Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

BATE REFRIGERATING CO. v. SULZBERGER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 11, 1897.) No. 82. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Charles E. Mitchell, for appellant. Hoffman Miller, for appellee. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

BUTLER v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. March Term, 1899.) In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in the case of Wilkins v. U. S. (C. C. A.; March Term, 1899) 96 Fed. 837, this case is affirmed. The record will be remitted to the district court, with directions to enforce the sentence imposed.

CARTER-CRUME CO. v. ASHLEY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. November 10, 1897.) No. 3. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. James A. Allen, for appellant. Charles H. Duell, for appellee. Dismissed on motion of appellee, pursuant to the twenty-second rule. See 68 Fed. 378.

In re CHU AH QUAN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. November 16, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. William C. Beecher, for appellant. Wallace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty., for appellee. Dismissed for failure to docket, pursuant to the sixteenth rule.

DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO. v. PROBASCO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. September 30, 1897.) In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Rogers, Locke & Millburn, for plaintiff in error. Clark & Tuthill, for defendant in error. Dismissed for failure to docket, pursuant to the sixteenth rule.

DIME SAV. BANK OF DETROIT v. MANUFACTURERS' PAPER CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. July 5, 1899.) In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. Edwin F. Conely, for plaintiff in error. Leo. M. Butzel, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

DONALLAN v. TANNAGE PATENT CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. November 2, 1899.) No. 296. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. George L. Roberts and W.

Orison Underwood, for appellant. Frederick P. Fish and William K. Rich-
ardson, for appellee. Before WEBB, District Judge. Dismissed, without costs,
per stipulation. See 93 Fed. 811.

ELMIRA WATERWORKS CO. v. NEW YORK FILTER MFG. CO. (Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 16, 1898.) No. 96. Appeal from
the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
F. H. Betts and F. G. Finck, for appellant. John R. Bennett, for appellee.
Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 83 Fed. 1013.

HART & HEGEMAN MFG. CO. V. ANCHOR ELECTRIC CO. et al. (Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. October 4, 1899.) No. 238. Appeal from
the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Henry
B. Brownell, for appellant. Edward P. Payson, for appellees. Before COLT,
Circuit Judge, and BROWN and LOWELL, District Judges. Motion to reserve
leave to court below to entertain motion by defendants to take further testi-
mony denied. See 34 C. C. a. 606, 92 Fed. 657.

LI FOON V. MCCARTHY, United States Marshal. (Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, Second Circuit. October 27, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the Southern District of New York. Petition for writs
of habeas corpus and certiorari. William C. Beecher, for appellant. Wallace
Macfarlane, U. S. Atty., for appellee. Dismissed for failure to docket, pursuant
to the sixteenth rule. See 80 Fed. 881.

.

MT. MORRIS ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. (Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 1, 1896.) No. 14. Appeal
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New
York. Forster, Hotaling & Klenke, for appellant. Cravath & Houston, for
appellee. Dismissed on consent.

PINE V. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK. (Circuit Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit. October 27, 1897.) No. 106. Appeal from the Cir-
cuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Moran
& Williams, for appellant. Francis M. Scott, Corp, Counsel, for appellee. No
opinion. Judgment atlirmed. See 76 Fed. 418.

PRESS PUB, CO. v. CROSSMAN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir-
cuit. December 16, 1897.) No. 49. In Error to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District of New York. Bowers & Sands, for
plaintiff in error. Howe & Hummel, for defendant in error. No opinion.
Judgment reversed.

REED MFG. CO. v. BROWN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir-
cuit. March 10, 1898.) No. 71. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Northern District of New York. Edward Wetmore, for appel-

lant. F. H. Hamlin, for appellees. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the
twentieth rule. See 81 Fed. 48.

SOCIETE FABRIQUES DE PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DE THANN ET DE MULHOUSE v. FRENCH & AMERICAN TRADING CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 4, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Lee & Lee, for appellant. Stern & Rushmore, for appellees. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 82 Fed. 139.

SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. ROBINSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 17, 1898.) In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. L. G. & W. A. Goodhart, for plaintiff in error. Hackett & Williams, for defendant in error. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule,

THIRD NAT. BANK OF BOSTON V. MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK OF PROVIDENCE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. October 10, 1899.) No. 286. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Moorfield Storey and John L. Thorndike, for plaintiff in error. Louis D. Brandeis and Walter F. Angell, for defendant in error. Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and WEBB, District Judge. No opinion. Judgment affirmed on agreement.

UNITED STATES V. BARTRAM et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. September 16, 1897). Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Wallace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty. Arthur L. Sherer, Jr., for appellees. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 77 Fed. 604.

UNITED STATES V. BARTRAM. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. September 14, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Wallace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty. Benjamin Barker, for appellee. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 77 Fed. 604.

UNITED STATES V. BARTRAM. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir. cuit. September 16, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. allace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty. Benjamin Barker, for appellee. Dismissed on consent, pursuant to the twentieth rule. See 77 Fed. 604.

UNITED STATES v. CHAMPION. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Cir. cuit. June 13, 1899.) No. 585. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Illinois. S. H. Bethea, for the United States. Joseph B. David, for appellee. Dismissed.

UNITED STATES V. PASSAVANT et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 10, 1898.) No. 40. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Wallace Macfarlane,

U. 8. Atty. Stanley, Clarke & Smith, for appellees. No opinion. Judgment reversed, pursuant to the decision of the questions certified to the supreme court. 169 U. S. 16, 18 Sup. Ct. 219.

WEAVER V. WILLIAMS et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 6, 1897.) No. 130. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Shiland & Honeyman, for appellant. Convers & Kirlin, for appellees. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

McILWAINE et al. v. ELLINGTON et al. (Circuit Court, W. D. North Carolina. August 4, 1899.) In Equity.

SIMONTON, Circuit Judge. This case is similar to that of These Complainants v. Iseley (C. C.; just decided) 96 Fed. 62. The loan was for $1,000 on 10 shares of stock secured by a mortgage of lands in Greensboro, N. C. The subscription in both cases was made in the same way, submitted through a local agent to the directors of the company at Knoxville, Tenn. And so, in like manner, the proposal for the loan, with the completed note and mortgage, was also presented and submitted for the consideration, determination, and acceptance of the directors at Knoxville; and after such consideration they were accepted and approved, and the loan was made. This case must be decided as the other has been. The defendants will be charged with the principal sum loaned, with interest at 6 per cent. from date, and with all sums paid for taxes and premiums of insurance by the corporation or complainants, with interest from date of such payments, respectively. They will be credited, on the principle of partial payments, with all sums paid by way of stock subscription, interest, and installments of premium. Costs to be paid by defendants.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 96.

!

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »