92 FEDERAL· REPORTER.
llrisingfrotb the issuance of the patent,-at least, if It be construed so broadly as to covel' defendant's device, which can be done only by a liberal application Qf the doctrine of equivalents. The patent has never been adjudicated, and its construction upon ex parte papers is too doubtful to warrant the issue of a preliminary injunction. The order for preliminary injunction (88 Fed. 784) Jis reversed, with costs of this appeal.
PERSON v. STANDARD LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 31, 1899.) No. 632. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee. H. C. Warinner, for plaintiff in error. John R. Flippin. for defendant in error. Before TA:B'T and LURTON, Circuit Judges, and THOJ\lPSON, District Judge. District Judge. This case was argued and submitted with the case of Person v. Casualty Co., 92 Fed. 965, and raises the same questions, ·upon the same state of facts: and the judgment rendered therein will be reversed. for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered In the latter case, and remanded for further proceMings consistent with that opinion. It is so ordered. . PONG TOY GUEN v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. ]'ebruary 23, 1899.) No. 464. Appeal from the District Court of the 1Jniterl States for the Northern District of California. Henry C. Dibble, for appellant. H. S. Foote, U. S. Atty. Dlsmisf<ed. on motion of Edward J. Banning, Asst. U. S. Atty., under subdivision 5 of the twenty-fourth rule.
PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF XEW YORK v. CALKINS. '(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 16, 1891:J.) No. 4&3. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Wef<tern Divif<ion of the District of Washington. ",V'alker & Fitch, for plaintiff in error. Stanton Warburton and ,John A. Shackleford, for defendant in error. Dismissed, without to either party, per stipulation.
SOUTHERN INDIANA EXP. CO. v. UNITED STATES EXP. CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. March 28, 1899.) No. 544.
CARRIERS OF GOODs-DUTIES OF CONNECTING LINES INTER BE.
Appeal from the Circuit Court· of the United States for the District of Indiana. This was a suit in equity by the Southern Indiana Express Company against the United States Express Company and others. A demurrer to the bill was sustained by the circuit court, and the bill dismissed (88 Fed. (59), from which order complainant appeals. F. M. Trissal, for appellant. Edward Daniels, for appellee. PER CL'RIAM. A statement and sufficient discussion of this case will be found in the opinion of the circuit court as reported in Southern Indiana Exp. Co. v. United States Exp. Co., 88 Fed. 659. The decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill Is affirmed. '
STAPYLTON v. ETHERIDGE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 21, 1898.) l'\o. 578. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of I1'lorida. .John E. Hartridge, for plaintiff in error. S..J. Bowie and A. 'V. Cockrell, for defendant in error. Dismisseu .. per stipulation of counsel. TAXGYE v. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. MIV'!'h 7, 1899.) No. 577. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Brown & Spurlock, for appellant. Eakin & Goree and R. L, Bright, for appellees. Dismissed, per stipulation.
UNITED STATI"S v. Sixth Circuit. Mareh 7, of the United States for S. Atty. Dismissed, for counsel.
HAHSIIA (three cases). (Circuit 18D9.) Nos. 5!J2-5\M. In Error to the Eastern Distriet of ::\Iichigan. want of jurisdiction, on motion of
Court of Appeals,. the District Court J. 'V. Finney, U. plaintiff in error's
UNITED STATES v. J. ALLSTON 1\EWALL & CO. (Circuit Court of ApFirst Circuit. ::\lareh 20. lRlJH.) No. 284. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of ::\lassachusetts. Boyd B. Jones, U. S. Atty., and Albert H. Washburn, Asst. U. S. Atty. Dismissed, See [)1 Ped.525. VON EMPEHGER v. CITY OF DETHOlT. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 7, I8!J!).) 1\0. Go7. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. Dickerson & Brown, for appellant. John J. Speed and Parker & Burton, for appellee. Dismissed, for failure to print record, pursuant to twenty-thir<l rule.
WES'l'EHN ELECTItIC CO. v. CITI7.EXS' TEL. CO. et al. (Circuit Conrt of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. ::\larch 27, 18W.) Xo. fi74. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States fo" tlw Wcstern District of ::\'Iichigan. Barton & Bro,vn, for appellant. Bundy &. Travis, Stewart & Stewart, aud Char!ps C. Bulkley, for appellees. Dismissed, on motion of appellant. See 89 Fed. 670. WILSON TItAXSI'r CO. v. KIXIIUE. (Circuit Conrt of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 31, lRnn.) Xo. 691. In IDrror to the Circuit CO\ll't of the Unite'l States for the Eastern District of ::\1ichigan. Goulrler & Holding. for plaintiff in error. Chadwick & McIlwain, for defendant in error. liio opinion. Affirmed, with costs.
END OF CASES IN VOL. 92.