Volume 154 — United States Reports

Held: it was not a. contract' binding in law, for the reason the law imposed upon the companies duties to be performed to the public, and for the performance of which they were entitled to a compensation fixed by themselves, and which the sender had no choice but to pay, no matter how exorbitant it might be.

This was an action of ejectment brought January 14, 1892, in the Superior Court of Thurston County in the' State of Washington, by Moses H. Scott against John McNeal and Augustine McNeai to recover possession of a tract of land in that county.

Held: That the stipulation in the bill of lading that respondent should not be liable for a Are happening aftér unloading the cargo was reasonable and valid; (2) That the discharge of the cargo at the Inman pier was not in the eye of the law a deviation such as to render the carrier an insurer of the goods so unladen; (3) That if any notice of such unloading was required at all, the bulletin posted in the custom-house was…

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of two patents for inventions, granted by the United States to the plaintiff-; the one a reissue, dated June 10, 1884, of a patent issued May 8,1883, for “ a new and improved combined tag and envelope; ” and the other an original patent, dated November 24, 1885, “for certain improvements in envelopes.” Upon a hearing in the Circuit Court on pleadings and proofs, the bill was dismissed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of…

This was an action, in the nature of ejectment, brought April 11, 1883, in the superior court of Richmond county in the State of North Carolina, to recover oné hundred acres of land in that county. The case certified by that court to the Supreme Court of the State began as follows: “The plaintiff claimed title to the land described in the complaint by virtue of an execution sale and sheriff’s deed made pursuant thereto.

<p>No number.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>On June 7,1893, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Washington, the United States libelled the steamship Haytian Republic for violations of the “Chinese Exclusion Act,” and for smuggling opium. It was averred that the violations of the Exclusion Act occurred at the following dates: 1st, September 20, 1892-; 2d, October 8, 1892; 3d, October 12, 1892; 4th, October 15 and 16, 1892; 5th, November 1,1892; 6th, November 26,1892 ; 7th, December 12,1892; 8th, December 13, 1892; 9th, January 2, 1893; 10th, January 26,1893; 11th, February 2,1893 ; 12th, March 28,1893; 13th, May 11, 1893.</p> <p>The offences of opium smuggling, according to the libel, were committed as follows:</p> <p>November 21, 1892, at Portland, Oregon, 2000 pounds, of tbe value of $22,000; December 7, 1892, at St. Johns, on the Columbia River, 1000 pounds, of the value of $11,000.</p> <p>The prayer was for the forfeiture of the vessel on account of the violations of the Exclusion Act, and for judgment for $32,000, the value of the opium, with recognition of a lien' on the ship for that amount.</p> <p>The Northwest Loan and Trust Company claimed the vessel, and, after due appraisement, she was bonded.</p> <p>On the 6th day of July, 1893, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, the United States again libelled the same steamship for violations of the Chinese Exclusion Act and for smuggling opium. In this libel it was alleged that the violations of the act were committed at the following dates: 1st, October 29, 1892; 2d, June 14, 1893; and 3d, June 28, 1893, all at the port of Portland, Oregon. And the opium smuggling was charged as follows:</p> <p>1st, October 29, 1892, at Portland, Oregon, 1640 cans, containing 820 pounds, of the value of $9840; 2d, December 27, 1892, at St. Johns, Oregon, 1000 pounds, valued at $12,000.</p> <p>The prayer of this second libel was for forfeiture of the vessel for the violations of the Exclusion Act and for judgment for $28,840, the value of the opium, with recognition of a lien on the vessel for that amount.</p> <p>On the 14th of July, 1893, an amended libel was filed, charging the smuggling of opium, 1st, on July-28, 1892, Willamette River, 300 pounds of opium, of the value of $3300; 2d, on August 30, 1892, on the Columbia River, near the mouth of the Willamette River, of 800 pounds, of the value of $8800; 3d, on the 2d of September, 1892, near Swan Island; 1400 pounds, worth $15,400; 4th, on the 27th of January, 1893, at Portland, Oregon, 1200 pounds, worth $11,220; and 5th, on the 22d of February, 1893, at Portland, Oregon, 900 pounds, value $9900.</p> <p>The prayer of the amended libel was also for the forfeiture of the vessel, and for a decree for the penalty to the value of the opium, which was $48,620, with lien upon the vessel.</p> <p>The original and amended libel claimed, therefore, the forfeiture of the vessel for three violations of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first occurring in October, 1892, and the two last after June 7, 1893; and aiso sought to enforce against the vessel an aggregate penalty of $77,460 for seven acts of opium smuggling, which, they charged, had taken place at various dates between the 28th of July, 1892, and the 22d of February, 1893.</p> <p>Thus, all the offences against the Chinese Exclusion Act, charged by these libels, except the two last, occurred prior to June 7, 1893, the date of the filing of the libel in the District Court of Washington, and all the offences of opium smuggling therein charged occurred .prior to the filing of the suit in Washington.</p> <p>The Northwest Loan and Trust Company appeared as claimant in the new suit. It excepted to all the averments ' as to violations of the Exclusion Act and smuggling which, according to the allegations, were committed before the filing of the suit in the District of Washington. Its exception, therefore, covered all the charges of smuggling opium and one of the charges of violation of the Chinese. Exclusion Act. To the. two averments of violation of the act, which were not excepted to, an answer was filed.</p> <p>The court, sustained the exception and dismissed the libels, except as to the two charges of violation of the Exclusion Act subsequent to the filing of the suit in the Washington District. As to these, it held that the averments of the libel stated no violation of the laws of the United States.</p> <p>The case was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. This action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was brought up for review under a writ of certiorari.</p>

This was an action commenced bjr the Northern Pacific Railroad Company against J. L. Patterson, county treasurer of Gallatin County, Montana, for an injunction, to restrain the defendant from selling certain lands, blocks, and lots for taxes which had been levied thereon in the year 1889, or collecting' the same, and also- for a decree adjudging said taxes to be void.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>In February, 1893, the grand jury, empanelled in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, returned into that court an. indictment charging that Thomas St. Clair, Herman Sparf, and Hans Hansen, mariners, late of that district, on the 13th day of January, 1893, with force and arms, on the high seas, and within the jurisdiction of the court, and within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State of the United States, in and on board of an American vessel, the bark Hesper, belonging to a citizen or citizens -of the United States, whose name or names- are or were to the grand jurors unknown, did, with a certain instrument or weapon, (the character and name of which were to the grand jury unknown,) then and there held in the hands of one of the defendants, (but of which particular one was to the grand jurors unknown,) “ then and there piratically, wilfully, feloniously, and with malice aforethought strike and beat the said Maurice Fitzgerald, then and there giving to the said Maurice Fitzgerald several grievous, dangerous, and mortal wounds, and did then and there, to wit, at the time and place last above mentioned, him the said Maurice Fitzgerald cast and throw from and out of the said vessel into the sea, and plunge, sink, and’ drown him the said Maurice Fitzgerald in the sea aforesaid; of which said mdrtal wounds, casting, throwing, plunging, sinking, and drowning the said Maurice ’ Fitzgerald in and upon the high seas aforesaid, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State of the United States of America, then and there instantly died.</p> <p>“ And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that by reason of the casting and throwing the said Maurice Fitzgerald in the sea as aforesaid, they cannot describe the said mortal wounds or the character and nature -of said weapon or instrument. And so the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said Thomas St. Clair, Herman Sparf, and Hans Hansen, him the said Maurice Fitzgerald at the time and place as aforesaid, upon the high seas as aforesaid, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State of the United States of America, in and upon the said American Vessel, within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the said United States of America and of this court, in the manner and form aforesaid, piratically, wilfully, feloniously, and with malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the peace and dignity of the United States- of America, and contrary to the form of the statute of the said United States of America, in such case made and provided.”</p> <p>It was also averred that the Northern District of California was the district into which St. Clair, Sparf, and Hansen were first brought after committing said offence. , .</p> <p>The indictment was based upon section 5339 of the Kevised • Statutes, providing among • other things that “ every person who commits murder . . . upon the high seas or in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and out- of the jurisdiction of any particular State; or who, upon any such waters, maliciously strikes, stabs, wounds, poisons, or shoots at any other person, of which striking, stabbing, wounding, poisoning,.or shooting such other person dies, either on land or at sea, within or without the United States, shall suffer death.”</p> <p>On motion of the district attorney the indictment was remitted for trial to the Circuit Court, where the defendants were arraigned and severally pleaded not guilty. Eev. Stat. § 1039.</p> <p>Subsequently the pleas of not guilty were withdrawn and the defendants jointly demurred to the indictment upon these grounds: 1. That it did not state facts constituting a public offence. 2. That it was uncertain in not showing upon what portion of the high seas the alleged offence was committed or which one of the defendants committed the alleged assault, -or whether one or more of the defendants committed any of the acts alleged against them.</p> <p>The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants being again arraigned pleaded not guilty.</p> <p>A motion for a separate trial of the defendants was made and granted, and the trial of St. Clair was had separately.</p> <p>At the beginning of the trial the accused challenged the panel of the trial jurors and the challenge was denied.</p> <p>The facts in reference to the challenging of jurors are as follows:</p> <p>On the 1st day of February, 1893, a day of the term of the Circuit Court, commencing November 28, 1892, an order was made and entered directing a venire to issue summoning fifty persons to serve as trial jurors, returnable February 14, 1893. Pursuant to that order a venire containing fifty names drawn from the regular jury box of the court was issued for those persons to act as petit or trial jurors. At the time of the drawing there were at least three hundred names in the jury box, but of those a part were names remaining after previous drawings at former terms of the court, and the others were names placed therein by the proper officers just previous to the drawing of said venire do make the whole number of names up to and including the full number of three hundred. The persons whose names were contained in that venire were duly summoned and appeared on the 14th day of February, 1893, with the exception of three, who had in the meantime been excused by the court. Thereafter, on the 2d day of March, 1893, a day of the term commencing on the 1st Monday of February, 1893, the following order was made and caused to be entered : “ There being no further business to be brought before them it is ordered that the trial jury of said Circuit Court, for the present February term thereof, be discharged and paid for their attendance.” On the 6th day of May, 1893, the indictment against St. Clair, .Sparf, and Hansen was, as already stated, remitted to the Circuit Court from the District Court.</p> <p>On the 29th day of May, 1893, a day of the February term, after the discharge of the regular jury for the term, the court entered an order directing a venire to issue for fifty persons to serve as trial jurors, and returnable on Wednesday, June 7, 1893. Pursuant to that order a venire containing the names of fifty persons drawn from the regular jury box of the court was issued for those persons to .serve as trial jurors in the Circuit Court, and to appear on the 7th day of June, 1893. At the time of the drawing last mentioned there were at least three hundred names in the jury box, but of those a part were names remaining after the last drawing, and the others were names placed therein by the proper officers just previous to the drawing of the last-mentioned venire to bring the whole number in the jury box up to three hundred. The persons whose names were contained in the last-mentioned venire' (such as were summoned and not excused) appeared and attended the court in obedience to its summons. Thereafter on June 14,-1893, a day in the February term, the circuit judge presiding, the case against St. Clair was called for trial.</p> <p>The defendant challenged and objected to the general venire and panel of jurors on the ground that the regular venire of jurors for the term had been discharged, and that the court had exhausted its powers to summon a jury to act during the term after the order for a jury of February 1,1893, and the order discharging the jury of the 2d of March, 1893 ; and on the further ground that the statutes had not been complied with in suminoning jurors, and that at the time of the drawing of the names of jurors- the jury, box had not been refilled with three hundred new names, but a portion of the names therein were names remaining after previous drawings. The court overruled the objection and denied the' challenge, to which rulings of the court the defendant objected.</p> <p>Thereupon twelve persons who had been drawn and summoned as aforesaid were regularly called into the jury box, but before being sworn to answer questions touching their qualifications, the attorneys for the defendant objected to and challenged the panel thus called on the ground urged against the general venire. The court overruled the objection and denied the challenge, to which the defendant excepted.</p> <p>The jurors were then sworn to answer questions touching their qualifications to serve as'jurors. After the first juror had been examined as to his qualifications and passed by the United States and the defendant for cause, the court announced that the juror must be sworn to try the case, unless challenged by the United States or the defendant, and that this rule would be enforced as to each subsequent juror. The defendant claimed the right to examine all of the jurors as to their qualifications before exercising the peremptory challenge, and excepted to the ruling announced by the court.</p> <p>The defendant challenged each separate juror after he • entered the box on the ground that the jury had not been' properly drawn as hereinbefore stated, which challenge was denied by the court, and the several rulings of the court were excepted to by him.</p> <p>The names of jurors summoned having become exhausted, after only eight had been examined, accepted, and sworn, the court ordered 25 talesmen to be -summoned for June 15, 1893, to serve as trial jurors in the cause.' On that day the defendants objected to the last-mentioned venire, and to the. tales-men, on the grounds offered to the original general venire or panel. This objection and challenge were overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.</p> <p>The defendant also objected and challenged the talesmen on the ground that there was no jury regularly summoned to be filled by talesmen, and that the talesmen had not been summoned in conformity to law. This objection was overruled, and he excepted.</p> <p>The defendant also objected to each separate talesman after he entered the box and was sworn, upon the grounds last mentioned, and the - objection was overruled,, to which he excepted.</p> <p>After a jury of twelve - ha'd been empanelled and sworn to try the case, the same objection was repeated to the entire panel sworn to try the case, and the objection having been overruled, an exception was taken.</p> <p>The material facts disclosed by the evidence are so fully and. accurately stated in the brief on behalf of the government that we adopt the statement of the Assistant Attorney General, as follows:</p> <p>“The Hesper was making the voyage from Australia to Honolulu. It left Newcastle on the 22d of December, 1892, with a crew consisting of fourteen persons. The ship’s crew was divided into two watches, one called the starboard watch, which is the captain’s watch; the other called the port watch, which is the mate’s watch. The watches consisted of four hours at a time, except the afternoon watch, from 4 to 8 o’clock, which is divided into two watches of two hours each. The watches relieve each other every four hours. The man at the wheel strikes a bell for the watch to come on deck at 12, 4, and 8 o’clock. A watch is always called before 8 bells, which means 12 o’clock, 8 o’clock, and 4 o’clock. Every half hour is one bell. The seamen call each other and the officers call the. officers. When one watch is performing duty the other watch is supposed to be sleeping during the day or night. On the 13th day of January, 1893, the starboard watch consisted of Maurice Fitzgerald, the. seoond mate; Thomas St. Clair, Herman Sparf, Hans Hansen, and Edwin Larsen. The port watch consisted of John Lucas, first mate; Thomas Green, Jens Olsen, Henry ~Westerlind, and Pandy Secaría.</p> <p>“On the night of the 13th of January, 1893, John Lucas, the first mate, was called out at about five minutes to 12 o’clock, by Herman Sparf. He dressed, and as he was going on deck eight bells struck for 12 o’clock. He walked rapidly tathe man at the wheel and asked where the second mate was. He called for him and received no answer. He went to the captain’s cabin and reported that he could not find the second mate. The captain came on deck and inquired of the starboard watch, which had been on duty from 8 to 12 o’clock, if they knew where the second mate was who had charge of their watch; to his inquiry he received no reply. The carpenter was called on deck, and the search for the second mate was continued. The starboard watch, which had gone off duty at 12 o’clock, had gone below and was called again to the deck by the mate, and was not permitted to go to their bunks to sleep, but was required to remain on deck and go aft. The deck of the vessel was loaded with coal about ten or twelve feet high. The top oí it was floored over with some hard wood and on top of that a deck was laid of two-inch planking.</p> <p>“ About-twenty minutes past 12 o’clock the captain discovered blood on the deck; about seven or eight feet from the mainmast one spot of blood was about two and a half feet long. The next morning there was found on the edge of the gangway a narrow strip of scalp With a small piece of hair stuck together by blood attached to it. The hair was black, tinged with gray, and was recognized by the captain as the hair of the second mate who was missing. There was. also found a broom covered with blood alongside the ladder; and. beneath the bunk of St. Clair, the plaintiff in error, there -was found a hatchet, which was greasy; and on the deck, nea? to where the blood was seen, there was found a wooden bludgeon. After the captain discovered the blood he called the starboard watch into the cabin. He saw blood on one of the cheeks of Herman Sparf. The men all said they could not account for the blood on the deck; that they had heard nothing during their watch from 8 to 12. Herman Sparf said that he had seen the second mate go up the fore rigging, but had not seen him come down. The captain sent them to their bunks to go to sleep.</p> <p>“Edward Larsen, a member of the starboard watch, relieved St. Clair at the wheel at 10 o’clock; the second mate was then close by the wheel when relieved by Larsen. St. Clair went forward on the deck. At that time the mate Was aft. St. Clair returned and told the mate that something was carried away, and he went forward and the mate followed him. It was very dark at the time and that was the last Larsen saw of the second mate. Shortly after St. Clair and the second mate went forward Larsen heard a dog bark and a man ‘ holler.’ At half-past 10 Captain Sodergren and his wife, who were together in the cabin, heard the dog bark and two sounds like a human voice in distress. The barking of the dog and the sound of the voice were heard also by John Langlais, the ship’s carpenter, and M. P. Luck, the steward, but they only fix it between 8 and 12 o’clock. Herman Sparf, who was of the starboard watch and whose place was on deck, came to the forecastle, where the port watch were sleeping, and called Jens Olsen at a quarter to 11 o’clock to give them a hand to throw the captain, overboard. And about the same time he woke up Thomas Green and said something to him which Green could not understand. Green went on deck in his underclothing; as he was going on the starboard side he saw Hansen with a broom in his hand, and when he went on the deck-load he found St. Clair, Hansen, and Herman Sparf standing there. He said to St. Clair : ‘ What’s the matter, what’s the news ? ’ St. Clair said : ‘¥e want you to give us a hand to throw the old man overboard,’ referring to the captain. So I says: ‘ How are you going to get him on deck ? ’ and he says : ‘ One of us will let go the peak halyards and one of us will go.around to the wheel, and when, he comes on deck then will be the time to do away with him.’ So I says: ‘ Where’s the- second mate ? ’ He says: ‘ He has gone overboard; can’t you see the blood on the deck ? ’ So St. Clair says: ‘ What do you say ? ’ and I says: ‘Wait until I go and put a pair of pants on.’</p> <p>“ Jens Olsen did not go on deck when called by Sparf at' a quarter to 11, and did not see St. Clair until he went on deck at 12 o’clock, when he saw him walking on the deck-load on the starboard side, aft of the mainmast.</p> <p>■ “ The hatchet, which was found under the bunk of St. Clair, was identified by Hong, the cook, as the one which St. Clair had borrowed from him at half-past 6 o’clock the evening before, to cut wood with.</p> <p>“ At half-past 10 o’clock, on the night of the homicide, St. Clair had on a blue serge coat, buttoned up, at the time he came back to the wheel and told the mate that something had been carried away,. and he and the mate went forward together. When Captain Sodergren saw St. Clair on the deck, helping the mate to light the lamp, about a quarter after 12 o’clock, he had only a shirt on — a gray shirt; the captain saw no blood on it, and- he went into the forecastle to discover whether there was blood on the men’s clothing. Pandy Secaría had left St.-Clair at the wheel about 9 o’clock that night; he saw him next after 12 o’clock, when the first mate was inquiring: Where is the second mate? He saw him again a few minutes later, after the starboard watch had gone below, coming out of the forecastle; he had changed his clothes; he had got a shirt on and no pants; he jumped inside the forecastle; he had a bundle of clothes in his hand and he chucked them overboard.</p> <p>“ Thomas Green saw St. Clair about 12 o’clock that night, or a little after, have some clothes and throw some clothes overboard. He had some clothes rolled up in a bundle and threw them overboard in front of Green. St. Clair’s hands had blood On them at that time.</p> <p>“ After the mate had disappeared that night, and after St. Clair, Sparf, and Hansen were placed in irons, Sparf said to Edward Larsen, in Swedish, not to say anything about it. And the same night the plaintiff in error, St. Clair, had said to Thomas Green, in the forecastle, ‘ Say nothing about it, Tom.’ ”</p> <p>In the progress of the trial there were numerous exceptions by the accused in respect to the admission of evidence.</p> <p>The defendant asked but one instruction, which was in these words: “ Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, express or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation whatever. The jury are instructed that under the indictment in this case the defendant, St. Clair, may be found guilty of manslaughter, and if, after a full and careful consideration of all the evidence before you, you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of manslaughter you may so find your verdict.” This instruction was refused, but no exception was taken at the time to this action of the court. The court charged the jury upon the law of the case, saying among other things: “Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, either express or implied. I do not consider it necessary, gentlemen, to explain it further, for if a felonious homicide has been committed of which you are to be the judges from the proof, there is nothing in this case to reduce it below the grade of murder.” No exception was taken to the charge of the court or to any part of it.</p> <p>The jury- returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find Thomas St. Clair, the prisoner at the bar, guilty.” Upon that verdict the defendant, after motions for new trial and arrest of judgment had been overruled, was sentenced to suffe. death.</p>

This action .of ejectment was brought September 7, 1883, to recover an undivided half of certain lands in the city of Duluth, county of St. Louis, Minnesota. Pursuant to a written stipulation of the parties the case was tried without a jury and upon the question of title alone, and resulted — Mr. Justice Miller and Judge Nelson concurring — in a judgment for the defendants. 43 Fed. Rep. 270.

Held: that, although the judgment of this court might be, if the question were before it for original consideration, that the bar of the statute would only begin to run upon the death of the holder of the life estate, yet that, the court of last resort of the State having passed upon the *178 questions when the bar of the statute of prescription began to be operative, and when the parties were obliged to bring their…

Held: that the Kentucky act of March 3, 1890, in its effect upon the Bridge Company, violated the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. The judges concurring in the

This was a bill in equity for the specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land.

Held: That the state court had no jurisdiction in personam, over the libellants as holders of maritime liens when the libels were filed; that the question of jurisdiction was, as the case stood, one for the District Court to decide in the first instance; that the District Court had jurisdiction; and that the judgment under review was in effect an unlawful interference with proceedings in that court.

Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. was a United States Supreme Court legal case that was submitted to the court on March 23, 1893, took place in 1894, and is revered in the history of American constitutional law. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Railroad Commission Act of Texas, which established a commission with the power to regulate railroad rates and practices in the state. The case included the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, a financial institution that held bonds issued by the Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company, as the plaintiff and Texas railroad commissioners, John H. Reagan, W. P. McLean, and L. L. Foster, the attorney general of the state of Texas, C. A. Culberson, The International & Great Northern Railroad Company and Thomas N.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES' FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

99, pp. 199 to 291, which, expressly repealing “ all laws and parts of laws within the purview of this act,” provided in itself, a complete and comprehensive system of taxation.

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana.</p>

<p>If an assessing board, seeking to assess for purposes of taxation a part of a railroad within a State, the other part of which is in an adjoining State, ascertains the value of the whole line as a single property and then determines the value of that within the State, upon the mileage basis, that is not a valuation of property outside of the State; and the assessing board, in order to keep within the limits of state jurisdiction, need not treat the part of the road within the State as an independent lino, disconnected from the part without, and place upon that property only .the value which can be given to it if operated separately from the balance of the road.</p> <p>Where an assessing board is charged with the duty of valuing a certain number of miles of railroad within a State forming part of aline of road running into another State, and assesses those miles of road at their actual cash value determined on a mileage basis, this does not place a burden upon interstate commerce, beyond the power of the State, simply because the value of that railroad as a whole is created partly — and perhaps largely — by the interstate commerce which it is doing.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT DP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>This case is dismissed in accordance with the stipulation of counsel.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

ERROR, to the circuit court of the united states for the EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>certificate of division in opinion from the circuit court OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOB THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The removal or appointment of a receiver rests in the sound discretion of the court making the order, and is not revisable here.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: on the facts disclosed by the proof, that he held it as the agent of the borrower. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>’ The case is stated-in the opinion.</p>

<p>The legislature of Iowa had power to authorize the city of Keokuk to subscribe for and take stock in a railway company, to issue its bonds therefor and to lay a tax to pay the interest thereon.</p> <p>It had also power to give validity to bonds informally issued for such purpose.</p> <p>A plaintiff who purchases such bonds in the open market is not chargeable with defects or irregularities in their issue.</p>

<p>error to the circuit court of the united states for the DISTRICT OF IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>This court affirms after the close of the civil war, a judgment condemning a vessel and cargo for violation of the acts of July 13, 1861, c. 3, and August 6, 1861, c. 60, in transferring goods from Alexandria to a part of Virginia then in a state of insurrection.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP MASSACHUSETTS.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO COURT OE APPEALS OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP MISSISSIPPI.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Affirmed on the authority of several cases of a similar character.</p>

<p>certificate of division in opinion from the circuit court OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA,</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss. The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The appellant was a proper party defendant in the court helow, and duly took his appeal.</p> <p>The order assigning the case for hearing at this term is rescinded.</p>

<p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEBRASKA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>Motion to Dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>error to the circuit court op the united states eor the EASTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The appellant has failed to prove the renewal of Ills contract with the • appellee, which alleged renewal is the foundation of the remedy sought for by his bill.</p>

Held: That the fact that the notes were in the possession of the appellees raised a legal presumption that they were their property;-(2) That the weight of the evidence was in favor of the position that the appellees were to be first paid before transferring the notes to appellants. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>APPEAL erom the court oe claims.</p> <p>The casé is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OP- CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEALS PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>No question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act having been passed upon by the court below, this court has no jurisdiction over the judgment of the state court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Petition for mandamus to the judges of the Court of Claims. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>error to the CIRCUIT COURT OP THE united states for the DISTRICT OP MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT ÓE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR . THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The case is stated in' the opinion.</p>

<p>error to the circuit court of the united STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>There being no error, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.</p>

<p>This court will not review a judgment in favor of a firm, if the writ of error does not name the persons who compose it.</p>

<p>This court will not take jurisdiction oyer an interlocutory decree.</p>

<p>APPEALS EROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Petition for writ of prohibition. .The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OR COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERBCR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF KANSAS.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR to the circuit court op the united states for the DISTRICT OP WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>certificate op division in opinion prom the circuit court OF' THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR to the supreme court of the STATE OF WISCONSIN.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Petition of a writ of prohibition to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE ARKANSAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL EROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OE NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE TERRITORY OE MONTANA.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss. The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>To give this court jurisdiction over the judgment of the highest court of a State, brought here by writ of error, it must appear that some question • under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act was made by the pleadings, or passed upon by the court.</p>

<p>A writ of error to a state court is dismissed because no question was decided by that court of which this court has jurisdiction under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.'</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. '</p>

<p>CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT" COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.</p>

<p>This case is dismissed without an opinion, as no exceptions appear to have been taken during the trial.</p>

<p>APPEAL EROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>ERROR. TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p>

<p>A judgment is entered according to the stipulation of the parties.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.-</p>

<p>After a'careful examination of the proof relating to the identity of the appellants’ ancestor with the grantee from the Mexican government, the court affirms the judgment of the court below, without deciding the questions of law.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p>

<p>ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>• ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OP THE CITY OP ALEXANDRIA.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p>

<p>The decree below is affirmed on the facts.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OR APPEALS OE THE STATE OE NEW YORK.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>When it does not appear that a grant from the Mexican Republic had been deposited and recorded in the proper public office, among the public archives of the republic, this court must decide adversely to a claim under it.</p>

<p>ERROE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>Affirmed upon the facts.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The decree below is affirmed upon the facts.</p>

<p>ERROR. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUTREME COURT OR THE STATE OR WISCONSIN.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OR THE UNITED STATES FOB THE DISTRICT OR ÍOWA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP APPEALS of THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.</p>

<p>The order of the Circuit Court in this case, directing an assignment to the trustees in bankruptcy of the judgment against the oil company on bills ■transferred by the bankrupt to the appellant, is affirmed.</p>

<p>On a review of the facts it is held that the Northfleld was free.from fault and the decree below is affirmed.</p>

<p>A decree setting aside a conveyance by a bankrupt to his wife as fraudulent is sustained; but it is also held that a personal decree against her for rents, issues and profits, and for the use and occupation of the' premises was error.</p>

Held: that by reason of the failure of the owner to keep the-vessel tight, staunch, strong and sound, the government was relieved from its liability to deliver the vessel to the owner in New York.

<p>Until the record of a judgment in a state court which this court is called upon to examine discloses the question necessary to give it jurisdiction, this court cannot proceed.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>This court has no jurisdiction over a judgment of a state court when it does not appear that a Federal question was raised, and that it was either decided or necessarily involved in the judgment pronounced.</p>

<p>The facts stated in the opinion show that there is no,t a sufficient amount involved in this case to give this court jurisdiction.</p>

<p>ERROR to THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES' FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.'</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that an assignee in bankruptcy under the Bankrupt Act of 1867, as it stood before the revision, had authority to bring suit iii the state courts, whenever those courts were invested with appropriate jurisdiction suited to the nature of the case.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p>

<p>The finding of the Supreme Court of the State as to the suspension of General Orders Nos. 60 and 70 is sustained by the evidence.</p>

<p>EBBOB TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOB THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p>

<p>In a case of conflicting evidence on a question of fact, the court affirms the decree of the court below.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>An appeal to this court will not lie from the judgment of a Circuit Court in ’ a proceeding by a creditor to prove his demand against the estate of a bankrupt.</p>

<p>appeal from the court of claims.</p> <p>The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed on the facts.</p>

<p>The acceptance by a supernumerary officer in the Continental line of an appointment in the regiment of guards authorized by the State of Virginia took him out of the line and put him into the new organization.</p>

<p>On the case made by the pleadings the court will not disturb the judgment below.</p>

<p>. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE J>r,STRICT OP COLUMBIA.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT.OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p>

<p>A railroad company which runs its line by telegraph, is bound to have a suitable telegraph line, with a proper number of operators, and in case of an accident it is for the jury to decide whether their duty in this respect has been performed.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT. OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The court has no jurisdiction in this case.</p>

<p>ERROR 'TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p>

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURÍ OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p>

<p>ERROR to the supreme COURT OF THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>The findings of fact by the Circuit Court in an admiralty suit are conclusive upon this court.</p>

<p>This decree is affirmed on the facts on the various points stated in.the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p>

This case is reversed because this court is not satisfied that the court below reached a proper conclusion on the facts.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.</p>

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA.</p>

<p>ERJtOR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OR THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OR MISSOURI.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OR LOUISIANA.</p>

Held: that the assignee in bankruptcy had no claim against the outgoing partner as a debtor by reason of this transaction.

<p>ERROR to the SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE MISSOURI.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Affirmed on the facts.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

<p>Affirmed on the facts.</p>

<p>error to the supreme court of THE TERRITORY OF IDAHO.</p>

<p>A contract with the United States for the delivery of postage stamps to it construed.</p>

<p>error to the supreme court of THE TERRITORY OF WYOMING.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA.</p>

<p>A CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p>

<p>error to the supreme court op THE TERRITORY OP WYOMING.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP WYOMING.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP MISSOURI.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p>

<p>error to the circuit court oe the united states for the EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.</p>