United States Supreme Court Reports

selected the land in suit as granted to it by
the act."

*To this bill defendants interposed a plea[692]
setting up the various steps by which the
defendant Groeck obtained the patent of the
land as a qualified pre-emptor, and thereby,
as alleged, obtained a legal and perfect title
in fee simple; and further setting up the
defense of laches to the claim of the railroad
company.

The circuit court entered an order sustaining the plea upon the ground of laches, with leave to the company to reply to the plea and take issue as to the matters of fact therein alleged. 74 Fed. 585. The company having declined to avail itself of this privilege, the circuit court ordered the bill to be dismissed. Whereupon the railroad company appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which reversed the decree of the cir

within 30 miles of the line of road from sale |
or location, pre-emption, or homestead en-
try: that on November 2, 1869, the Secretary
of the Interior made an order declaring the
withdrawal revoked; that on December 15,
1869, the Secretary suspended his order of
November 2, that on July 26, 1870, the
Secretary restored the withdrawal of March
22, 1867; that on August 15, 1887, the Sec-
retary declared the withdrawal of March
22, 1867, revoked, as to the indemnity sec-
tions thereof; that the appellant commenced
to build its road during the year 1870, and
completed the construction in different sec-
tions between that date and the year 1889-
the last section, extending from Huron west-
erly to Alcalde, having been constructed
during the year 1888; that the land in suit
is opposite to and conterminous with that
section, and is within the indemnity limits
of the grant, and is not included in any ex-cuit court, and remanded the case for further
ception therefrom; that on September 2,
1885, the appellee Groeck settled on the land
in controversy, and during the same month
filed his pre-emption claim therefor in the
proper land office of the United States, and
thereafter complied with the land-office reg-
ulations, and on June 7, 1886, made pre-emp-
tion proof and payment for the land; that
on April 11, 1890, patent was issued from
the United States conveying the land to him;
that, as the appellant's road was constructed
in several sections, such sections were ex-
amined by commissioners appointed by the
President, as provided by § 4 of the act, and
that said commissioners reported that such
sections had been completed as required by
the act, and thereupon the President ac-
cepted and approved the reports; that a map
of the definite location of said section be-
tween Huron and Alcalde was filed with and
approved by the Secretary of the Interior
on April 2, 1889, and the President accepted
and approved the commissioners' report on
that section on November 8, 1889; that on
July 13, 1891, the appellant, acting under
the direction of the Secretary of the Interior,
183 U. S.

proceedings. 31 C. C. A. 334, 59 U. S.
App. 366, 87 Fed. 970. The case coming on
again for hearing, a decree was rendered for
the plaintiff, another appeal taken to the
court of appeals, and the decree of the cir-
cuit court aflirmed.

Mr. Joseph H. Call submitted the cause for appellants.

Mr. Maxwell Evarts argued the cause, and, with Mr. L. E. Payson, filed a brief for appellee.

For contentions of counsel, see their briefs as reported in Southern P. R. Co. v. Bell, ante, 383.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

This case resembles the one just decided in all its essential particulars, and is controlled by it.

The decrees of both courts are therefore reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of California, with directions to dismiss the bill.

391

MEMORANDA

CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT OPINION

[693]*RUBLEE A. COLE, Plaintiff in Error, v. F. S. GARLAND et al. [No. 339.]

In Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Mr. Rublee A. Cole p. p.

Mr. Jackson H. Ralston for defendants in error.

October 21, 1901. Writ of error dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of German Nat. Bank v. Spocksert, 181 U. S. 405, 45 L. ed. 926, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688.

ALVIN H. ARMSTRONG et al., Plaintiffs in Erior, E. SIMON D. MAYER et al. No. 353.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska.

Messrs. Charles O. Whedon, L. C. Burr, and Chus. L. Burr for plaintiff's in error. Mr. Walter J. Lamb for defendants in er

ror.

October 21, 1901. Writ of error dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 37 L. ed. 1111, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131.

STATE OF WISCONSIN CX rel. JAMES L.
GATES, Plaintiff in Error, v. COMMISSION
ERS OF PUBLIC LANDS et al. [No. 66.]
In Error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Wisconsin.

Mr. Rublee A. Cole for plaintiff in error. Messrs. E. R. Hicks and Charles E. Buell for defendants in error.

November 4, 1901. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on authority of Hamblin v. Western Land Co. 147 U. S. 531, 37 L. ed. 267, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 595, 42 L. ed. 871. 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 435; Mills County v. Burlington & M. River R. Co. 107 U. S. 557, 27 L. ed. 578, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654; Cook County v. Calumet &C. Canal & Dock Co. 138 U. S. 635, 655, 34 L. ed. 1110, 1117, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 435: Walsh v. Columbus, II. Valley & A. R. Co. 176 U. S. 479, 44 L. ed. 553, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 393; Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485, 41 L. ed. 1087, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 639; ¦ Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 45 L. ed. 119, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 71; and see State ex rel. Gates v. Public Land Comrs. 106 Wis. 584, 82 N. W. 519.

J. ELLIS RODLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEO-[694] PLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. [No. 296.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Mr. George D. Collins for plaintif in er

ror.

Messrs. Tirey L. Ford and C. N. Post for defendant in error.

November 11. 1901. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. on the authority of Caldwell v. Terus, 137 U. S. 692. 34 L. ed. 816. 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224: F. G. Oxley Stare Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 618, 41 L. ed. 1149, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709: Powell v. Brunswick Cornły, 150 U. S. 433, 37 L. ed. 1134, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166.

GEORGE BISSERT, Appellant, v. JAMES J. HAGAN, Warden, etc., et al. [No. 437.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Roger M. Sherman for appellant. Mr. Charles E. Le Barbier for appellees. December 2, 1901. Final order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Storti v. Massachusetts. 183 U. S. 138, ante, 120, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172. 44 L. ed. 119, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184, 44 L. ed. 124, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 76, and cases cited.

CENTRAL OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY (as reorganized) et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. DANIEL J. MAHONEY. [No. 76.]

On a Certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Messrs. J. H. Collins and Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for plaintiff's in error.

Mr. Thomas Ewing Steele for defendant in error.

December 9, 1991. Question certified answered in the negative on the authority of Gableman v. Peoria, D. & E. R. Co. 179 U. S. 335, 45 L. ed. 220, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v.
STEAMSHIP LAURADA, ETC. [No. 64.] KATE YEARGIN, Administratrix.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United 431.]
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

Attorney General, Solicitor General Rich[695]ards, and *Assistant Attorney General Hoyt for petitioner.

Messrs. Andrew C. Gray and H. H. Ward for respondent.

January 6, 1902. Decree affirmed by a divided court, and cause remanded to the district court of the United States for the

district of Delaware.

CHARLES MAYER, Petitioner, v. OLIVER C.
FULLER, Trustee. [No. 335.]

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

Messrs. A. B. Browne, Alex. Britton, and
Thos. H. Dorr for petitioner.

Mr. Charles C. Lancaster for respondent.
October 21, 1901. Denied.

LOTTIE F. POWERS, Petitioner, v. Massachu-
SETTS HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL. [No. 394.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

Messrs. Arthur H. Russell and Thos H.
Russell for petitioner.

Mr. Solomon Lincoln for respondent.
October 21, 1901. Denied.

[No. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Messrs. Thomas T. Fauntleroy, Shepard Barclay, and L. E. Payson for petitioner. No opposition.

October 21, 1901. Denied.

JOHN N. STEWART, Petitioner, v. VILLAGE
OF ASHTABULA, OHIO, et al. [No. 432.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Morison R. Waite for petitioner.
Mr. J. H. McGiffert for respondents.
October 21, 1901. Denied.

HENRY NELSON, Claimant, et al., Petitioners, v. H. BUCHANAN, Claimant, et al. [No. 433.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Jackson H. Ralston for petitioners.
No opposition.

October 21, 1901. Denied.

KATE TOOTLE et al., Petitioners, v. R. R. JOHN F. KUMLER, Petitioner, v. GEORGE W.
COLEMAN et al. [No. 399.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. R. E. Ball for petitioners.
Mr. David Smyth for respondents.
October 21, 1901. Denied.

CITY OF GALVESTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED
STATES MORTGAGE & TRUST COMPANY et
al. [No. 404.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

Messrs. James B. Stubbs and D. W. Baker for petitioner.

Messrs. Julien T. Davies, R. S. Lovett, and Brainard Tolles for respondents. October 21, 1901. Denied.

GEORGE L. WHITMAN, Petitioner, v. KATE A.
NORTON [No. 425]; GEORGE L. WHITMAN,
Petitioner, v. JOHN WATTS, as Receiver
[No. 426]; GEORGE L. WHITMAN, Peti-
tioner, v. CITIZENS' BANK OF READING,
PA. [No. 427].

Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

HALE, Executor, etc. [No. 326.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Messrs. Orville S. Brumback, Jos. B. Foraker, and Arthur Peter for petitioner. Messrs. Barton Smith and Rufus H. Baker for respondent.

October 28, 1901. Denied.

[696]

CAMPBELL PRINTING PRESS & MANUFACTUR-
ING COMPANY, Petitioner,
v. DUPLEX

PRINTING PRESS COMPANY. [No. 340.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Louis W. Southgate for petitioner. Messrs. T. H. Alexander and Arthur E. Dowell for respondent.

October 28, 1901. Denied.

WILCOX & GIBBS SEWING MACHINE COM-
PANY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS P. SHER-
BORNE, JR., et al. [No. 352.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for

Mr. Wm. G. Wilson for petitioner.
Messrs. Chas. E. Hughes and Arthur C. the Third Circuit.
Rounds for Norton.

Messrs. Wm. B. Hornblower and Mc-
Cready Sykes for Watts, Rec'r and Citizens'
Bank.

October 21, 1901. Denied.

Messrs. Preston K. Erdman, Geo. Tucker Bispham, and Hubert Howson for petitioner. Messrs. John G. Johnson and Frank P. Prichard for respondent.

October 28, 1901. Denied.

YELLOW POPLAR LUMBER COMPANY, Peti- | NASHUA SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, v. An-
tioner, v. JOHN F. DANIEL. [No. 374.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

[697] Messrs. Jno. W. M. Stewart, *Jno. N.
Balduin, and Jno. F. Hager for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas R. Brown for respondent.
October 28, 1901. Denied.

GLO-AMERICAN LAND MORTGAGE & AGENCY
COMPANY (LIMITED). [No. 415.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

Mr. John S. H. Frink for petitioner.
Mr. Omar Powell opposing.
November 11, 1901.

Granted.

*JOHN A. BRILL et al., Petitioners, v. PECK-[698]
HAM MOTOR TRUCK & WHEEL COMPANY et
al. [No. 444.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Messrs. Francis Rawle and Frederick P.
Fish for petitioners.

Mr. Henry P. Wells opposing.
November 11, 1901. Granted.

CITY OF AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. E. C. BARTHOLOMEW and JOSEPH NALLE, Receivers. [No. 429.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. S. R. Fisher for petitioner.
No opposition.

November 18, 1901. Denied.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Petitioner, v. JAMES
JACKSON. [No. 458.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. Samuel L. Gilmore for petitioner. Messrs. J. D. Rouse, Wm. Grant, Richard De Gray, and H. M. Jordan for respondent.

November 18, 1901. Denied. (Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Peckham took no part in the decision on this application.) HARRIET M. ZANE, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF HAMILTON. [No. 344.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Mr. George A. Sanders for petitioner.
Mr. J. M. Hamill opposing.
November 25, 1901. Granted.

WILLIAM J. F. DWYER, Petitioner, v. Lewis
NIXON. [No. 446.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Messrs. Louis Marshall and James M.
Beck for petitioner.

Mr. Wm. G. Low for respondent.
November 25, 1901. Denied.

« iepriekšējā Turpināt »

Grāmatas

United States Supreme Court Reports, 46. sējums