHEESEMAN et al. (November 4, 1896.) No. 143. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado. See 37 Fed. 36; 40 Fed. 787; 16 C. C. A. 413, 69 Fed. 785. C.C. Parsons, for plaintiffs in error. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., for de fendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

No

SMITH, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al. v. RAYNOLDS. (March 15, 1897.) No. 626. Appeal from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. The Attorney General and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for appellants. Alphonso Hart, for appellee. opinion. Decree reversed, on the authority of Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 17 Sup. Ct. 225, each party to pay their own costs in this court, and cause remanded to the said court of appeals, with directions to reverse the decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and remand the cause to that court with directions to dismiss the bill, with costs, for want of proper parties.

[blocks in formation]

STALLCUP v. CITY OF TACOMA. (February 15, 1897.) No. 450. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. See 42 Pac. 541. E. O. Wolcott and John F. Shafroth, for plaintiff in error. B. S. Grosscup, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Newport Light Co. v. City of Newport, 151 U. S. 528, 14 Sup. Ct. 429; Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338, 10 Sup. Ct. 554; Marchant v. Railroad Co., 153 U. S. 380, 14 Sup. Ct. 894; Leeper v. Tex

as, 139 U. S. 462, 11 Sup. Ct. 577; Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 16 Sup. Ct. 344; Eustis v. Polles, 150 U. S. 361, 14 Sup. Ct. 131; and other cases.

STANDLEY et al. v. ROBERTS, Sheriff. (October 28, 1896.) No. 81. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. G. B. Denison, for appellants. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

STATE OF INDIANA v. STATE OF
KENTUCKY.
(May 24, 1897.)
No. 2.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN STATES.

This was an original suit, brought by the state of Indiana against the state of Kentucky for the purpose of determining the boundary line between them. The proceedings heretofore had in the cause are shown in the reports contained in 10 Sup. Ct. 1051, 136 U. S. 479; 16 Sup. Ct. 320, 159 U. S. 275; and 16 Sup. Ct. 1162, 163 U. S. 520.

W. A. Ketcham, for complainant. R. N. Cunningham, for defendant.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER announced the decree of the court.

This cause coming on to be heard on the report of Amos Stickney, Gustavus V. Menzies, and Gaston M. Alves, commissioners, herein before appointed to ascertain and run the boundary line between the states of Kentucky and Indiana, and continued by the decree of this court herein entered May 18, 1896, for the purpose of permanently marking said line as set forth in their then report, which was approved by this court on that date, and to make report thereon to this court, which report now made is as follows:

"To the Honorable Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:

"The undersigned commissioners, appointed by this honorable court in the above-entitled cause, respectfully report: That pursuant to the order made in said cause at the October term, 1895, continuing the commission for the purpose therein stated, they gave notice for bids for the stone monuments and iron posts and setting of the same to mark the boundary line as established by the order of this court. The commission met at the custom house in the city of Evansville, Indiana, on the 9th day of April, 1897, and received and opened the bids for the above-named material and work. The casting of the iron posts was let to the Heilman Machine Works, of Evansville, Indiana, for the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars ($120.00), it being the lowest and best bidder; the making and setting in place of the three stone monuments was let to F. J. Scholz & Son, of Evansville, Indiana, for the sum of two hundred and forty-five dollars ($245.00), said firm being the lowest and best bidder; the setting of the sixteen iron posts was let to Eb. Cross, of Evansville, Indiana, for the sum of one hundred and ninety-seven dollars ($197.00), he being the lowest and best bidder. That contracts were made with each of said parties, and bonds taken for the honest and faithful performance of the contracts. That on the 7th day of May, 1897, after the engineer in charge of the work had reported that the monuments had been erected, and posts placed in position, in conformity to the order of the court, and the location on the established line of each monument and post had been verified by accurate observations and measurements, the commission, accompanied by the engineer, visited the line, and by observations and measurements satisfied themselves of the accuracy of locations, and

that the work of making and placing the boundary marks had been well done, and in accordance with the order of the court.

"We herewith attach, as a part of this report, the report of the engineer in charge of the works. Also a statement of expenses incurred and compensation of the commissioners since making the former report, which we recommend be adjudged as cost equally against the parties to the suit. We further recommend that upon the confirmation of this report a certified copy of the same be sent to the governor of the state of Indiana, and one to the governor of the commonwealth of Kentucky.

"Your commissioners therefore pray that this report be confirmed, and they be discharged. "Amos Stickney, "Gustavus V. Menzies, "Gaston M. Alves,

"Commissioners."

"To the Honorable Commissioners on the Indiana and Kentucky Boundary Line at Green River Island:

"Gentlemen: In accordance with your instructions, I made plans and detailed drawings for stone and iron monuments, to permanently mark the line between the states of Indiana and Kentucky, at Green River Island, to replace the cedar posts as placed on it during the winter of 1896. Upon your approval of the plans and letting the contracts for the monuments, I proceeded to verify the line and angles to satisfy myself that no post had been moved. On the completion of the monuments I superintended the work of setting them.

"The three monuments of stone are of sawed Green River limestone, 18 inches in cross section and 6 feet in length. At the starting point on the section line between sections 14 and 15, town 7 south, range 10 west, the monument has the word 'Initial' on the side next section 14, on the north side the word 'Indiana,' and on the south side the word 'Kentucky,' cut horizontally in the stone near the top, in Egyptian letters.

"Near the midway distance along the line, and near the line between sections 8 and 9, the second stone monument is set, with the word 'Indiana' cut on the northerly side, and the word 'Kentucky' cut on the southerly side, similar to the first monument.

"At the terminal point going down the Ohio river, the third stone monument is placed. The word 'Indiana' is cut on the northeasterly side, the word 'Kentucky' on the southwesterly side, and the word "Terminal' on the northwesterly side, in the same style as the first monument.

On

"For each of these monuments there was an excavation made six feet square and four feet deep, in the bottom of which one foot in thickness of concrete was placed and well rammed. this the stone was placed on end, and filled around with concrete, well rammed to the surface of the ground, leaving three feet of the stone above the ground.

"At each of the 16 intermediate angles iron monuments were placed. These are of cast iron, round, six inches in cross section, the top closed and a square pedestal cast on the lower end, the casting being three-quarters of an inch thick. The word 'Indiana' on the one side and the word 'Kentucky' on the other were cast in raised letters, the words reading downward.

"An excavation was made for each of these three feet square and three and one-half feet deep, and six inches of concrete well rammed in the bottom, on which the post was set, and filled around with concrete to the surface of the ground, leaving three feet above ground. In four places where silt had accumulated rapidly on account of a depression in the ground, the excavation was made more shallow, but in each case the concrete bed is three and one-half feet in depth, and the earth banked around it to protect the concrete.

"Great care was taken in having centers cut in each monument, and placing them on the ex

act angle point on the line as originally located. "Every monument was set and completed under my own personal supervision.

"Respectfully submitted, "C. Č. Genung, Ć. E. "Evansville, Ind., May 5th, 1897."

Statement of Expenses Incurred and Compensation of the Commissioners Since Making Former Report.

C. C. Genung. Civil Engineer.Services of himself and assist ants, making plans, specifications, writing contracts, verifying lines, angles, and points on boundary line, laying out and superintending work, expenses of teams for self and commissioners at various times for supervising and inspecting work $ 195 50 Keller Printing Company, for printing and typewriting. Heilman Machine Works, 16

Amos Stickney, com

of commission.....

Expenses of Gustavus V.

12 50

120 00

iron posts

[blocks in formation]

Expenses of

Lt. Col.

missioner

$ 34 50

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Menzies, commissioner Services as member of commission.....

Expenses of Gaston M.

Alves, commissioner.. Services as member of commission.....

[blocks in formation]

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that their said report this day filed be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the compensation of the commissioners and expenses attendant upon the discharge of their duties in permanently marking said line as directed by the decrce of May 18, 1896, be, and the same are hereby, allowed at the sum of $1,122, in accordance with their report, and that said charges and expenses and the costs of this suit to be taxed be equally divided between the parties hereto.

And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the clerk of this court do forthwith transmit to the chief magistrates of the states of Kentucky and Indiana copies of this decree, duly authenticated, under the seal of this court.

STATE OF LOUISIANA ex rel. CITIZENS BANK OF LOUISIANA v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS FOR PARISH OF ORLEANS et al. (May 24, 1897.) No. 483. In error to the supreme court of the state of Louisiana. Wm. A. Maury, for plaintiff in error. M. J. Cunningham, for defendants in error state tax collectors and assessors. Saml. L. Gilmore, for defendant in error city of New Orleans.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The reasons given for our decree in the case of City of New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 905, are decisive of this cause, which comes on error to the supreme court of the state of Louisiana. The controversy presented to that court was whether property bought in by the Citizens' Bank under foreclosure of its stock and stock oan mortgages became a part of its capital,

and as such was not liable to taxation. The supreme court of Louisiana held, conceding, arguendo, the nontaxability of the capital, that the real estate so purchased was taxable. State v. Board of Assessors, 48 La. Ann. 35, 18 South. 753.

The theory on which the writ of error was prosecuted is that this decision of the supreme court of the state of Louisiana constitutes an impairment of the obligations of the contract arising from the charter of the bank.

As, in the case just decided, we have held that the property bought in by the bank under foreclosure of its stock mortgages was not the capital of the bank, and therefore was not covered by the estoppel of the thing adjudged, the conclusions there expressed are in all respects applicable and decisive of the controversy here presented, and the judgment of the supreme court of Louisiana is therefore affirmed.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. PORT ROYAL & A. RY. CO. (January 13, 1897.) No. 323. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina. A. T. Smythe, William A. Barber, and Alex. C. King, for appellant. Henry A. M. Smith and H. C. Cunningham, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, costs to be paid by the appellee per stipulation.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. PORT ROYAL & A. RY. CO. et al. (January 13, 1897.) No. 292. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina. Wm. A. Barber, for appellant. Henry A. M. Smith, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, costs to be paid by appellees per stipulation.

STATE OF WASHINGTON v. COOVERT. (Eight cases.) (November 9, 1896.) Nos. 9097. Appeals from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Washington. W. C. Jones, for appellant. Joseph H. Choate and C. E. S. Wood, for appellee. No opinion. Orders reversed, with costs, and causes remanded, with directions to discharge the writs and dismiss the petitions, on the authority of Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 6 Sup. Ct. 734; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231242, 16 Sup. Ct. 297, and cases cited.

STATE OF WISCONSIN ex rel. BALTZELL v. SIEBECKER, Circuit Judge. (November 16. 1896.) No. 8. In error to the supreme court of the state of Wisconsin. A. L. Sanborn, for plaintiff in error. H. W. Chynoweth and Charles E. Buell, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Wurts v. Hoag land, 114 U. S. 606, 5 Sup. Ct. 1086, and Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 56.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. GAY et al. (May 10, 1897.) No. 298. In error to the supreme court of the state of Texas. See 26 S. W. 599, 30 S. W. 543. John F. Dillon, W. S. Pierce, and D. D. Duncan, for plaintiff in error. W. Hallett Phillips, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Railway Co. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81, 14 Sup. Ct. 250; Railway Co. v. Anderson, 149 U. S. 237, 13 Sup. Ct. 843; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 15 Sup. Ct. 777; Railway Co. v. Bloom's Adm'x, 164 U. S. 636, 17 Sup. Ct. 216.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. NOLAN. (November 3, 1896.) No. 137. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. See 11 C. C. A. 202, 62 Fed. 552. John F. Dillon and W. S. Pierce, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

[blocks in formation]

THE TITAN v. LEGG et al. (April 30, 1897.) No. 787. Henry W. Goodrich and John A. Deady, for petitioner. Henry Galbraith Ward, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See 24 C. C. A. 464, 79 Fed. 117.

THOMAS v. LANE et al. (October 29, 1896.) No. 99. In error to the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. See 37 Pac. 470. Rochester Ford, for plaintiff in error. Frank W. Hackett, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

TUCKER v. McKAY. (October 19, 1896.) No. 20. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. See 29 Fed. 295. Charles Allen Taber, for appellant. James J. Myers, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdic tion, on the authority of Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 16 Sup. Ct. 490.

UHTHOFF v. UNITED STATES. (October 23, 1896.) No. 486. In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland. William Colton, for plaintiff _in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

[blocks in formation]

States. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for appellant.

UNITED STATES ▼. JARAMILLO. (February 1, 1897.) No. 185. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General and Matt G. Reynolds, for the United States. N. L. Jeffries and George Hill Howard, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for appellant.

UNITED STATES ▼. KING. (November 30, 1896.) No. 109. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina. See 59 Fed. 9. The Attorney General and Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge, for the United States. J. P. Kennedy Bryan, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed on the authority of Chase v. U. S., 155 U. S. 489, 15 Sup. Ct. 174.

UNITED STATES ▼. MARTINEZ et al. (February 1, 1897.) No. 132. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for appellant.

UNITED STATES et al. v. OTERO. (April 8, 1897.) No. 272. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Matt G. Reynolds, for appellants.

UNITED STATES v. PEREW et al. (February 1, 1897.) No. 116. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for appellant.

UNITED STATES v. REYMOND et al. (March 15, 1897.) No. 706. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General, for the United States. S. B. Newcomb, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for ap pellant.

UNITED STATES Y. ROETTINGER. (October 14, 1896.) No. 19. Appeal from the court of claims. See 26 Ct. Cl. 391. The Attorney General, Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge, and Charles C. Binney, for the United States. J. W. Warrington, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

UNITED STATES v. UNION PAC. RY. CO. et al. SAME v. ST. PAUL & S. C. R. CO. et al. (February 15, 1897.) Nos. 319, 322. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. 15 C. C. A. 121, 122, 67 Fed. 973, 974. Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. Thomas Wilson, for appellees St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. et al. John F. Dillon, for appellees Union Pac. Ry. Co. et al.

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts in these cases are different from the facts in the case just decided. U. S. v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 17 Sup. Ct. 368. But the principles announced in the foregoing opinion are conclusive of the rights of the parties herein, and so, without any statement in detail of the facts, and for the reasons given in that opin ion, the decrees in these cases will be affirmed.

UNITED STATES ex rel. LONG v. LOCHREN, Commissioner of Pensions. (October 26, 1896.) No. 333. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. Thomas S. Hopkins, Fred A. Baker, and James C. Carter, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General,

Sol. Gen. Conrad, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, without costs to either party, on au thority of U. S. v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, and other cases.

UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. ASS'N OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. HODGKIN. (January 11, 1897.) No. 220. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. John B. Larner, for plaintiff in error. Joseph J. Darlington and Irwin B. Linton, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

VON SCHMIDT v. BOWERS. (April 5, 1897.) No. 754. M. A. Wheaton and F. J. Kierce, for petitioner. John H. Miller, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 80 Fed. 121.

WALKER et al. v. KEENAN et al. (October 19, 1896.) No. 533. Ed. Kenna, for appellants. A. W. Green and H. S. Robbins, for appellees. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. Mr. Justice Gray took no part in the consideration of this application. See 19 C. C. A. 6CS, 73 Fed. 755.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. BATES. (August 5, 1896.) No. 55. In error to the supreme court of the state of Georgia. See 20 S. E. 639. John F. Dillon, George H. Fearons, and Rush Taggart, for plaintiff in error. Frank A. Arnold, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. DAILY, Auditor. (December 7, 1896.) No. 448. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana. S. O. Pickens, Willard Brown, and Charles W. Wells, for appellant. William A. Ketcham, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. HOWELL. (March 29, 1897.) No. 251. In error to the supreme court of the state of Georgia. See 22 S. E. 286. J. Hubley Ashton and George H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. KEMP. (April 8, 1897.) No. 290. In error to the supreme court of the state of Nebraska. See 62 N. W. 451. J. Hubley Ashton and George H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. et al. v. KNOX. (July 17, 1896.) No. 501. In error to the circuit court of Union county, state of Mississippi. J. Hubley Ashton and George A. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. Charles B. How

ry, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. MICHELSON. (November 2, 1896.) No. 121. In error to the supreme court of the state of Georgia. See 21 S. E. 169. J. Hubley Ashton and George H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. Samuel B. Adams, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. NORMAN, Auditor of Public Accounts. (December 2, 1896.) No. 614. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. See 77 Fed. 13. George H. Fearons, Charles W. Wells, Willard Brown, and Lawrence Maxwell, for appellant. W. J. Hendrick, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. POE, Auditor of State of Ohio, et al. (December 10, 1896.) No. 352. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. See 16 C. C. A. 683, 69 Fed. 557. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Willard Brown, and Charles W. Wells, for appellant. J. K. Richards, Thomas McDougall, and F. S. Monnett, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellants.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. POE, Auditor of State of Ohio. (December 10, 1896.) No. 401. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Charles W. Wells, and Willard Brown, for appellant. F. S. Monnett, J. K. Richards, and Thomas McDougall, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellant.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. POE, Auditor of State of Ohio. (December 10, 1896.) No. 405. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Charles W. Wells, and Willard Brown, for appellant. F. S. Monnett, J. K. Richards, and Thomas McDougall, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellant.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. RAWLINGS. (December 14, 1896.) No. 259. In error to the supreme court of the state of Georgia. See 23 S. E. 416. J. Hubley Ashton and George H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS et al. (April 8, 1897.) No. 288. See 18 S. E. 389. In error to the supreme court of the state of North Carolina. John F. Dillon, Rush Taggart, George H. Fearons, and Robert Stiles, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. TYLER. (October 19, 1896.) No. 57. In error to the supreme court of appeals of the state of Virginia. See 18 S. E. 280. J. Hubley Ashton, John F. Dillon, George H. Fearons, and Rush Taggart, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

WHEELAN v. BRICKELL. (March 15, 1897.) No. 346. In error to the supreme court of the state of California. See 38 Pac. 85. Charles N. Fox, for plaintiff in error. S. W. Holladay and E. Burke Holladay, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Califor nia v. Holladay, 159 U. S. 415, 417, 16 Sup. Ct. 53; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 227, 16 Sup. Ct. 1023, and cases cited.

WHITEHILL v. MEEARS et al. (March 30, 1897.) No. 260. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. Harrington

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »