(124 Fed. 1017.) KERR v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. April 24, 1903.) No. 964. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin. A. L. Sanborn and L. A. Doolittle, for plaintiff in error. William G. Wheeler and Henry T. Sheldon, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1017.) LANDER, County Treasurer, v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. COMMERCIAL NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. PARK NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. UNION NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. CLEVELAND BANK. SAME v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. EUCLID AVE. NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME v. STATE NAT. BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. SAME V. WESTERN RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. November 5. 1902.) Nos. 1,049-1,059. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. P. H. Kaiser and A. B. Benedict, for appellant. E. S. Cook, for appellees Central Nat. Bank and Euclid Ave. Nat. Bank. A. C. Dustin, for appellee Western Reserve Bank. W. H. Boynton and Norton T. Horr, for other appellees. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1018.) MCEVOY v. C. MANGOLD MILLING CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 18, 1902.) No. 1,091. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. Bundy & Travis, for plaintiff in error. Frank L. Fowler and Bloodgood, Kemper & Bloodgood, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1018.) MOORE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 18, 1902.) No. 1,085. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. H. H. Ingersoll, for plaintiff in error. Jourolmon, Welker & Hudson and Shoun & Susong, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1018.) PENNSYLVANIA CO. v. CARROLL. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 18, 1902.) No. 1,081. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for plaintiff in error. Murray & Koonce, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1018.) PHILLIPS v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 13, 1902.) No. 1,093. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee. Greer & Greer, for plaintiff in error. Fentress & Cooper, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1018.) ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. HORTON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 11, 1903.) No. 1,150. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee. McFarland & Neblett and J. W. Canada, for plaintiff in error. H. N. Moon and Francis Byrne, for defendant in error. No opinion. Reversed and remanded, (124 Fed. 1018.) In re SCHWAB. SCHWAB v. MAY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. April 21, 1903.) No. 963. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. De Witt C. Wilson, for appellant. Robert P. Davidson and Allen Boulds, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed on stipulation of counsel. (124 Fed. 1018.) SECURITY TRUST CO. OF TOLEDO v. McCULLOUGH. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. June 13, 1903.) No. 1,158. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. Chittenden & Chittenden, for appellant. Chauncy H. Gage and Searl & Montfort, for appellee. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1018.) STRANG v. FULLER & JOHNSON MFG. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Seventh Circuit. August 8, 1903.) No. 996. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin. Charles M. Peck and Lysander Hill, for appellant. William R. Bagley, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to rule 20. (124 Fed. 1019.) In re TAYLOR. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 1, 1903.) No. 991. Original Petition in Bankruptcy to Review and Revise an Order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. Charles M. Peirce and A. L. Phillips, for petitioner. J. E. Pollock and L. C. Hay, for respondent. No opinion. Order reversing. (124 Fed. 1019.) In re TAYLOR. SHOLTY v. WILSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 1, 1903.) No. 980. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. Charles M. Peirce and A. L. Phillips, for appellant. J. E. Pollock and L. C. Hay, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed. (124 Fed. 1019.) UNION CASUALTY & SURETY CO. v. AYLER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 14, 1903.) No. 1,154. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. Vertrees & Vertrees, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Williamson and Arthur Crownover, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. (124 Fed. 1019.) UNITED STATES v. T. BUETTNER & CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Seventh Circuit. May 5, 1903.) No. 960. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. S. H. Bethea, for appellant. J. H. Defrees, William Brace, and John G. Campbell, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of appellant. (123 Fed. 1007.) UNITED STATES SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v. PARKER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1903.) No. 916. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. J. Thorburn Ross, E. B. Seabrook, Wm. A. Munly, and John K. Kollock, for appellant. J. Q. A. Bowlby, for appellee H. B. Parker. Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. On the authority of The Pacific States Savings, Loan and Building Company, a corporation, v. Lizzie A. Green et al. (just decided) 123 Fed. 43, 59 C. C. A. 167, the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded to the court below, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the bill, with leave to the defendants to answer. (124 Fed. 1019.) VILLAGE OF MARICE CITY v. CLAPP. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 13, 1903.) No. 1,141. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Seney & Johnson and Watts & Moore, for plaintiff in error. Cable & Parmenter and W. B. Richie, for defendant in error. No opinion. Affirmed. END OF CASES IN VOL. 59. INDEX. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. Judgment as bar to another action, see "Judgment," § 1. ACCEPTANCE. Of offer or proposal, see "Contracts," § 1. ACCESSION. Annexation of personal to real property, see “Fixtures.” ACCOMPLICES. Instructions as to testimony of, see "Criminal Law," § 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Operation and effect of admissions as evidence, see "Evidence," § 1 ACTION. Bar by former adjudication, see "Judgment,” § 1. Jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts." Review of proceedings, see "Appeal and Error"; "Equity," § 5. Actions between parties in particular relations. See "Master and Servant," § 2. Actions by or against particular classes of parties. See "Carriers," § 2; "Railroads," § 2. Dissolved corporation, see "Corporations," § 3. Sureties, see "Principal and Surety," § 2. Trustees in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 2. Particular causes or grounds of action. See "Insurance," § 7; "Negligence," § 2. Breach of contract, see "Sales," § 6. Breach of warranty, see "Sales," § 6. Fire caused by operation of railroad, see "Railroads," § 2. Infringement of copyright, see "Copyrights," § 1. Infringement of patent, see "Patents," § 3. Municipal bonds, see "Municipal Corporations," § 1. |