89 F. 1017 -

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

1017

States for the District of Kentucky. James A. Scott and John B. O'Neal, for plaintiff in error. W. M. Smith, U. S. Atty. Dismissed for failure to print record. '.rHE G. R. BOOTH. (Oircuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.) Questions of law certified to the supreme court of the United States. See 19 SUl1. Ct. 9.

GRIFFIN v. KEENAN et aI. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 3, 1898.) No. 1,153. Appeal from the Oircuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. James McHale and E. Southworth, for appellees. Docketed and dismissed, with CO&ts, pursuant to the Bixteenth rule, on motion of counsel for appellees.

HAGUE et aI. v. UNITED STATES. (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 25, 1897.) No. 61. Appeal from the CIrcuit Court of the UnIted States for the Southern DIstrict of New York. Comstock & Brown, for appellants. Wallace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty. No opInion. Affirmed. See 73 Fed. 810. HARVEY PEAK TIN MIN., MILL. & MFG. CO. v. FLETCHER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second CIrcuIt. January 25, 1897.) Appeal from the Cir· cuit Court of the UnIted States for the Southern District of New York. Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, for appellant. David Wilcox, for appellee. DismIssed, pursuant to the sixteenth rule, for failure to docket.

HOLLAND et aI. v. SONSMITH et al. (CircuIt Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 8, 1898.) No. 19. Appeal from the CIrcuIt Court of the UnIted States for the Eastern District of MichIgan. Harvey D. Goulder, for appellants. F. H. Canfield, for appellees. No opInion. Decree of circuit court reversed, and that of dIstrict court affirmed.

HOLMES, BOOTH & HAYDENS v. McGILL. (CIrcuIt Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 6, 1897.) No. 139. In Error to the CIrcuit Court of the UnIted States for the Southern DIstrict of New York. Ward, Hayden & Satterlee, for plaintIff in error. Atwater, Cruikshank, for defendant In error. No opInion. Affirmed. H. W. JOHNS MFG. CO. v. ROBERTSON. (CircuIt Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. November 16, 1896.) 20. Appeal from the CIrcuIt Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Wetmore & Jenner, for appellant. Gallagher & Hichards, for appellee. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 64 Fed. 234.

H. W. JOHNS MFG. CO. v. ROBER'rSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second CircuIt. November 16, 1896.) No. 22. Appeal from the CIrcuit Court of the UnIted States for the Southern District of New York. Wetmore & Jenner, for appellant. Gallagher & Hichards, for appellee. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 64 Fed. 2'34.

89 FEDER.A.LREPORTER.

INTlJJRIOR CONDUIT & INSULATION CO. v. EUREKA ELECTRIC CO, (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 22, 1895.) No. 58. Ape peal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Dyer & Seely and Lewis & Driscoll, for appellant. Francis Forbes, for appellee. No opinion. Affirmed. See 62 Fed. 456.

THE JOSHUA NICHOLSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 20, 1897.) No. 86. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Wilcox, Adams & Green, for appellant Berwind-White Coal-Min. Co·. Conyers & Kirlin, f.or appellee the Joshua Nicholson. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to twentieth rule. See 56 Fed. 614. THE KATE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Oircult. November 30, No. 84. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. George Bethune Adams, for appellant Berwind-White Coal-Min. 00. Conyers & Kirlin,. for appellee the Kate. Case certified to supreme court for instructions. See 164 U. S. 458,17 Sup. Ct. 135.
1896.)

KNOTT v. BOTANY WORSTED MILLS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 27, 1897.) No. 128. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Conyers & Kirlin, for appellant. Black & Kneelan, for appellee. No opinion. Affirmed.

LOBITZ v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 15, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Stephen G. Clarke, for appellant. Wallace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty. Dismissed, pursuant to the sixteenth rule, for failure to docket. See 75 Fed. 834. MAITLAND v. BIRKETT. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 8, 1897.) No. 115. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Henry M. Brigham, for appellant. Dyer & Driscoll, for appellee. Affirmed by a divided court.

MERCANTILE CREDIT GUARANTEE CO. OF NEW YORK v. TEBBETTS et a!. (Oircuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 20, 1897.) Xo. 117. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. A.J. Dittenhoefer and David Murray, for plaintiff In error. Stickney, Spencer & Ordway, for defendants in error. No opinion. Affirmed. See 19 C. C. A. 281, 73 Fed. 95.

MEXICAN NAT. R. CO. v. DAVIDSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 30, 1895.) No. 49. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Treadwell Cleveland, for plaintiff in error. Parsons, Shepard & Ogden, for defendant in error. No opinion. Reversed, pursuant to answer of supreme court on certificate. 157 U. S. 201, 15. Sup. Ct. 563.