990
79 FEDERAL REPORTER.
ANDERSON T. MACKAY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seconll Circuit. November 11, 1895.) No. 630. Error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George PutnlUn Smith, for plaIntiff in error. Robert H. Griffin, for defendant in error. Dismissed on motion.
ASPINWALL v. GLENN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 15, 1891.) No. 313. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George Zabriskie, for appellant. B. N. Harrison, for appellee. No opInion. Decree affirmed, with costs.
THE BEAOONSFIELD. SANBERN v. THE BEACONSFIELD et aI. (Circuit Court of Appeals, second Circuit. June 19, 1895.) No. 432. Appeal from the Clrcutt Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. J. Parker Kirlin, for William Libbey. George A. Black, for claimant E'lizabeth Oleugh. Sidney ChUbb, for libelants. Dismissed by consent.
BRANCHl v. GLENN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Clrcutt.) No. 814. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George Zabriskie, for appellant. B. N. Harrison, Charles Mushall, 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.
BROWN et at v. PRINCE STEAM SHIPPING CO., LImited. HARTMAN SAME.1 (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. December 1, 1896.) No. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and SPEER, District Judge. PER OURIAM. The appeals In the above-entitled consolidated cause were heard shortly prior to the close of the last term, but, owing to the voluminous record and briefs and sickness among the judges, were not then decided. The controlling question is whether the supplies furnished by W. H. Brown Sons to the steamship Moorish Prince, and services rendered by Charles Hartman to the steamship British Prince, were supplies furnished and services rendered respectively on the credit of the ships, or upon contracts with, and on the credit of, the charterers, the MetroIlOlitan Trading Association, Limited, of London. After a careful consideration of the conflicting evidence and of the able briefs and oral arguments SUbmitted, we reach the conclusion that the decrees of the district court dismissing the appellant's libels are in accordance with the preponderance of evidence, and therefore said decrees are affirmed. V.
BRYSON et a1. v. KOONS. (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. February 12, 1897.) No. 213. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina. Moore & Moore, for defendant in error. No opinion. Cause docketed and dismissed on certificate of clerk, pursuant to 91xteenth rule; plaintiffs In error having failed to file record by return day of the writ of error. 1
Rehearing denied January 26, 1897.
MEMORANDUM: DEcisIONS.
991
BUF'FALO BILL'S WILD WEST 00. v. ROSER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Se'cond Oircuit·. March 11, 1896.) No. 591. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United Sta.tes for the Southern District of New York. S. L. Samuels, tOr plaintiff in error. R. H. Landale, for defendant 'In error. No opinion. Reversed in open cou1'!t.
BURT v. GLENN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.) No. 815. App.eaI from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of York. George Zabriskie, for appellant, B. N. Harrison, Oharles Marshall, and A. H. Masten, for appellee. No opinion. Decree atfirmed, with costs, on opinion in Furnald v. Glenn, 12 C. C. A. 27. 64 Fed. 49.
CANADA SHIPPING 00. v. HASKELL. (Circuit Oourt of Appeals, First Olrcult. November 28, 1896.) No. 133. Appeal .from the District Court of the States for the District of Massachusetts. Edward S. Dodge, for appellant. . Frederic Ounningham; for appellee. Diem_ed pursuaILt to. atipulatlon of counsel, Without coste to either party.
CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY (Ciloicuit Court of Appeals, Third Circulit.
v. WIEGAND et aL February 22, 189'7.)
WIEGAND et al. v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY. CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-LIABILITY AS TO BAGGAGE.
In Error to the Ofrcuit -Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For opinion, see 75 Fed. 370. Samuel Dickson, tor Central R. Co. of New Jersey. WebSoter A. Melcher, for Wiegand. Before AOHESON and DALLAS, Olrcult Judges, and WALES, Distr'lct Judge. PER CURIAM. The judges by whom this case was heard, including the IateJudge WALES, had, some time previous to his death, all agreed upon the disposition to be made of it. The survivors of those who then constituted the court do not deem It necessary, under the circumstances, to do more than annonnce the judgment which had thus been unanimously determined upon. In accordance therewith the judgment of the court below is atfirmed.
CHASE v. OATLIN. (Oircu1t Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 20, 1895.) No. 526. Appeal from the Oircuit Court of the United States tor the Southern District of New York. W. P. Preble, Jr., for appellant. Knevals & Perry, for appellee. No opinion. Ordered dismIssed.
Ex Parte CITIZENS' NAT, BANK OF DIDS MOINES, IOWA. SPARKS v. NATIONAL MASONIC AOe. ASS'N OF DES MOINES, lOWA. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Olrcuit. December 8, 1896.) No.7, original. Petil-