Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 245 U. S.

No. 251. BATESVILLE SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. M. H. MIMS. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. January 4, 1918. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Thomas A. Evans and Mr. Roger Montgomery for plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. R. Wood for defendant in error.

No. 123. NANNIE C. GIBSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN J. LENTZ. In error to the Court of Appeals for the Second Judicial District of the State of Ohio. January 14, 1918. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Smith W. Bennett and Mr. W. J. Geer for plaintiff in error. Mr. John D. Karns for defendant in error.

No. 181. BERT WILLIAMS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. A. P. SANDLES ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. January 31, 1918. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. F. S. Monnett for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Edward C. Turner for defendants in error.

No. 694. ROBERT F. STROUD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. UNITED STATES. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. February 4, 1918. Judgment reversed upon confession of error; and cause remanded for further proceedings, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Davis for the United States. Mr. Isaac B. Kimbrell and Mr. Martin J. O'Donnell for plaintiff in error.

No. 423. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. W. E. HOLLIFIELD. In

245 U.S.

Cases Disposed of in Vacation.

error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. February 4, 1918. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. James H. Merrimon and Mr. Alfred S. Barnard for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.

CASES DISPOSED OF IN VACATION.

No. 139. COAL & COKE RY. Co., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. DAVID F. DEAL. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. July 16, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. George E. Price for plaintiff in error. Mr. H. W. Houston for defendant in error.

No. 241. JOHN A. BELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. LIZZIE E. FITZPATRICK. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. July 31, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. James A. Veazey for plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph P. Rossiter for defendant in error.

No. 182. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. W. E. GOODE. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. August 15, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. John Galvin and Mr. Edward Colston for plaintiff in error. Mr. Emmet Puryear for defendant in error.

INDEX.

ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE. See Jurisdiction, I, 3; PAGE

III, (7).

ACCOUNTING. See Landlord and Tenant.

ACETYLENE GAS LAMPS:

Patent held valid and infringed. Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. v. Baldwin....

ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. See particular titles.

1. The immunity of the United States from suit recognizes
no distinction between cross and original bills, or ancillary
and original suits. Illinois Central R. R. v. Public Utilities
Comm....

2. Suit by United States to quiet its title to land erroneously
excluded from survey, against abutting owner claiming ri-
parian rights, is not a suit to vacate or annul defendant's
patent, and limitation of Act of 1891 inapplicable. Lee
Wilson & Co. v. United States.

3. Intentionally to do that which is calculated in the or-
dinary course of events to damage and which does in fact
damage another person in his property or trade, is malicious
in law and actionable if done without just cause or excuse;
and a proffered excuse cannot be deemed a just cause or ex-
cuse where it is based upon an assertion of conflicting rights
that are sought to be attained by unfair methods and for the
very purpose of interfering with plaintiff's rights of which
defendants have notice. Any violation of plaintiff's legal
rights, contrived by defendants for the purpose of inflicting
damage, or having that as its necessary effect, is unlawful.
Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell..

198

493

24

229

4. One who has paid unreasonable freight charges may re-
cover the overpayments from the carrier, even though he
has shifted the burden by collecting from purchasers of the
goods. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co.. .. .. .. 531

ACTIONS AND DEFENSES.-Continued.

5. Where liabilities of shareholders of corporation to pay
stock subscriptions are several, independent and uncondi-
tional, and no issue with the corporation touching such lia-
bilities is common to the shareholders, the remedy of the
corporation, or its trustee in bankruptcy, is by action at law
against each shareholder separately, and not in equity on the
ground of multiplicity of actions. Kelley v. Gill. ...

6. Matters of defense-in this case the bar of the statute of
limitations-cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test validity
of arrest in extradition, but must be heard and determined
at trial in demanding State. Biddinger v. Commissioner of
Police...

7. Patent for allotment issued under Act of Aug. 7, 1882, in
name of an Indian who was dead at the time, cannot be at-
tacked by a mere occupant of allotment in action brought
by United States and patentee's heir to recover damages for
wrongful use and occupation of premises. United States v.
Chase.

8. Equities of abutting owner claiming riparian rights in
public lands erroneously surveyed are not cognizable judi-
cially but should be addressed to legislative department of
government. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States..

ACTS OF CONGRESS. See Table at front of volume; Stat-
utes.

ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. See Equity, 3.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS. See references under Ex-
ecutive Officers.

PAGE

116

128

89

24

Effect of acts to estop United States from asserting title to
public land erroneously surveyed. Lee Wilson & Co. v.
United States...

24

ADMIRALTY:

As to territorial status of American vessel. See Scharren-
berg v. Dollar S. S. Co......

122

AGENCY. See Food and Drugs Act, 3, 4.

ALIENATION, RESTRAINT ON. See Constitutional Law,
XIV, 2; Indians.