OpenJurist

1018

92 FEDERA,L REPOR:J:E&

MEMORANDUM

In re AGINS (H. B. CLAFLIN CO.. Appellant). (Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit. }<'ebruary 7. 1899.) No. 130. Appeal from the District Court of the Lnited States for the Southel'll District of New York. E. ,J. Myers, for appellant. Before WALLACE, and SHIP:NIAN, Circuit Judges. No opinion. Order of circuit court affirmed.

ANDERSON et al. v. GIBBONS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 7, 1800.) No. 670. Appeal from the Cir.cuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. Fitzgerald & Barry and J. W. Champlin, for. appellant. Fletcher & Wanty, for appellee. Dismissed on motion of appellant. THE ASTRID. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. February 23, 1899.) No. 304. Appeal from the District Court of the "Cnited States for the Eastern District of Virginia. Whitehurst & Hughes, for appellant. Hughes & Little. for appellee. Appeal dismissed in open court, on motion of proctor for appellant. BISBEE et al. v. BISBEE. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Fifth Circuit. February 15, 1898.) No. 580. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida. J. Ward Gurley, for appellant. Dismissed on motion of appellant.

THE BRITISH lUNG. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 15, 1899.) No. 97. Appeal from the District COUl't of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Eustace Conway, for appellant. .J. Parker Kirlin, for appellee. Before WALIJACE, LACO}IBE, and SHIP· MAN. Circuit .Judges. )\"0 opinion. Decree affirmed, with,costs, on opinion of district court. 89 Fed. 872. CHESAPEAKE & O. R.' CO. Sixth Circuit. March 7, 1899.) & Cochran, for plaintiff in error. fendant in error. Dismissed per v. LAMBERT. (Circuit Court of Appeals.. No. 666. Simrall & Galvin and Wadsworth J. A. Scott and Dinkle & Montague, for destipulation.

CINCINNATI, N. & C. R. CO. v. CLARK. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 20, 1899.) No. 644. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. Bromwell & Brnce and SimraIl & Galvin, for plaintiff in error. C. W. Baker, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed, With costs.

CLAY v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Sixth Circuit. March 20, 1899.) No. 608. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

1019

'for the Eastern District of Tennessee. J. B. Cox and Isaac Harr, for plaintiff in error. Jourolmon, Welcker & HudsoIl, for deft'ndant in error. No opinion. Affirmed, with costs. CRYSTAL SPRINGS LUMBEU CO. et al. v. i\EW YOUK & T. LAND CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. I<'ebruary 9, 1898.) No. 611. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. Hewt's T. Gurley, for appellees. Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-third rule, for failure to print record. E. INGRAHA:\1 CO. v. E. N. WELCH :VU<'G. CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 1. 189\).) Ko. 91. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. Erhvan! H. Hogers. for appellant. John P. Bartlett, for appellees. Before WALLACE. LACO:\IBE, and SHIPMAN. Circuit Judges. i\o opinion. Decree of circuit court .'lffirmed, with costs, on opinion of court below. 87 Fed. 1(}00.

ELLIOTT et al. v. HAUUIS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. :\farch 7, 18\)9.) J\"o. 687. Appeal from the Circuit C0111't of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Tag;nll't, Knallpen & Denison. for appellants. A. M. Austin, for appellee. Dismissed, on moti::m of appellants. See 92 I<'ed. 374. FARMERS' NAT. BANK Olf FINDLAY. OHIO, v. HOSLER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. 21. 18D!J.) No. fi47. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the :'\orthern Distriet of Ohio. J. A. & E. V. Bope and Aaron Blackford. for appellant. John Poe and 'i'heo. Totten, for appellees. :1\0 opinion. Affirmed, with costs.

I"ELTON v. SPIUO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. :March 31, 189H.) No. 6fi2. In to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Hielunonrl, Chambers & Hpad and Edward elliston. for plaintiff in errol'. Ingersoll & Peyton, for defendant in errol'. No opinion. Affirmed, with costs.

PIRST NAT. BANK 01,' FINDLAY. OHIO, v. HOSLER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 21, 1899.) :1\0. G40. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the ::\'orthern District of Ohio. J. A. & .EJ. V. Bope and Aaron Blackford, for appellant. John Poe and Theo. Totten, for appellees. No opinion. Affirmed, with costs.

GILLIAM et al. v. SOUTHEHN TERHA-COTTA. WOHKS. (Circuit Court of Appe·als, Fourth Circuit. :Vlarch 31. lSU9.) No. 292. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. :VIcDowell & Fulton, for plaintiff in error. Fulkerson, Page & Hurt, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HIGHLAND AVE. & BELT R CO. v. COL'CMBIAJ\" EQUIP:\lENT CO, (Circuit Court of Appeals, I<'ifth Circuit. February 7, 1898.) No. 595. Appea;