tiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See 22 C. C. A. 138, 76 Fed. 227. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. BROWN. (November 2, 1896.) No. 120. On a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit. See 20 C. C. A. 147, 73 Fed. 970. John T. Dye, for plaintiff in error. Samuel P. Wheeler, for defendant in error. No opinion. Stricken from docket. the COHEN v. UNITED STATES. (November 2, 1896.) No. 485. In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland. William Colton, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States. No opinion. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to law on the authority of McElroy v. U. S. (No. 402, decided to-day) 17 Sup. Ct. 31. CRAEMER v. STATE OF WASHINGTON. (December 14, 1896.) No. 457. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. See 40 Pac. 944. James Hamilton Lewis and F. B. Crosthwaite, for plaintiff in error. Joseph Shillington and A. W. Hastie, for the state of Washington. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 21, and other cases. CUTAJAR v. UNITED STATES et al. (March 1, 1897.) No. 192. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. See 60 Fed. 744. Charles A. Hess, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. Νο opinion. Dismissed on authority of counsel for appellant. DAILEY et al. v. STATE OF OHIO. (October 19, 1896.) No. 152. In error to the supreme court of the state of Ohio. See 37 N. E. 710. J. Hubley Ashton and A. J. Woolf, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiffs in error. DAVIS v. UNITED STATES. (November 2, 1896.) No. 124. In error to the district court of the United States for the Western district of Texas. A. H. Garland, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the sixteenth rule. DEARBORN v. MORAN et al. (December 14, 1896.) No. 82. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. See 27 Pac. 230. Frederic D. McKenney and John P. Fay, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Frederic D. MeKenney, for plaintiff in error. DEIMEL v. STROHEIM et al. (April 12, 1897.) No. 769. Hiram T. Gilbert, for petitioner. Levy Mayer, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. See 23 C. C. A. 467, 77 Fed. 802. DOHERTY v. KNOWLTON. (November 30, 1896.) No. 663. In error to the supreme judicial court of the state of Maine. See 33 Atl. 18. Ellis C. Johnston, for appellee. No opinion. Docketed, and dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Ellis C. Johnston, for defendant in error. 17 S.C.-63 DOWELL et al. . APPLEGATE et al. (March 1, 1897.) No. 191. In error to the supreme court of the state of Oregon. John H. Mitchell, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. 7. DUBUQUE & S. C. R. CO. v. SAMPSON. SAMPSON v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al. CEDAR FALLS & M. R. CO. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. (October 13, 1896.) Nos. 5, 6, Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois. John N. Jewett, Clarence A. Seward, and Wm. D. Guthrie, for Dubuque & S. C. R. Co. Francis B. Daniels, for Sampson. James Fentress and B. F. Ayer, for Illinois Cent. R. Co. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation. DYER v. UNITED STATES. (December 7, 1896.) No. 429. In error to the district court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas. Wm. M. Cravens, A. H. Garland, and R. C. Garland, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, Sol. Gen. Conrad, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States. No opinion. Judgment reversed upon confession of error by counsel for the defendant in error, and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity to law. V. FITZGERALD & MALLORY CONST. CO. FITZGERALD. (April 22, 1897.) No. 385. In error to the supreme court of the state of Nebraska. See 67 N. W. 158. Isham Reavis and John F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. GOODSELL v. DELTA & PINE LAND CO. et al. (March 22, 1897.) No. 537. In error to the supreme court of the state of Mississippi. See 18 South. 452. T. B. Catron, for plaintiff in error. Frank Johnston, for defendants in error. No cpinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the authority of Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 227, 16 Sup. Ct. 1023; Railway Co. v. Chicago, 164 U. S. 454, 17 Sup. Ct. 129; Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 496. 11 Sup. Ct. 385; Railroad Co. v. Plainview, 143 U. S. 390, 12 Sup. Ct. 530: Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 527, 15 Sup. Ct. 430; and other casea (De GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. ROFF. cember 2, 1896.) No. 194. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. J. W. Terry, A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, and P. L. Soper, for plaintiff in error. John J. Weed and C. L. Herbert, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation. HAMER, Tax Collector, V. WEBER COUNTY, UTAH. (March 26, 1897.) No. 243. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. See 37 Pac. 749. C. C. Richards, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule, and cause remanded to the supreme court of the state of Utah. HAMER . WEBER COUNTY, UTAH, et al. (March 26, 1897.) No. 244. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. See 37 Pac. 741. C. C. Richards, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule, and cause remanded to the supreme court of the state of Utah. HARMON v. HARMON et al. (two cases). (March 8, 1897.) Nos. 466 and 467. On writs of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit. See 17 C. C. A. 479, 70 Fed. 894. E. A. Otis, Charles B. Wood, and Horace S. Oakley, for appellants. James S. Norton and Clarence A. Burley, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, and mandates granted, on motion of Mr. Clarence A. Burley, for petitioners. HENDERSON BRIDGE CO. ▼. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. (April 29, 1897.) No. 332. in error to the court of appeals of the state of Kentucky. See 31 S. W. 486. James P. Helm and Helm & Bruce, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. HENRY v. ALABAMA & V. R. CO. (October 19, 1896.) No. 17. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Mississippi. Wade R. Young, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on the authority of Jacobs v. George, 150 U. S. 415, 14 Sup. Ct. 159. HENTZ et al. v. CORNWALL. (November 30, 1896.) No. 122. Appeal from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. James K. Redington, for appellants. Edward H. Thomas, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, and mandate granted on motion of Mr. Edward H. Thomas, for appellee. HILL V. CORCORAN. (November 16, 1896.) No. 9. In error to the supreme court of the state of Colorado. See 25 Pac. 171. W. C. Beecher, for plaintiff in error. Frederic D. McKenney, Samuel F. Phillips, and C. S. Thomas, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, by a divided court. HOOE et al. v. WERNER et al. (April 5, 1897.) No. 373. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Wisconsin. A. R. Bushnell, for plaintiffs in error. S. S. Barney, for defendants in error. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. The only difference between this case and that just decided (Hooe v. Jamieson, 17 Sup. Ct. 596) is that the proposed amendment was allowed, and the action then dismissed for want of jurisdiction. For the reasons above given, this case must take the same course as that. Judgment affirmed. HUDSON v. UNITED STATES. (April 22, 1897.) No. 297. In error to the district court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas. See 65 Fed. 68. William M. Cravens, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule. HUDSON v. UNITED STATES. (January 26, 1897.) No. 179. In error to the district court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas. William M. Cravens, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule. HUNING v. UNITED STATES. (April 28, 1897.) No. 308. Appeal from the court of private land claims. H. L. Warren, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule. HURLBUT LAND & CATTLE CO. TRUSCOTT, County Treasurer. (February 1, 1897.) No. 512. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. See 19 C. C. A. 374, 73 Fed. 60. Jeremiah M. Wilson, for appellant. Jason W. Streyell, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167, 9 Sup. Ct. 566; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. 118; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 Sup. Ct. 582; Gurnee v. Patrick Co., 137 U. S. 141, 11 Sup. Ct. 34; Bender v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U. S. 508, 13 Sup. Ct. 640. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. DAVIDSON. (March 8, 1897.) No. 696. James Fentress and William E. Mason, for petitioner. Edward Ryan Woodle, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. See 22 C. C. A. 306, 76 Fed. 517. JONSON ENGINEERING & FOUNDRY CO. v. STEAM YACHT PARADOX. (January 26, 1897.) No. 176. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. George Hoadly, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. KANSAS CITY, FT. S. & M. R. CO. v. SEAWELL et al. (October 13, 1896.) No. 65. In error to the supreme court of the state of Missouri. See 24 S. W. 1002. Wallace Pratt, for plaintiff in error. Edward P. Gates, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation. KING et al. v. PORT ROYAL & A. RY. CO. et al. (January 13, 1897.) No. 293. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina. A. C. King, for appellants. Henry A. M. Smith, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed; costs to be paid by appellees per stipulation. KING et al. v. UNITED STATES. (October 19, 1896.) No. 508. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas. The Attorney General, Sol. Gen. Conrad, Asst. Atty. Gen. Whiting, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States. No opinion. Judgment reversed upon confession of error by counsel for defendant in error, and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity to law. LATTA et al. v. NEUBERT. SAME v. COHN. SAME v. RUGG. SAME v. GARNETT. SAME v. SUMPTER et al. (May 10, 1897.) Nos. 304, 326-329. Appeals from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 15 C. C. A. 231, 68 Fed. 72. N. M. Rose and G. B. Rose, for appellants. John McClure, for appellees. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. The parties having stipulated that these cases shall abide the event of Latta v. Granger (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 746, the decrees of the circuit court of appeals therein are severally reversed, and the decrees of the circuit court are also severally reversed, and the causes remanded to that court with directions to enter decrees in conformity with the opinion in Latta v. Granger. Ordered accordingly. LAZARD et al. v. MERCHANTS' & MINERS' TRANSP. CO. (April 27, 1897.) No. 305. In error to the court of appeals of the state of Maryland. See 26 Atl. 897. E. G. Kremer and Jefferson Chandler, for plaintiffs in error. Wm. Pinckney Whyte, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. LINCECUM v. UNITED STATES. (November 30, 1896.) No. 343. In error to the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas. X. B. Saunders, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. LITTLE ROCK & FT. S. RAILWAY ▼. FENROE. (March 31, 1897.) No. 262. In error to the supreme court of the state of Arkansas. John F. Dillon and W. S. Pierce, for plaintiff in error. Sol. F. Clark, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. v. CITY OF CINCINNATI. (December 7, 1896.) No. 660. Alexander Pope Humphrey, George M. Davie, E. A. Ferguson, and St. John Boyle, for petitioner. Frederick Hertenstein and J. D. Brannan, opposed. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit denied. See 22 C. C. A. 334, 76 Fed. 296. LUMBERMAN'S NAT. BANK OF WILLIAMSPORT v. HUSTON. (May 10, 1897.) No. 203. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. See 3 App. D. C. 202. J. J. Crawford, for plaintiff in error. Sol. Gen. Conrad, for defendant in error. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. The most favorable view of this case for the plaintiff in error is to regard it as presenting the same question that was determined in Bank v. Nebecker (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 766. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice WHITE concurs in the result. Ex parte McCAULLY. Ex parte LUSBY. (March 1, 1897.) Nos. 8 and 10, Original. Henry E. Davis and J. M. Wilson, for petitioners. Sol. Gen. Conrad, for respondent. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. These are petitions for habeas corpus to discharge petitioners from confinement on convictions under the oleomargarine law, on the ground of the unconstitutionality of that enactment. So far as that question is concerned, it is conceded that the records are substantially the same as the_record in the Case of Kollock (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 444, and the applications must be disposed of in the same way. Writs denied. MCGINNIS v. UNITED STATES. (November 16, 1896.) No. 652. Appeal from court of claims. The Attorney General and Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Sclicitor General Conrad, for appellee. MATTHEWS et al. v. HEVNER et al. (October 28, 1896.) No. 77. Appeal from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. See 2 App. D. C. 349. Charles N. Matthews, for appellants. Arthur A. Birney, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF ANNAPOLIS v. REVELL et al. (April 2, 1897.) No. 277. In error to the court of appeals of the state of Maryland. See 31 Atl. 695. Wm. Pinckney Whyte, for plaintiffs in error. John Prentiss Poe, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed. with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. MERCHANTS' & MINERS' TRANSP. CO. v. NORFOLK & W. R. CO. et al. (two cases). (November 2, 1896.) Nos. 629, 630. Eugene P. Carver and Edward E. Blodgett, for appellant. William G. Roelker, for appellees. No opinion. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the First circuit denied. See 21 C. C. A. 169, 74 Fed. 906. MERRITT et al. v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF BOWDOIN COLLEGE et al. (May 24, 1897.) No. 798. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of California. See 75 Fed. 480. Charles H. Lovell, for appellants. Thomas H. Hubbard, E. S. Pillsbury, and Robert Y. Hayne, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the authority of Colvin v. City of Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456, 15 Sup. Ct. 866; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 692, 16 Sup. Ct. 185; Chappell v. U. S., 160 U. S. 499, 507, 508, 16 Sup. Ct. 397, and cases therein cited. Announced by Mr. Justice HARLAN. The CHIEF JUSTICE did not sit, and took no part in the consideration and disposition of this motion. MEXICAN CENT. RY. CO. v. EVEY. (May 24, 1897.) No. 805. A. T. Britton and A. B. Brown, for petitioner. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit denied. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. v. SIMMONS. (January 4, 1897.) No. 118. In error to the supreme court of the state of Missouri. D. D. Duncan, W. S. Pierce, and J. F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error. Wm. M. Williams, for defendant in error. Mr. Justice GRAY. Railway Co. v. Simmons, argued and decided with this case (Railway Co. v. Mathews, 17 Sup. 243), and reported below in 121 Mo. 340, 25 S. W. 936, was substantially similar, and in that case also the judgment is affirmed. MUTUAL BEN. LIFE INS. CO. v. HUEBNER et al. (October 23, 1896.) No. 511. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas. D. M. Valentine, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel of appellant. (No NATIONAL ACC. SOC. v. SPIRO. vember 30, 1896.) No. 460. On a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. H. D. McBurney, for plaintiff in error. H. H. Ingersoll, for defendant in error. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. This is a certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit, propounding, after a preliminary statement, the following question: "Does a defendant, by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the United States court, in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the suminons?" 18 C. C. A. 382, 71 Fed. 897. For the reasons giver and on the authorities cited in the above cause of Railway Co. v. Brow, 17 Sup. Ct. 126, the question must be answered in the negative. Certificate accordingly. Mr. Justice BREWER and Mr. Justice PECKHAM dissented. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. SEATTLE NAT. BANK v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. PU. GET SOUND NAT. BANK v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. WASHINGTON NAT. BANK v. COUNTY OF KING et al. (April 12, 1897.) Nos. 223-226. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. Harold Preston, for the banks. John K. Brown, for city of Seattle and others. A. F. Burleigh, for county of King and others. Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court. The bills of complaint in these cases are substantially of the same legal import, so far as any federal question is concerned, with that considered in the case of First Nat. Bank of Aberdeen v. County of Chehalis, 17 Sup. Ct. 629, in which the opinion of this court has just been delivered. The only difference that we notice is that, in connection with the allegation that there existed large amounts of taxable moneyed capital owned by resident citizens and invested in interest-bearing loans and securities, there is made the additional allegation that all of said other moneyed capital referred to was all the moneyed capital in the city owned by resident individual citizens, and invested in interest-bearing loans, discounts, and securities, except that invested in incorporated banks located in the city. It is not perceived that this additional allegation calls for any different conclusion than the one reached in the previous case. We are still uninformed whether the moneyed capital left unassessed was, as to any material portion thereof, moneyed capital coming into competition with that of national banks. The averment that the moneyed capital exempted was "taxable" does not enable us to say that it therefore consisted of investments within the meaning of the term "moneyed capital" as used in the act of congress. The judgment of the supreme court of Washington is, in each case, affirmed. Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice BROWN, and Mr. Justice WHITE dissent. NATIONAL FOUNDRY & PIPE WORKS, Limited, et al. v. ANDREWS et al. SAME V. CITY OF OCONTO. (April 26, 1897.) Nos. 725, 726. George H. Noyes, for petitioners. W. H. Webster, opposing. No opinion. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit denied. NATIONAL MACH. CO. v. WHEELER & WILSON MANUFG CO. (April 30, 1897.) No. 790. Edwin H. Brown, for petitioner. Livingston Gifford, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See 24 C. C. A. 663, 79 Fed. 432. NATIONAL SAFE-DEPOSIT, SAVINGS & TRUST CO. v. STERETT et al. (March 22, 1897.) No. 751. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. R. Ross Perry, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, and mandate granted on motion of Mr. R. Ross Perry, for plaintiff in error. NEWARK ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. GARDEN. (April 26, 1897.) No. 780. Mahlon Pitney and John O. H. Pitney, for petitioner. Henry M. Gardner, opposing. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Third circuit denied. See 23 C. C. A. 649, 78 Fed. 74. al. MURPHY V. COLORADO PAV. CO. et (April 19, 1897.) No. 720. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado. C. S. Thomas, W. H. Bryant, and Frederick D. McKenney, for appellant. James S. H. Brown, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 16 Sup. Ct. 490; Carey v. Railroad Co., 161 U. S. 115, 16 Sup. Ct. 537. See Colorado Pav. Co. v. Murphy, 78 Fed. 28. NORDSTROM v. STATE OF WASHINGTON. (December 14, 1896.) No. 284. In error to the supreme court of the state of Washington. See 35 Pac. 382. James Hamilton Lewis, for plaintiff in error. Joseph Shillington and A. W. Hastie, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on authority of Hurtado v. California, 101 U. S. 516; Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 652, 11 Sup. Ct. 675; McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645, 13 Sup. Ct. 959; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, 16 Sup. Ct. 986; and Draper v. U. S., 164 U. S. 240, 17 Sup Ct. 107. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. BEATON. (February 15, 1897.) No. 217. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. See 12 C. C. A. 301, 64 Fed. 563. W. E. Cullen. A. H. Garland, W. J. Curtis, and C. W. Bunn, for plaintiff in error. Thomas C. Bach, for defendant in error. Νο opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne, for plaintiff in error. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. CANNON et al. (October 14, 1896.) No. 32. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. See 4 C. C. A. 303, 54 Fed. 252. A. H. Garland, F. M. Dudley, W. J. Curtis, and Charles W. Bunn, for appellaut. Edwin W. Toole and William Wallace, Jr., for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne, for appellant. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al. (October 13, 1896.) No. 207. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. A. H. Garland, W. J. Curtis, and C. W. Bunn, for ap pellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. al. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. MACLAY et (November 4, 1896.) No. 145. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. See 9 C. C. A. 609, 61 Fed. 554. James McNaught, F. M. Dudley, W. J. Curtis, and Charles W. Bunn, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. MORTENSON. (October 13, 1896.) No. 237. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 11 C. C. A. 335, 63 Fed. 530. James McNaught, W. J. Curtis, and Charles W. Bunn, for plaintiff in error. F. B. Kellogg, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. ▼. TEETER. (October 13, 1896.) No. 236. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 11 C. C. A. 332, 63 Fed. 527. James McNaught, W. J. Curtis, and Charles W. Bunn, for plaintiff in error. M. E. Clapp, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation. OMAHA & C. B. RAILWAY & BRIDGE CO. OF NEBRASKA et al. v. SMITH. (April 12, 1897.) No. 672. In error to the supreme court of the state of Iowa. See 66 N. W. 1041. John N. Baldwin, for plaintiffs in error. Winifred S. Strawn, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. OREGON SHORT LINE & U. N. RY. CO. v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. (December 1, 1896.) No. 275. Appeal from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. John F. Dillon, for appellant. Charles W. Bunn and W. J. Curtis, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, without costs, per stipula tion, and cause remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary or proper to carry out the terms of the stipulation, or otherwise to secure the rights of the parties. PATTON v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. (March 8, 1897.) No. 149. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth cir cuit. See 9 C. C. A. 487, 61 Fed. 259. Leigh Clark, W. O. Hart, and Millard Patterson, for plaintiff in error. John F. Dillon, W. S. Pierce, and D. D. Duncan, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because the judgment is not final. PARSONS. STATE OF MISSOURI. (April 5, 1897.) No. 245. In error to the supreme court of the state of Missouri. See 27 S. W. 1102. John E. Craig, for plaintiff in error. R. F. Walker, for the State of Missouri. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296, 15 Sup. Ct. 367. PHILLIPS v. CHEROKEE NATION OR TRIBE OF INDIANS et al. (October 27, 1896.) No. 76. In error to the United States court in the Indian Territory. S. S. Burdett, for plaintiff in error. John C. Fay, for defendants in error. No opinion. Disinissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. PRATHER v. UNITED STATES. (November 30, 1896.) No. 546. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. J. M. Wilson and H. E. Davis, for plaintiff in error. Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. On the question of our appellate jurisdiction this case differs in no material respect from Chapman v. U. S. (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 76. The motion |