210 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. No. 436. SAMUEL BURAK, APPELLANT, V. MILO D. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, ETC. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. June 1, 1908. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. Bernard B. Selling for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee. No. 460. THE MILWAUKEE RUBBER WORKS COMPANY, PETITIONER, V. THE RUBBER TIRE WHEEL COMPANY. On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. June 1, 1908. Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. John C. Spooner, Mr. Charles Quarles and Mr. J. L. Bishop for petitioner. Mr. Augustine L. Humes for respondent. No. 712. NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY, OF LOUISVILLE, APPELLANT, v. FRANK P. JAMES ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. June 1, 1908. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellant. Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey for appellant. No appearance for appellees. AMERICAN RAILROAD COMPANY OF PORTO RICO v. DE CASTRO.1 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO. No. 467. Argued January 14, 1907.-Decided February 25, 1907. Decided on the authority of American Railroad Company v. Castro, 204 U.S. 453. THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Frederick McKenney, with whom Mr. Francis H. Dexter and Mr. John Spalding Flannery were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frederic L. Cornwell for defendant in error submitted. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court. This case is similar in character to that of American Railroad Co. v. Julio P. Castro, No. 151, this (1906) term, just decided (204 U. S. 453), having been brought to recover for damages resulting from injuries sustained by the wife in the same accident which occasioned the death of the daughter Eloisa. The right of this court in the case at bar to review a judgment for the plaintiffs below, entered upon the verdict of a jury, is based upon an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court similar to that which was made in No. 151. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case the writ of error in this case must also be Dismissed. 1 This case should have been reported immediately after American Railroad Co. v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453, but was inadvertently omitted. APPENDIX RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ADOPTED JANUARY 7, 1884 AND AS SINCE PROMULGATED AND AMENDED RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY CASES INDEX TO APPENDIX Page SPECIAL INDEX TO RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.. 471 REQUIREMENTS ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI UNDER ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891.... 503 ORDER IN REFERENCE TO APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 505 TABLES OF FORMS IN BANKRUPTCY AS ADOPTED AND ESTABLISHED 584 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.. 586 |