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.
82 FEDERAL REPORTER.
r.Before PARDEE and McOORl\UOK, Olrcuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. Considering that the alleged trustee's sale and adjudication were invalid, because of the total want of authority on the part of the trustee to make any bid for, or adjudicate the property to, the Western Investment Oompany, there Is no reversible error in the decree appealed from, and the same Is affirmed. HUNTINGTON v. CITY OF NEVADA et a!. (Circuit Oourt of Appeals, Ninth Olrcuit. October 7, 1897.) No. 356. Appeal from the Circuit Oourt of the United States for the Northern District of Callfornla. Wilson & Wilson, for appellant. A. D. Mason and J. M. Wall1ng, for appellees. Dismissed, upon stipulation of parties. See 75 Fed. 60.
INDEPENDENT E,LECTRIC CO. v. DONAlID et aI. (Olrcuit Oourt of Appeals, Eighth Oircult. October 5, 1897.) No. 932. In Error to the Oircuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. B. F. Waggener, Albert H. Horton, and J. W. Orr, for plaintiff in error. Henry Elliston, for defendants in error. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the twenty-third ruie, for failure to print the record on motion of defendants in error.
THE IRON OHIEF. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 2, 1897.) No. 459. Appeal from the District Oourt of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. Fred Harvey and H. C. Wisner, for appellant. John C. Shaw and Harvey D. Goulder, for appellee. No opinion. Affirmed, after argument. See 53 Fed. 507.
KELLY et al. v. JOHNSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. tober 5, 1897.) No. 003. In Error to the United States Court of Appeals Indian Territory. W. N. Redivine, for plaintiffs in error. J. P. Grove, defendant in error. No opinion. Motion of defendant in error to strike of exceptions sustained, and judgment affirmed, with costs.
Ocfor for bill
KING v. SPERRY'S ADM'R. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.) No. 444. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. J. W. Jenner, for plaintiff in error. Darius Dirlam, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed.
LE,SLIE E. KEELEY CO. et at v. BURSON. (Circuit Oourt of Appeals, seventh Circuit. October 6, 1897.) No. 409. Appeal from the Olrcuit Court