페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

to dismiss the writ of error is sustained. Writ ion. Petition for a writ of certiorarl to the of error dismissed.

United States circuit court of appeals for the

l'ourth circuit denied. See 20 C. C. A. 453, 74 PRICE et al. v. CIISU. (October 13, 1896.)

Fed. 303.
No. 2. In error to the supreme court of the
state of Arkansas. See 1.S. W. SS3, 1031.
John F. L'illon, for plaintiffs in error. S. W.

SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. FLORIDA Williams, for defendant in error. No opinion.

FRUIT EXCHANGE. (May 24, 1997.) No. Disalissed, with costs, pursuant to the tentb

141. Appeal from the United States circuit court rule.

of appeals for the Fifth circuit. John E. Hartridge, for appellant. C. M. Cooper, for appellee.

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion RAYMOND V. LANGE. (February 15, of the court. 1897.) No. 716. Appeal from the circuit court The conclusions announced in the case just deof the United States for the Eastern district cided (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cinof Louisiana. lo opinion. Dorketed and dis cinnati, N. 0. & T. Ry. Co., 17 Sup. Ct. 896) dismisseil, with costs, on motion of Mr. William A. pose of this, and for the reasons stated in that Maury, for appellee.

opinion the judgment of the court of appeals is

reversed, and the case remanded to the circuit RECTOR v. FITZGERALD. (January 19,

court, with instructions to enter a decree for the 1897.) No. 101. Appeal from the United

defendant dismissing the bill without prejudice. States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth Mr. Justice HARLAN dissented. circuit. See 8 C. C. A. 277, 59 Fed, 808. U. M. Rose and G. B. Rose, for appellant. Sam

SCALES et al. v. DILLINGHAM et al. (NoW. Williams, for appellee. No opinion. Dis

vember 2, 1896.) No. 79. In error to the court missed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

of civil appeals of the state of Texas. See 24

S. W.975. J. J. Darlington, for plaintiffs in erRELIANCE MARINE INS. CO., Limited, ror. J. Hubley Ashton and R. S. Lovett, for V. NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S. S. CO. et defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, al. (January 18, 1897.) No. 081. W. W. with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. McFarla ud, foi appellant. Harrington Putnam, for appellees. No opinion. Petition for a writ SHORT et al. v. PIERCE et al. (October 13, of certiorari to the United States circuit court 1896.) No. 315. Appeal from the supreme court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See of the territory of Utah. See 39 Pac. 474. 23 C. C. A. 183, 77 Fed. 317.

James N. Kimball, for appellants. No opinion.

Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel ROCKWELL V. FARMERS' NAT. BANK for appellants, and cause remanded to the suOF LONGMONT. (October 30, 1896.) No.

preme court of the state of Utah. 117. In error to the court of appeals of the state of Colorado. See 36 Pac. 905. L. C. SHREVE et al. v. CHEESEMAN et al. (No Rockwell, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. vember 4, 1896.) No. 143. In error to the cirDismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth cuit court of the United States for the district of rule.

Colorado. See 37 Fed. 36; 40 Fed. 787; 16 C.
C. A. 413, 69 Fed. 785. C.C. Parsons, for plain-

tiffs in error. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., for de REPUBLICAN MIN. CO. v. TYLER MIN.

fendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with CO. (March 29, 1897.) No. 750. W. B.

costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Heyburn for petitioner. No opinion. Petition for a wr of certiorari to the United States cir SMITH, Secretary of the Department of the cuit court of appeals for the Ninih circuit de Interior, et al. v. RAYNOLDS. (March 15, aied. See 25 C. C. A. 178, 79 Fed. 733.

1897.) No. 626. Appeal from the court of ap.

peals of the District of Columbia. The AttorRUSS V. TELFEVER. (March 29, 1897.) ney General and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for No. 755. Joseph Wheeler and Clarence H.

appellants. Alphonso Hart, for appellee. No Miller, for petitioner. J. L. Peeler, opposing. opinion. Decree reversed, on the authority of No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiora ri to Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 17 Sup. Ct. the United States circuit court of appeals for the 225, each party to pay their own costs in this Fifth circuit denied. See 57 Fed. 973; 8 C. C. court, and cause remanded to the said court of A. 585, 00 Fed. 228; 24 C. C. A. 688, 79 Fed. appeals, with directions to reverse the decree of 1001.

the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and reinand the cause to that court with direc

tions to dismiss the bill, with costs, for want of RYAN V. STAPLES. (March 8, 1897.) No.

proper parties. 703. C. S. Thomas, W. H. Bryant, and Frederic D. McKenney, for petitioner. Hugh ButJer, opposing. No opinion. l'etition for a writ SPRINGER LITHOGRAPHING CO. of error or a writ of certioruri to the United FALK. (August 4, 1896.) No. 107. In error States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth to the United States circuit court of appeals for circuit denied. See 23 C. C. A. 551, 78 Fed. the Second circuit. See 8 C. C. A. 224, 59 Fed. 503.

707. John W. Boothby, for plaintiff in error, Benno Lewinson, for defendant in error. No

opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twentyLOUIS CAR-COUPLER CO. v. eighth rule. SITICKLE, HARRISON & HOWARD IRON CO. (arch S, 1897.) No. 098. Chester H. Krum and Frederic D. McKenney, for petition STALLCUP v. CITY OF TACOMA. (Feb

George H. Knight and Melville Church, ruary 15, 1897.) No. 450. In error to the suopposing. No opinion. L'etition for a writ of preme court of the state of Washington. See certiorri to the United States circuit court of 42 Pac. 541. E. O. Wolcott and John F. Shafappeals for the Eighth circuit denied. See 23 roth, for plaintiff in error. B. S. Grosscup, for C. C. A. 133, 77 Fed. 739.

defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for

the want of jurisiliction, on the authority of NewSAFETY INSULATED WIRE & CABLE port Light Co. v. City of Newport, 151 U. S. 528, CO. v. JLIYOR. ETC., OF CITY OF BALTI 14 Sup. Ct. 429; Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. MORE. (February 1, 1997.) No. 094. Wm. 338, 10 Sup. Ct. 554; Marchant v. Railroad Co., l'inking Whyte, for plaintiff in error. No opin- ' 153 U. S. 380, 14 Sup. Ct. 894; Leeper v. Tess

ST.

er.

as, 139 U. S. 462, 11 Sup. Ct. 577; Iowa Cent. that the work of making and placing the boundary Rý. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. $. 389, 16 Sup. Ct. 314; marks had been well done, and in accordance Eustis v. Polles, 130 U. S. 301, 14 Sup. Ct. 131; with the order of the court. and other cases.

“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 comSTANDLEY et al. v. ROBERTS, Sheriff. pensation of the commissioners since making (October 29. 1896.) No. 81. Appeal from the the former report, which we recommend be adUnited States circuit court of Appeals for the judged as cost equally against the parties to the Eighth circuit. G. B. Denison, for appellants. suit. We further recommend that upon the conNo opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to firmation of this report a certified copy of the the tenth rule.

sa me be sent to the governor of the state of Indiana, and one to the governor of the common

wealth of Kentucky. STATE OF INDIANA V. STATE OF "Your commissioners therefore pray that this KENTUCKY.

report be confirmed, and they be discharged.

"Amos Stickney, (May 24, 1897.)

“Gustavus V. Menzies, No. 2.

"Gaston M. Alves,

Commissioners." BOUNDARY BETWEEN STATES. This was an original suit, brought by the state "To the Honorable Commissioners on the Indiana of Indiana against the state of Kentucky for the ard Kentucky Boundary Line at Green River purpose of determining the boundary line between Island: them. The proceedings beretofore had in the

“Gentlemen: In accordance with your instruccause are shown in the reports contained in 10 Sup. Ct. 1051, 136 U. S. 479; 16 Sup. Ct. 320,

tions, I made plans and detailed drawings for 159 U. S. 275; and 16 Sup. Ct. 1162, 163 U. S.

stone and iron monuments, to permanently mark 520.

the line between the states of Indiana and Ken

tucky, at Green River Island, to replace the W. A. Ketcham, for crmplainant. R. N. Cun cedar posts as placed on it during the winter of ningham, for defendant.

1896. Upon your approval of the plans and let.

ting the contracts for the monuments, I proceed. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER announced the de ed to verify the line and angles to satisfy myself cree of the court.

that no post had been moved. On the completion This cause coming on to be heard on the re of the monuments I superintended the work of port of Amos Stickney, Gustavus V. Menzies, setting them. and Gaston M. Alves, commissioners, hereinbe "The three monuments of stone are of sawed fore appointed to ascertain and run the boundary

Green River limestone, 18 inches in cross secline between the states of Kentucky and Indiana,

tion and 6 feet in length. At the starting point and continued by the decree of this court herein on the section line between sections 14 and 15, entered Jay 18, 1896, for the purpose of perma

town 7 south, range 10 west, the monument has nently markiug said line as set forth in their then the word 'Initial' on the side next section 14, report, which was approved by this court on that on the north side the word 'Indiana,' and on the date, and to make report thereon to this court, south side the word 'Kentucky,' cut horizontally which report now made is as follows:

in the stone near the top, in Egyptian letters. "To the Honorable Melville W. Fuller, Chief

"Near the midway distance along the line, and

near the line between sections 8 and 9, the second Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

stone monument is set, with the word 'Indiana' States:

cut on the northerly side, and the word 'Ken"The undersigned commissioners, appointed by tucky' cut on the southerly side, similar to the this honorable court in the above-entitled cause, first monument. respectfully report: That pursuant to the order “At the terminal point going down the Ohio made in said cause at the October term, 1895, river, the third stone monument is placed. The continuing the commission for the purpose there word 'Indiana' is cut on the northeasterly side, in siated, they gave notice for bids for the stone the word 'Kentucky' on the southwesterly side, monuments and iron posts and setting of the and the word Terminal on the northwesterly sa me to mark the boundary line as established side, in the same style as the first monument. by the order of this court. The commission met “For each of these monuments there was an at the custom house in the city of Evansville, excavation made six feet square and four feet Indiana, on the 9th day of April, 1897, and re deep, in the bottom of which one foot in thickness ceived and opened the bids for the above-named of concrete was placed and well rammed. On material and work. The casting of the iron this the stone was placed on end, and filled around posts was let to the Heilman Machine Works, of with concrete, well rammed to the surface of the Evansville, Indiana, for the sum of one hundred ground, leaving three feet of the stone above the and twenty dollars ($120.00), it being the low ground. est and best bidder; the making and setting in "At each of the 16 intermediate angles iron place of the three stone monuments was let to monuments were placed. These are of cast iron, F. J. Scholz & Son, of Evansville, Indiana, for round, six inches in cross section, the top closed the sum of two hundred and forty-five dollars and a square pedestal cast on the lower end, the ($245.00), said firm being the lowest and best casting being three-quarters of an inch thick. bidder; the setting of the sixteen iron posts was The word 'Indiana' on the one side and the word let to Eb. Cross, of Evansville, Indiana, for the 'Kentucky' on the other were cast in raised let. sum of one hundred and ninety-seven dollars ters, the words reading downward. ($197.00), he being the lowest and best bidder. “An excavation was made for each of these That contracts were made with each of said three feet square and three and one-half feet deep, parties, and bonds taken for the honest and faith and six inches of concrete well rammed in the ful performance of the contracts. That on the bottom, on which the post was set, and filled 7th day of May. 1897, after the engineer in around with concrete to the surface of the ground, charge of the work had reported that the monu leaving three feet above ground. In four places ments had been erected, and posts placed in posi where silt had accumulated rapidly on account tion, in conformity to the order of the court, and of a depression in the ground, the excavation was the location on the established line of each monu made more shallow, but in each case the conment and post had been verified by accurate ob crete bed is three and one-half feet in depth, and servations and measurements, the commission, the earth banked around it to protect the conaccompanied by the engineer, visited the line. crete. and by observations and measurements satisfied "Great care was taken in having centers cut themselves of the accuracy of locations, and in each monument, and placing them on the ex.

and as such was not liable to taxation. The supreme court of Louisiana held, conceding, ar guendo, the nontaxability of the capital, that the real estate 80 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 corered 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 afirmed.

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, C. E. “Evansville, Ind., May 5th, 1897." Statement of Expenses Incurred and Compensation of the Commissioners Since Mak

ing Former Report. C. C. Genung. Civil Engineer.

Services of himself and assist.
ants, making plans, specifica-
tions, writing contracts, verify-
ing lines, anglesand points
on boundary line, laying out and
superintending work, expenses
of teams for self and commis-
sioners at various times for su-

pervising and inspecting work $ 195 50 Keller Printing Company, for printing and typewriting.

12 50 Heilman Machine Works, 16 iron posts

120 00 F. J. Scholz & Son, 3 stone monuments, placed

245 00 Eb. Cross, placing 16 iron posts in concrete

197 00 Expenses of Lt. Col.

Amos Stickney, com-
missioner

$ 34 50
Services as member
of commission..... 100 00

134 50 Expenses of Gustavus V. Menzies, commissioner 10 00 Services as member of commission..... 100 00

110 00 Expenses of Gaston M. Alves, commissioner.. 7 50 Services as member of commission..... 100 00

107 50

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 1. 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 1. 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 ap pellees per stipulation.

STATE OF WASHINGTON v. COOVERT. (Eight cases.) (November 9, 1896.) Nos. 90 97. 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 re manded, 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. BALT. ZELL V. SIEBECKER, Circuit Judge. No vember 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.

Total

$1,122 00 It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that their said report this day filed be, and the same is bereby, a tlirmed.

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 decree 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.

error.

STATE OF LOUISIANA ex rel. CITIZENS' BANK OF LOUISIANA V. BOARD OF ASSESSORS FOR PARISH OF ORLEANS et al. (Hay 24, 1897.) No. 483. In error to the supreme court of the state of Louisiana. Ilm. 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' Bunk 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 whether property bought in by the Citizens' Bank under foreclosure of its stock and stock Dan mortgages became a part of its capital,

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

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. 230; Railway Co. v. Anderson, 149 U. S. 237, 13 Sup. Ct. 813; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 15 Sup. Ct. 777; Railway Co. v. Bloom's Adm's, 164 U. S. 636, 17 Sup. Ct. 216.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. NOLAN. (orember 3, 1896.) No. 137. In error to the Unit. ed 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 plain. tiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

Was

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

UNITED STATES v. JARAMILLO. (Feb ruary 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.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. V. SCOVILLE. (December 9, 1896.) No. 136. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. See 10 C. a A. 479, 62 Fed. 730. John F. Dillon, Winslow S. Pierce, and D. D. Duncan, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. John F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error.

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.

UNITED STATES V. 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 ap pellee. No opinion. Dismissed on the authority of Chase . U. S., 155 U. S. 489, 15 Sup. Ct. 174.

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.

UNITED STATES V. 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.

ULMAN V. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF BALTIMORE et al. (January 25, 1897.) No. 174. In error to the court of appeals of the state of Maryland. See 30 Atl. 43. M. R. Walter, for plaintiff in error. Thomas G. Hayes, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 8 Sup. Ct. 921.

[ocr errors]

UNION PAC. RY. CO. V. NOVAK. (January 4, 1897.) No. 157. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals_for the Ninth circuit. See 9 C. C. A. 629, 61 Fed. 573. John F. Dillon and J. M. Wilson, for plaintiff in error. 0. B. Hallam and S. C. Hyde, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of J. M. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, R. 1. & P. R. CO. (December 21, 1896.) No. 69. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois. The Attorney General and Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. Robert Mather, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment aflirmed by a divided court.

UNITED STATES ROETTINGER. (October 14, 1896.) No. 19. Appeal from the court of claims. See 26 Ct. Ci. 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 PAO. 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 aflirmed.

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,

UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ et al. (February 1, 1897.) No. 115. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed, on notion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for the appellant.

UNITED STATES v. GURULE et al. (Februray 1, 1897.) No. 183. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General and Matt G. Reynolds, for the United

Sol. Gen. Conrad, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whit WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. NORney, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dis MAN, Auditor of Public Accounts. (December missed, without costs to either party, on au. 2, 1896.) No. 614. Appeal from the circuit thority of U. S. v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 601, and court of the United States for the district of otbér cases.

Kentucky. See 77 Fed. 13. George H. Fear: ons, Charles W. Wells, Willard Brown, and

Lawrence Maxwell, for appellant. W.J. HendUNITED STATES MUT. ACC. ISSY OF rick, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with CITY OF NEW YORK ». HODGKIN. (Jan costs, per stipulation. uary 11, 1897.) No. 220. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. POE, An. John B. Larner, for plaintiff in error. Joseph ditor of State of Ohio, et al. (December 10, J. Darlington and Irwin B. Linton, for defend 1896.) No. 352. Appeal from the United States ant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stip circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. ulation.

See 16 C. C. A. 683, 69 Fed. 557. Lawrence
Maxwell, Jr., Willard Brown, and Charles W.

Wells, for appellant. J. K. Richards, Thomas VON SCHMIDT V. BOWERS. (April 5, McDougall, and F. S. Monnett, for appellees. 1897.) No. 754. M. A. Wheaton and F. J. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion Kierce, for petitioner. John H. Miller, oppos of Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellants. ing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of ap WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. POE, Aupeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 80 Fed. ditor of State of Ohio. (December 10, 1896.) 121.

No. 401. Appeal from the circuit court of the
United States for the Southern district of Ohio.

Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Charles W. Wells, and WALKER et al. v. KEENAN et al. (Octo Willard Brown, for appellant. F. S. Monnett, ber 19, 1896.) No. 533. Ed. Kenna, for appel J. K. Richards, and Thomas McDougall, for lants. A. W. Green and H. S. Robbins, for ap- appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pellees. No opinion. Petition for a writ of on motion of Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for certiorari to the United States circuit court of appellant. appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. Mr. Justice Gray took no part in the consideration of tliis application. See 19 C. C. A. 668, 73 WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. POE, AuFed. 755.

ditor of State of Ohio. (December 10, 1896.) No. 405. Appeal from the circuit court of the

United States for the Southern district of Ohio. WESTERN UNION TEL, CO. Y, BATES. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Charles W. Wells, and (August 5, 1996.) No. 55. In error

to the Willard Brown, for appellant. F. S. Monnett, supreme court of the state of Georgia. See 20 J. K. Richards, and Thomas McDougall, for S. E. 639. John F. Dillon, George H. Fearons, appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, and Rush Taggart, for plaintiff in error. Frank on motion of Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for A. Arnold, for defendant in error. No opinion. appellant. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. RAWLWESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. DAILY,

INGS. (December 14, 1896.) No. 259. In erAuditor. (December 7, 1896.) No. 448. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States

ror to the supreme court of the state of Georgia. for the district of Indiana, S. 0. Pickens, Wil

See 23 S. E. 416. J. Hubley Ashton and George

H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. lard Brown, and Charles W. Wells, for appellant. William A. Ketcham, for appellee. No

Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hub

ley Ashton, for plaintiff in error. opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant.

WESTERN UNION TEL, CO. V. STATE

OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. BOARD OF WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. HOWELL. (March 29, 1897.) No. 251. In error to

RAILROAD COM'RS et al. (April 8, 1897.)

No. 288. See 18 S. E. 339. In error to the suthe supreme court of the state of Georgia. See 22 S. E. 286. J. Hubley Ashton and George

preme court of_the state of North Carolina. H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error. No opinion.

John F. Dillon, Rush Taggart, George H. Fear.

ons, Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth

and Robert Stiles, for plaintiff in error. rule.

No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. KEMP. (April 8. 1897.) No. 290. In error to the supreme court of the state of Nebraska. See 62 V. 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. y. 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. Fearns, and Rush Taggart, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error.

In

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

WHEELAN v. BRICKELL. (March 15, 1897.) No. 346.

error to the supreme court of the state of California. See 38 Pac. 87. Charles N. Fox, for plaintiff in error. S. W. Holladay and E. Burke Holladay, for de fendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of California 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.

WESTERN UNIOX 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. Sam. uel B. Adams, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation.

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

« 이전계속 »