BURLINGAMm T. LYONS. (Circuit ciJurt of Appeals, NInth Ctrcult. February 6, 1896.) No. 260. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Washington. Bausman, Kelleher & Emory, tor plaintilf In error. White &. Munday, for defendant In error. No by agreement pursuant to the twentieth rule. opinion.
BURNS". WELLS CULTIVATOR CO.I (Clrcult Court Of Appeals, Sixt'h Clreul.t. May 6,1897.) No. 469. Appeal trom the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. .Chas. H. Fisk, for appellant. N. S. Wright, for appellee. No opinion. Decree reversed and bill ordered dismissed.
OAMPBELL et alP T. mON-SILVER MIN. 00. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circult. February 15, 1897.) No. 906. In Error to the Circult Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Edward O. Wolcott and Joel F. Vaile, for defendant In error. No oplnlon. Docketed and dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the sixteenth rule, on motion of defendant In error. Bee 10 O. O. A. 172, 61 Fed. 982.
OENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK T.SOUTB:EBlN RY. CO. et alP (CIrcult Court, W. D. North Carolina. June 80, 1897.) SIMONTON, Olrcult Judge. This bill Is 111ed by the trustee of a mortgage exeeuted by the Southern Railway Company to secure bonds to the amount of millions of dollars. The mortgage covers the entire system and all the property of the mortgagor, InclUding the lease of the North Oarollna Railroad. The bill declares that this lease Is of vital Importance to the value of the system, and to the security of the mortgage; that the threats to rescind, destrOY,. break the lease wlll not only result in a permanent Injury to the security It holds, but is now ereaUng alarm, and is disturbing the value of the securities on the market; that the danger and loss threatened are Irreparable. The blll,' stating the same facts, 11 against the same parties, meets the same responses, and depends on the same facts and principles as in the case of Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina R. Co. (just decided) 81 Fed. 596. It is subject to the same conclusion. It Is therefore ordered that the question of fact inquired into, which question Is as follows: "Was the lease executed bona fide, without fraud, covin, misrepresentation, or m:tlpractice of any sort? This is a question wholly of fact. The charge is made by the defendants Messrs. Russell and Walser, and of thel new board of directors, and in the answer of the lessor filed by them." Let this Issue be referred to Kerr Craige, Esq., as special master, under the following Instructions: That he take such testimony as may be prodUced before him touching all matters relating to or incidental with this question, holding references at such time and place as may be mos1l convenient; that upon this issue the defendant8 the new board of directors and Messrs. Russell and Walser have the affirmative of this Issue, and the opening and reply in the testimony; and that they be allowed 60 days, if so long be necessary, within which to produce testimony, dating from the service of this order; that the complainant and the old board of directors have the negative of this issue, and that they be allowed 60 days, If so long be necessary, after the opposite party announce their evidence closed, and that 20 days, if 80 lone IN necessary, be allowed for reply, beginning when respondent8 announce that · Rehearing denied July 6,1897.
they have ani! thatl said specIal master report the eTlc'lence with all convenient speed thereafter. In the meaJltime the restrainlDir order heretofore issued iii continued until further order.
CHICAGO & A.. R. CO. v. OAMPBELL.l (Oireult Court ot Appeals, Eighth Oircuit, February 23, 1897.) No. 843. In Error to the Olrcult Court of the United States for the Eastern Dlstr1ct of Missouri. Joseph S. Laurie, Marshall F. McDonald, and· Thomas T. Fauntleroy, for plaintiff in error. F. W. Lehmann and O'Neill Ryan, for defendant in error. No opinlon. Affirmed, with costs, by divided court. CITY OF PLATTSMOUTH, NEB., v. POLLOCK. (Olrcult Court ot Appeals, Eighth May 4, 1897.) No. 926. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Matthew Gering, for appellant. samuel M. Chapman and A. N. SuIlivan, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costa, on motion of appellee, for want of Jurisdiction.
ORASS T. McGHEE. (Oireult Court ot Appeal!!, Fifth CIrcuit. May 4, 1897.) No. 384. Appeal from the Oireult Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama. Lawrence (Jooper, for appellant. Milton Humes and John H. Sheffey, for appellee. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, C1rcuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed trom Is amrmed. wltll costa.
CURRAN et al. v. GRADY TRADING 00. (Olrcult Court of Appeals, Eighth Oircult. May 4, 1897.) No. 928. In Error to the Un1ted States Court of Appeals for Indian Territory. T. N. Foster, for plalntl1fs In error. No opinion. Dlamlssed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiffs In error.
DAVIS T. DAVIS et al. (Oircult Court ot Appeals, Fifth C1rcnlt. May 41897.) No. 555. Appeal from the OlreuIt Court of the United States for the Southern District of MIssissippI. This was a suit in equity by W. J. Davl8 Ilgalnst H. L. Davis and others to establish an equitable title to, and recover posIeBslon of, the one undivided half of the Homo Chitto plantation, in Ada.ins county, Miss. The circuit court sustained a general demurrer to the bill, but on apwas reversed by this court, and tlIe cause remanded for further peal this proceedings. See 18 O. C. A. 438, 72 Fed. 81. The court below, having, aecordIngly heard the cause upon the merits, dismissed the blll because the plaintiff had failed to show any right to the relief SOUght. From this decree the complainIlnt has now appealed. T. A. McWlllle, for appellant. Edward Mayes. for appellee. Before PARDEE ami McCORMICK, OIrcuIt Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge. PER OURIAM. The facts established by the evidence are not suftlclent to warrant the 1Ind1ng that Samuel B. Newman, Sr., had actual notice of W. J. Davis' equity in the lands In controversy, nor to warrant the presumption that Mrs. Mattie L. Newman, the mortgagee, knew, or ought to have known, of any IUch equity. The decree appealed trom 18 a1I1rmid. II Rehearing denied April 12, 1891.