82 FEDERAL REPORTER.
COCKRILL v. UII."ITE[) STATES NAT. BANK. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. September 15, 1897.) No. 984. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. S. R. Cockrill, for plaintiff in error. John Fletcher and W. C. Hatcliffe, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed, with costs.
COOKE v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 7, 1897.) No. 583.
CRIMINAL LAW-ApPEAI,-CONFESSION OF ERHOR.
Error from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. In this case, in which J. H. Cooke, the plaintiff in error, was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for embezzlement of money order funds of the United States, the United States, through their counsel, confess error in the peremptory instruction given by the trial judge to find the plaintiff in error guilty; and being satisfied that, under the facts and circumstances of the case, 'Such instruction was erroneous, the judgment of the district court must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to set aside the verdict heretofore rendered, and award a new trial. Other important questions arise upon the record, and are assigned as error, but upon them we make no ruling whatever, because they have not been fUlly argued, and need not necessarily arise on another trial of the case. Reversed and remanded.
ELROD v. ADAMS EXP. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.) No. 525. In Error from the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky. O'Neal & Pryor and George Weissinger Smith, for plaintiff in error. Lawrence :\faxwell, Jr., and Stone & Sudduth, for defendant in error. Pismissed, on motion of defendant in error, pursuant to the twenty-third rule, for failure to print the record.
FARMERS' MIN. CO. et aI. v. COOSAW MIN. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. May 11, 1897.) No. 220. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. Mitchell & Smith, for appellants. Smythe, Lee & Frost and Edward McCrady, for appellee. Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-third rule, for failure to print record. See 75 Fed. 860. FLOHEKCE MIN. & MANUF'G CO. v. MORRIS. (Circnit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 2, 1897.) No. 490. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Champion, Head & BroWn, counsel for appellant.
FLORIDA CEN'l'. & P. R. CO. v. BFJLL et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 16, 1897.) No. 599. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the SOllthern District of Florida. Before PARDEE and :MeOOHMIOK, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
P1IlR CURIA'M. Thill case 111 substantially the lame all to facts with on 00. v. Bell, 82 Fed. 113. The rulings of the trial judge, the assignments ot error, and the motion to dismiss and affirm are Identical For the l&II1e reasoll8o the motion to dismJslI and a1II.rm Is denied.
FOSTER et at v. MYERS et aI. (Circuit Court ot Appealll, Eighth CIrcuit. September 6, 1897.) No. 877. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. J. G. Hutchison, for appellants. John D. S. Oook and A. N. Gassett, for appellees. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the twenty-third rule, for failure to print record, on motion of appellees.
FREIBERG T. MATr.INGLY CO. (Circuit Court of Appealll, Sixth Circuit. February 2, 1897.) No. 454. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. D. W. Fairleigh, tor appellant. George W. Dane, tor appellee. No opinion. Affirmed.
HARISTON et aL T. JARVI8-00NKLIN MORTG. CO. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 1, 1897,) No.5lm.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of MississippI. The defendants, Marshall Barlston and wife, executed their note for the sum of $5,275, due l1ve years after date, attaching thereto semiannual Interest coupon notes. To secnre the payment of these notes, they executed a trust deed to the complainant, the Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Company, upon their plantation. Default having been made, and the trustees named In the trullt deed havIng declined to act, the defendants, under a power contained In the deed, substituted all their trustee one W. A. Smith, who was In their employ. Smith advertised the property for sale, and, on the day of 1181e, he and defendant Baris· ton were the only bidders. Smith bid $8,500 for the property, In the name of the Western Investment Company. The Western Investment Company was a corporation distinct from the Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Company. The evidence Ihowed that Smith had received no instructions from the officers of the We8tern Investment Company to bid for the land, and that his only Instructions came from the officers of the Jarvis-Conklin Company, by whom he was directed merely to see that the property brought the amount of .the debt and the costs of sale. The Western Investment Company declined to approve Smith's unauthorized bid, and the Jarvis-COnklln Company thereafter 111ed this blll to foreclose the trust deed. The defendants 111ed an answer and cross bill, claiming that the loan was usurious; that the purchase by Smith at the sale was in fact for the complainant, the Jarvis-Conklin Company, and that the Western Investment Company was a mere dummy, controlled by the Jarvls-Conklin Com· pany; that, therefore, complainant had become the owner of the plantation, and owed the defendants the dilrerence between the amount of Smith's bid and the true amount of the debt secured. Accordingly, they prayed for a money decree against the complainant. The material allegations of the cross btll were denied, and proofs were taken In the circuit court. That court entered a decree dismissing the cross btll, because it was not sustained by the evidence, but found that there was usury In the loan, fixed the amount due at $4,502.75, allowed a solicitor's fee, and ordered a sale of the property. From th1a decree the defendants have appealed. Wm. C. McLean and W.S. Sullivan, for appellanu. Ill. D. Saunders and T. M. Miller, for appellee.