Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for the district of Massachusetts. Jerome F. , for appellees. No opinion. Petition for a writ Varoins, in pro. per Joseph B. Warner, for 1 of certiorari to the United States circuit court appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, of appeals for the Ninth circuit denied. See pursuant to the tenth rule.

66 Fed. 499. XATIIAV MARCUS v. UNITED STATES.

CHARLES A. MORGAN V. STATE OF (Varch 29, 15:15.) No. 692. In error to the cir.

SOUTH DAKOTA. (March 25, 1895.) No. cuit court of the United States for the South

270. In error to the supreine court of the state ern district of New York. See 53 Fed. 784.

of South Dakota. Samuel Wagner, for plaintiff Abram J. Rose, for plaintiff in error. Sol. Gen.

in error. Robert Dollard, for defendant in erConrad, for the United States. No opinion.

ror. No opinion. Dismisserl, with costs, on moDisinissed per stipulation.

tion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. See 48 MARION COUNTY, TDX., v. W. N. CO

N. W, 314.
LER & CO. (May 6, 1995.) No. 392. A. H.
Garland and R. c. Garland, for plaintiff in er-

H. H. MYERS y. J. C. LEAGUE et al. ror. W. S. Herndon, for defendants in error.

(May 20, 1895.) No. 996. R. R. Briggs, for ap No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari

pellant. No opinion. Petition for a writ of to the United States circuit court of appeals

certiorari to the United States circuit court of for the Fifth circuit denied. See 67 Fed. 60. appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. See 62

Fed. 654. GEORGE MASON V. HARVEY SPAL

from the supreme court of the District of Colum BOSTON CASH INDICATOR & RECORDbia. W. L. Cole, for appellant. W. Willough ER CO. (November 1, 1894.) No. 156. Ap by, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with peal from the circuit court of the United States costs, on motion of Mr. W. Lo Cole, for the ap for the district of Massachusetts. See 45 Fed. pellante

481. C. M. Peck and Edward Rector, for ap

pellant. F. P. Fish, for appellee. No opinion. JOHN D. MAYFIELD et al. v. M. T. MAT

Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for TA. (October 9, 1894.) No. 126. In error to

appellant. the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas. E. H. Graham, for NATIONAL DREDGING CO. V. STATE plaintiffs in error. Eugene Williams, for de OF ALABAMA. (March 8, 1895.) No. 522. fendant in error. No opinion. Judgment re In error to the supreme court of the state of versed, at cost of plaintiffs in error, per stipu | Alabama. See 12 South. 720. Gaylord B. lation, and cause remanded to be proceeded Clark and Anthony Higgins, for plaintiff in erin according to law.

ror. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on mo

tion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. NICHOLAS MAZARAKOS v. UNITED STATES. (October 23, 1894.) No. 569. In er

NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. OF MONTror to the district court of the United States

| PELIER, VT., 9. BOARD OF EDUCATION for the Northern district of Illinois. Wood

OF CITY OF HURON, S. D. May 20, bury Blair, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney

1895.) No. 1,005. N. T. Guernsey, for plaintiff General, for the United States. No opinion.

in error. R. J. Wells, for defendant in error. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule.

No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to

the United States circuit court of appeals for M. H. MEEKS Y. CHRISTINA SCHALL

the Eighth circuit denied. See 62 Fed. 778. et al. (April 11, 1895.) No. 291. Appeal from

I NEW YORK. L. E. & W. R. CO. V. ANthe circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Alabama. J. M. Head, for

DREW BROWN. (January 17, 1895.) No.

202. In error to the circuit court of the United appellant. No opinion, Dismissed, with costs,

States for the Southern district of New York. pursuant to the tenth rule.

Frederick B. Jennings, for plaintiff in error. F. THE MICHIGAY. B. FRANK NEALLEY

H. Betts, for defendant in error. No opinion. et al. v. THE MICHIGAN. (December 3,

Dismissed per stipulation, 1894.) No. 817. Eugene P. Carrer and Rob

NEI YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO. v. LAURA ert H. Smith, for appellants. J. Wilson Leakin and Harrington Putnam, for appellee. No

F. RUSH. (February 4, 1895.) No. 207. In opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the

error to the circuit court of the United States

for United States circuit Court of appeals for the

r district of Ohio. W. E. CushFourth circuit denied. See 63 Fed. 280, 295.

ins and S. E. Williamson, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas W. Sanderson and Myron A. Norris, CHARLES A. MILLER v. WESTERN

for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, UNION TEL. CO. (November 14, 1894.) No.

with costs, per stipulation. 88. In error to the circuit court of the United

NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. EUDORA States for the Southern district of Ohio. Thom

| V. SMITH. (April 22, 1995.) No. 964. George as McDougall, for plaintiff in error. Lawrence

| W. Hubbell, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Maxwell. Jr., for defendant in error. No opin

Petition for a writ of certiora ri to the United ion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the

States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth tenth rule.

circuit denied. See 67 Fed. 091. THE VOYTCLAIR. THE MONTCLAIR NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. HENRY V. EASTOS & A. R. CO. (April 22, 1995.) | BUSH. (October 8, 1891.) No. 28. In error No. 9St. George Bethune Adams anil Frank to the circuit court of the United States for the lin A. Wilcox, for appellant. W. W. Good Northern district of Illinois. George Willard, rich, for appellee. No opinion. Petition for a James McNaught, and A. H. Garland, for plain

ertiorari to the United States circuit tiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, court of appeals for the Second circuit denied on motion of Mr. A. H. Garland, for the plainSee 67 F'ed. 156.

tilf in error.

CHARLES DIORAN et al. v, J. C. HA NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. V. GEORGE C. GERMAN et al. (March 11, 180J.) No. 309. RAGSDALE. (May 1, 1995.) No. 34. In Wheeler H. Peckham, for appellants. Horatio error to the circuit court of the United States C. Kirg, W. E. F. Deal, and Edmund Tauszky, | for the district of Minnesota. See 42 Fed. 383.

v.15s.C.-66

from the pirm

James McNaught. A. A. Garland, and W. J. 1 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 Mr Edward B. Whitney, for the defendants

in error. OAKLAND ELECTRIC LIGHT & MOTOR CO. v. NATHANIEL S. KEITH. (April 9.

CHARLES SCHEELE v. 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. Burror. 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 PACIFIC COAST STEAMSHIP CO. v.

et al. (January 16, 1895.) No. 210. Appeal rcuit Court of t

bited States for UNITED STATES. (February 4, 1895.) No.

the Northern district of Illinois. See 38 Fed. 123. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Washington. J. 1 lant. Jas. L. High, for appellees. No opin100.

897. I. C. Sloan and A. R. Bushnell, for appelC. 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 7. H. C. MILLER torney General Conrad, for the appellee.

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

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

the Northern district of Texas. F. Chas. Hume (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 pla'ntiff in error. 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. PITTSDismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

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

42. Appeal from the circuit court of the UnitTHOMAS M. RICHARDSON et al. v. ed States for the Western district of PennsylvaCLARINDA GREEN et al (October 22 1994 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 ap peals for the Ninth circuit denied. See 61 Fed. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. JOSEPH R

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 MANUT'G CO. Y. CHICA peal from the circuit court of the United States GO SEWER-PIPE & COAL CO. (May 20, for the Southern district of California. J. Hab 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. Bootb. 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 AsbEastern district of Missouri. . See 45 Fed. 51. 1 Ion, vor apenas N

appellant. The Attorney General, for J. 0. Broadhead. for plaintiff in error. Cheste

inos Dismised 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.

JOHN S. STANTON et al. v. UNION ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. V. S. P. TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al. (Apri LEEP. (December 10, 1894.) No. 722. In er | 30, 1895.) No. 335. Appeal from the circait ror to the supreme court of the state of Arkan: court of the United States for the District o? BAS. John F. Dillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for Kansas. Lucern Birdseye, for appellants. Yo 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. v. THOMAS NU| LEY et al. (March 4, 1895.) No. 93. In er NAN et al. (January 7, 1895.) No. 881. In Iror to the circuit court of the United States for

23.

the Northern district of Texas. E. H. Graham, | tition for a writ of certiorari to the United States for plaintiffs in error. Eugene Williams, for circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, denied. See 60 Fed. 461. with costs, per stipulation.

UNITED STATES 1. MERVIN B. CONTEXAS & P. RY. CO. V. JENNIE L. GEI VERSE. (January 21. 1895.) No. 551. Ap GER. (December 11, 1891.) No. 108. In er real from the court of claims. See 28 Ct. Cl. ror to the supreme court of the state of Texas. 563. The Attorney General, for the United See 15 S. W. 214. John F. Dillon, for plaintiff States. W. W. Dudley, L. T. Michener, and in error. T. P. Young, for defendant in error. R. R. McMahon, for appellee. No opinion. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General of Mr. John F. Dillon, for the plaintiff in er. Maxwell, for the appellant. ror.

UNITED STATES V. JOHN I DAVENTEXAS & P. RY CO. et al. v. A. MCEL PORT. (January 28, 1895.) No. 515. Appeal ROY. (March 18. 1895.) No. 110. In error to from the court of claims. See 28 Ct. Cl. 504. the court of appeals of the state of Texas. John The Attorney General, Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge, F. Dillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for plaintiffs and Felix Brandigan, for the United States. n error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on

| Richard R. McMahon, for appellee. No opinion. motion of Mr. D. D. Duncan, in behalf of coun

Judgment affirmed by a divided court. sel for the plaintiffs in error.

UNITED STATES ex rel. GEORGE G. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. et al. v. H. WILSON. MERRICK et al. v. CHARLES FOSTER, Sec(March 18, 1895.) No. 111. In error to the retary of Treasury. (January 24, 1893.) No. court of appeals of the state of Texas. John F. 407. Io error to the supreme court of the DisDillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for plaintiffs in trict of Columbia. J. M. Wilson, for plaintiffs error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on in error. The Attorney General, for defendant motion of Mr. D. D. Duncan, in behalf of coun in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, sel for the plaintiffs in error.

on motion of Mr. J. M. Wilson, for the plaintiffs

in error. ALFRED P. THOM v. JOHN B. PITTARD et al. (November 12, 1894.) No. 814. Robert

UNITED STATES V. LOUIS HUNING. M. Hughes, for appellees. No opinion. Petition (March 4, 1895.) No. 827. Appeal from the for a writ of certiorari to the United States cir

court of private land claims. "The Attorney cuit court of appeals for the Fourth circuit de General, for the United States. Frank W. nied. See 62 Fed. 232.

Clancy, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed

on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for JOHN BRUCE THOMPSON v. UNITED the appellant. STATES. (April 24, 1895.) No. 317. In error to the circuit court of the United States for

UNITED STATES v. MERCK & CO. (June the Southern district of New York. Adolph L.

3 1895.) No. 1.032. The Attorney General Sanger, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule.

and Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to

the United States circuit court of appeals for J. L. THOMSON et al. v. SMITH & GRIGGS MANUFG CO. et al. (October 10,

the Second circuit denied. See 66 Fed. 251. 1894.) No. 13. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecti

WASHBURN & MOEN MANUFG CO v. cut. See 38 Fed. 602. George W. Hey, for ap

FREEMAN WIRE CO. (October 12, 1894.) pellants. C. E. Mitchell, for appellees. No

No. 22. Appeal from the circuit court of the opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the

United States for the Eastern district of Misnineteenth rule.

souri. See 41 Fed. 410. Henry Hitchcock, G. A. Finkelnburg, and John R. Bennett, for ap

pellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on LIPPMAN TOPLITZ et al. v. EDWIN A. | motion of Mr. John R. Bennett, for the appelMERRITT, Collector. (April 22, 1895.) No. lant. 318. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. Stephen G. Clarke, for plaintiffs in error. The

L. E. WATERMAN CO. V. CHARLES B. Attorney General, for defendant in error. No

WEBSTER et al. (January 29, 1895.) No. 206. opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of

Appeal from the circuit court of the United counsel for the plaintiffs in error, on motion of

States for the Southern district of New York. Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for the defendant

W. S. Logan, for appellant. Arthur v. Briesen, in error.

for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with

costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. E. B. TREDWAY v. WILLIAM RILEY. GEORGE S. WHEELER et al. v. CATHA(April 8, 1893.) No. 286. In error to the su

RINE MALLON. (April 15, 1895.) No. 302. preme court of the state of Nebraska. 0. C.

In error to the city court of Brooklyn, in the Tredway and Wm. L. Gantt, for plaintiff in er

state of New York. W. E. Osborn, for plaintiffs ror. W. L. Joy, for defendant in error. No

in error. Louis W. Frost, for defendant in eropinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the ror. No opinion. Disinissed, with costs, purtenth rule.

suant to the tenth rule. STARLING TUCKER v. UNITED GEORGE S. WHEELER v. LUCY MARIA STATES. (April 29, 1995.) No. 998. In error TERREL. (November 9, 1894.) No. 72. In to the district court of the United States for the error to the supreme court of the state of New Eastern district of Texas. Sol. Gen. Conrad, York. See 2 N. Y. Supp. 86. James Stikeman, for the United States. No opinion. Docketed for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor Gen with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. eral Conrad, for the defendant in error.

GEORGE S. WHEELER v. WILLIAM IU. JULIUS UEBERWEG ». LA COMPAGNIE GUSTUS WHITE. (November 8, 1894.) No. GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE. (No 71. In error to the supreme court of the state of vember 12, 1891.) No. 838. Henry G. Ward, New York. See 4 N. Y. Supp. 405. James for appellant. Robert D. Benedict and Ed Stikeman, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. ward K. Jones, for appellee. No opinion. Pe- | Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. JOEL PARKER WHITNEY et al. v. UNIT- | Samuel Wells, for defendant in error in No. 6. ED STATES. (February 4, 189,7.) No. 900. W. A. Munroe and George O. Shattuck, for Appeal from the court of private land claims. defendants in error in Vos. 18, 73, and it. W. Sol. Gen. (onrad, for the United States. No S. B. Hopkins, for defendant in error in No. opinion. Docketed and dismissed on motion of | 468. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, for the Cuited States.

VOTSWICK MANUFG CO. et al. v. KAN

SAS CITY et al. (December 7, 1894.) Vo. 106. WALTER R. WIGGS v. SOUTHERN PAC. | Appeal from the circuit court of the United R. CO. (June 3, 189.5.) No. 1,016. Appeal States for the Western district of Jlissouri. from the circuit court of the United States fos M. D. Leggett, L. L. Leggett, and Albert E. the Northern listrict of California. See 43 Fal. Lynch, for appellants. F. F. Rozzelle and J. 333. J. Hubley Ashton, for appe!!ee. Vo opin . Edson, for appellees. No opinion. Dision. Docketed and dismissed, with costs. on mo. nuissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. tion of Mr. J. Hubles Ashton, for the appellee.

JOIN A. WRIGHT . WILLIAM ROLEDWIN T. WILLIAVIS et al. v. PASSUMP. LINS. (October 15, 1894.) Yo. 493. In error SIC SAV. BANK. March 27. 1895.) No. to the supreme court of the state of California. 2.12. Appeal from the circuit court of the Unit See 29 Tac. 58. Calleron Carlisle, for plaintiff ed States for the Northern district of Florida. in error. Thomas D. Riordan, for defendant in H. Bisbee, for appellants. No opinion. Dis error. No opinion. Dismissed, per stipulation, missed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. on motion of Jír. Calderon Carlisle, for the See 11 Sup. Ct. 100.).

plaintiff in error.

D. E. WOOD et al. v. BICII, CORY & CO. (April 29, 1895.) No. 309. In error to the cir

HUGU YOUNG et al. v. EMANUEL FOERcuit court of the l'nited States for the Northern

STER. (December 17. 1894.) No. 131. Apdistrict of Illinois. Charles II. Aldrich, N. C.

peal from the circuit court of the United States Sears, and P'. 1'. IIoffman, for plaintiffs in er

for the Southern district of New York. See 37 ror. R. A. Childs, for defendants in error. No

Fed. 203. Edwin H. Brown, for appellants. opinion, Judgment aflirmed, with costs and in

Aritur . Briesen, for appellee. No opinion. terest, by a divided court.

I)ismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth

rule. WORCESTER. N. &. R. R. CO. V. JOHN HANCOCK MUT, LIFE INS. CO. SAVE v. H. G. YOUNG et al. v. H. L. FOX et al. ROBERT L DAY et al. SAME v. I.DIA (November 7. 1994.) No. 08. Appeal from the MUT. INS. CO. SAME v. A. A. STEET, circuit court of the United States for the EastSAJE V. PEOPLE'S SAV. BANK. (Octo. ern district of Tennessee. See 37 Fed. 38.7. ber 8. 1891.) Nos. 6, 18, 73, 74, and 468. In Wm. Henry De Witt, for appellants. Jeff. error to the superior court of the state of Massa Chandler, for appellees. No opinion. Dischusetts. Richard Olney, for plaintiff in error. | missed, with costi, pursuant to the tenth rule.

END OF CASES IN VOL 15.

« AnteriorContinuar »