81 F. 1003 -

MEMORANDUM DECmIOKL

1003

they have ani! thatl said specIal master report the eTlc'lence with all convenient speed thereafter. In the meaJltime the restrainlDir order heretofore issued iii continued until further order.

"1::<======::::1

CHICAGO & A.. R. CO. v. OAMPBELL.l (Oireult Court ot Appeals, Eighth Oircuit, February 23, 1897.) No. 843. In Error to the Olrcult Court of the United States for the Eastern Dlstr1ct of Missouri. Joseph S. Laurie, Marshall F. McDonald, and· Thomas T. Fauntleroy, for plaintiff in error. F. W. Lehmann and O'Neill Ryan, for defendant in error. No opinlon. Affirmed, with costs, by divided court. CITY OF PLATTSMOUTH, NEB., v. POLLOCK. (Olrcult Court ot Appeals, Eighth May 4, 1897.) No. 926. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Matthew Gering, for appellant. samuel M. Chapman and A. N. SuIlivan, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costa, on motion of appellee, for want of Jurisdiction.

.

.

ORASS T. McGHEE. (Oireult Court ot Appeal!!, Fifth CIrcuit. May 4, 1897.) No. 384. Appeal from the Oireult Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama. Lawrence (Jooper, for appellant. Milton Humes and John H. Sheffey, for appellee. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, C1rcuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed trom Is amrmed. wltll costa.

CURRAN et al. v. GRADY TRADING 00. (Olrcult Court of Appeals, Eighth Oircult. May 4, 1897.) No. 928. In Error to the Un1ted States Court of Appeals for Indian Territory. T. N. Foster, for plalntl1fs In error. No opinion. Dlamlssed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiffs In error.

DAVIS T. DAVIS et al. (Oircult Court ot Appeals, Fifth C1rcnlt. May 41897.) No. 555. Appeal from the OlreuIt Court of the United States for the Southern District of MIssissippI. This was a suit in equity by W. J. Davl8 Ilgalnst H. L. Davis and others to establish an equitable title to, and recover posIeBslon of, the one undivided half of the Homo Chitto plantation, in Ada.ins county, Miss. The circuit court sustained a general demurrer to the bill, but on apwas reversed by this court, and tlIe cause remanded for further peal this proceedings. See 18 O. C. A. 438, 72 Fed. 81. The court below, having, aecordIngly heard the cause upon the merits, dismissed the blll because the plaintiff had failed to show any right to the relief SOUght. From this decree the complainIlnt has now appealed. T. A. McWlllle, for appellant. Edward Mayes. for appellee. Before PARDEE ami McCORMICK, OIrcuIt Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge. PER OURIAM. The facts established by the evidence are not suftlclent to warrant the 1Ind1ng that Samuel B. Newman, Sr., had actual notice of W. J. Davis' equity in the lands In controversy, nor to warrant the presumption that Mrs. Mattie L. Newman, the mortgagee, knew, or ought to have known, of any IUch equity. The decree appealed trom 18 a1I1rmid. II Rehearing denied April 12, 1891.

1004

81 FEDERAL REPORTER,.

DOW et a1. T. UNITED STATES. (CIrcUit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 21, 1897.) No. 922.

CERTIORARI TO PBRFEOT REOORD.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Motion for a writ of certiorari. Denied. Greeley W. Whitford and Henry V. Johnson, for the motion. Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and LOCHREN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The motion of the defendant in error for a writ of certiorari to the court below for the purpose of perfecting the record herein is denied, (1) because it does not appear from the moving papers that the portions of the evidence which the defendant lnerror seeks to have returned to this court form a part of the bill of exceptions in the case; (2) because it appears from the motion papers ibat the absence of the evidence can .be of no disadvantage to the defendant in error, since it seeks to sustain tI;Ie ruling of the court admitting the evidence, Which Is omitted, and submitting the case to the jury, and the appellate court wlll presume that the ruling of the trial court upon these questions was rlght, unless the evidence admitted by Its ruling appears in the printed record.

FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. OREGON IMP. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, ·Nlnth Circuit. June 1, 1800.) No. 234. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. Dolph, Mallory, Simon & Strahan and Dolph, Nixon & .Dolph, for appellant. A. F. Burleigh, Zera Snow, and Milton W. Smith, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed after argument.

F ARMERS;ioAN & TRUST CO. v. OTIS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Clrcu1t. June 1, 1896.) No. 279·. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Washington. Dolph, Mallory & Simon, for appellant. Zera Snow and H. M. Herman, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed by agreement, pursuant to the twentieth rule.

.

FRANKUN v. UNION LOAN &: TRUST CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 29, 1894.) r>lo. 129. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.· 'Charles D. Houghton, for appellant. EdwIn Lamme, R. E. Houghton, and W. J. Curtis, for appellee. No opinion. By cotlsent the de<'ree entered upon· the appeal In Southern California Motoi'...Road Co. v. Union Loan lit Trust Co., 29 U. S. App. 110, 12 C. C. A.. 215, and 64 Fed. 450, stands against the appellant ,In this appeal

GILLINGHAM: etal. v. mLUGAN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 17, 1897.) No. 496. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Templeton & cates, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed for failure to print record, pursuant to the twenty-third rule. GREEN et aI. v. AMERICAN SODA-FOUNTAIN CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, ThIrd Circuit. March 4, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Counsel for appellants