MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.
1001
the court do not deem It necessary, under the c1rcUmstances, to do more than announce the judgment which had thus been unanimously determined upon. ID accordance therewith the judgment of the court below 18 a11lrmed.
POMEROY v. GLENN. (Circuit Court of Appeais, Second Circuit.) No. 319. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George Zabriskie, for appellant. B. N. Harrison, Charles Marshall, and A. H. Masten, for appellee. No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs, on opinion in Furnald v. Glenn, 12 C. C. A. 27, 64 Fed. 49.
POPE MANUF'G 00. v. KIRKPATRICK. (Circuit Court ot Appeals, second Oircwt. December 2, 1895.) In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. W. A. Redding, for plaintiif in error. Curr & Curtis, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, pursuant to the twentieth rule. RANDALL v. GLENN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.) No. 320. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George Zabriskie, fOT appellant. B. N. Harrison, Charles Marshall, and A. H. Masten, for appellee. No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs, on opinion in Furnald v. Glenn, 12 C. C. A. 27, 64 Fed. 49.
In re'RICKS. (Circuit Oomt of Appeals, Fifth Oircuit. AprIl 28, 1896.) No. 495. Petition for mandamus requiring the judges ot the circuit court tor the Eastern district of Louisiana to grant an appeal in the cause of Charles Hoppe & SOn Malting Co. against the New Orleans Brewing Association. W. D. Hart, tor petitioner. No opinion. Petition refused.
ROTH v. AMERICAN LOAN & TRUST CO. et a1. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 1, 1897.) No. 351. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for tbe District of Washington, Eastern Division. Wallace McCamant, tor appellees. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs, on motion ot counsel for appellees. RUSS V. TELFENER.l (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. November 24, 1896.) No. 537. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of 1.'exas. Before PARDEE and McCORMIOK, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District JUdge. PER CURIAM. When this case was last before the supreme court of the United States (16 Sup. Ct. 695), the contract upon which the plaintiff In error !lues was fully examined, considered, and construed, leaving, in our opinion, no ground upon which Russ, plaintiif below, plaintiif in error bere, can maintain a suit thereon. The jUdgment of tbe circuit court was to this eifect, and is affirmed. 1
Rehearin&, denied, January 26, 1897.
1002
79 FEDERAL REPORTER.
'I1HE SAGINAW VALLEY. OALVIN et al v. ESOANABA TOWING & WREOKING CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 14, 1896.) No. 423. AppeaLfrom the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan, Northern Division. F. Howard Mason, for appellants. '.lohn C. Richberg, for appellee. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.
THE SEGURANOA.. BROWN et al. v. PROCIDEDS OF THE SEGURANCA. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second CIrcuit. May 12, 1896.) No. 709. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Cary & Whibridge, for appellants. Carter & Ledyard, for appellee. Discontinued by consent.
SEVERS et al. v. BULL. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 6, 1896.) No. 812. In Error to the United States Court of Appeals of Indian Territory. P. L. Soper and Thomas A. Sanson, Jr., for defendant in error. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, pursuant to sixteenth rule, on motion of defendant in error. SEVERS et al. v. NORTHERN TRUST 00. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 6, 1896.) No. 811. In Error to the United States Court of Appeals of Indian Territory. P. L. Soper and Thomas A. Sanson, Jr., for defendant in error. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, pursuant to sixteenth rule, on motion of defendant in error.
=== THE SINTRAN. MOSLE v. THE SINTRAN et aI. (Qlrcuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 7, 1896.) No. 574. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George A. Black, for appellant. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for appellees. No opinion. Affirmed In open court. SIOUX CITY, O'N. & W. R. CO. v. MANHATTAN TRUST CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth CircUit. June 22, 1896.) No. 505. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Henry J. Taylor, for appellant. John L. Webster, for appellee. No opinion. Decree of affirmance vacated, and case restored to docket. Affirmed by a divided court, and costs equally divided.
=
SIOUX CITY, O'N. & W. R. CO. et at v. MANHATTAN TRUST CO. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 22, 1896.) No. 661. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. John C. Coombs and Henry J. Taylor, for appellants. John L. Webster, for appellee. No opinion. Decree of affirmance vacated, and case restored to docket. Af· firmed by divided court, and costs ellually divided.
SPENCER et al. v. USELTON. (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 5, 1896.) No. 463. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States tor the Northern District of Georgia. Dorsey. Bruce & Howell, for appellants. Reuben R. Arnold, for appellee. Cause dismissed on agreement of counsel.