OpenJurist

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;

1020

92 FEDERAL REPORTER.

from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern DistrIct of Alabama. Alex. T. London, for appellant. John F. Martin, for appellee. Questions certified to supreme court June 16, 1897. 28 C. C. A. 683, 84 Fed. 1018. The mandate (18 Sup. Ct. 240) in answer to questions was filed here on February 5, 1898, and the appeal was dismissed, on motion of appellant.

THE JANE GRAY. (CircuIt Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuIt. February 28, 1899.) No. 522. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Marshall B. Woodworth, Asst. U. S. Atty. Dismissed on motion of Marshall B. Woodworth, Asst. U. S. Atty., under subdivision 1 of sixteenth rule. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. December 1, 1898.) No. 252. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of 1Iaryland. Bernard Carter, Arthur Geo. Brown, John J. Donaldson, and Geo. Gray, for appellant. John G. Johnson, William A. Fisher, and E. J. D. Cross, for appellees. Appeal dismissed, by agreement of counsel.

JOHNSON et aI. v. FOLEY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 13, 1899.) No. 1,170. W. S. Morris and Tyson S. Dines, for plaintiffs in error. George A. Smith, for defendant in error. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

LOBDELL, FARWELL & CO. v. LEAHY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 31, 1899.) No. 667. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. Smiley, Smith & Stevens and Thomas C. Clark, for plaintiff in error. Smith, Nyms, Hoyt & Erwin and James Eo :.\1unroe, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed, with costs. LOUISVILLE PUBLIC WAREHOUSE CO. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 27, 1899.) No. 655. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. Helm, Bruce & Helm, for appellant. R. D. Hill, U. S. Atty. No opinion. Affirmed, with costs. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. DUDLEY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 31, 1899.) No. 705. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. Smith & Maddin, for plaintiff in error. Steger, Washington & Jackson and John Carruthers, for defendant in error. Dismissed, for failure to print record, pursuant to twenty-third rule.

MARTIN v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 6, 1899.) No. 1,168. In Error to the United States Oourt of Appeals in the Indian Territory. C. B. Stuart, Yancey Lewis, W. T. Hutchings, Preston C. West, J. H. Gordon, and S. M. Rutherford, for plaintiff in error. Pliny L. Soper, for defendant in error. Dismissed, without costs to either party, per stipulation of counsel.