CASES REPORTED. " xxx
Page Page
Town of Utica, Wrongnt-iron Bridge Holland v. Ryan ...... . . .... . . . . . . . 1
Co. v ...... . . . ....... . ........... 316 Howell, McConville v ........ . ..... 104
Tuerk, Backus Water Motor Co. v.. 350 La Plata M. & S. C0., Simpson v.... 125
United Nickel Co. v. Melchoir ..... . 340 Linn v. Green... .......... . ....   407
Wrought-iron Bridge Co. v. Town Little Pittsburgh Consol. Min. Co. 57
of Utica.. ..... . ...... . ..... . .... 316 v. Amie Min. Co ....... . .........
Manville v. Battle Mountain S. Co. 126
Manville v. Belden Mining Co ..... 425
CIRCUIT COURT" S' D' ILLINOIS` Marshall S. Min. Co., United States v. 10g
· — IcConvi1le v. Iiowcl .... . ..... . . . . 10
31E1E3ds3Q2i? 5S2E2t11i::;:;;::: ii? ig;g,¤;rC;,g;g,~;¤,g;gdC1g;1¤L;-,,,,3% 67
" Co., Foster v .......... . ......... 130
CIRCUIT COURT: D- INDIANA- Rvan, Holland v.. .. .... . ..... . ..... 1
Simpson v. La Plata Mining & S. Co. 125
Craft Smith v....... .. ...... .... .. 705 Qpzmgiar, Adnnln V  _ _ ___  ____ 133
Smith v. Craft. ................. ... 705 Tfjngou pm; Ry_ E0__ Mmar v _______ 6-;
United States v. Marshall S. Min. Co. 108
Dxsrmcr Cotmr, E. D. Wrscoxsm. White v. Crow. ..... . ............ .. 98
BZ?$‘f§·.£2§‘$"S;%§S;· ·········· E3? Umm   D· Im-
Bosquet, Huthsing v .............. . 54
CIRCUIT C0Um·, W. D. NVISCONSIN. gliarter Oéxkcblé IIr£sCC0.,I'l;aylor v, , 536
‘ iieaeo .c . . o,,. i erv ....
Bartles v. Gibson .......... . ....... 293 Chicago: B. & Q. li. Co., Walken~
Gibson, Bartles v. .......... . . . .. . . . 293 hauer v ........... . ....... . . . . ... 136
Morgan v. Town of Waltlwiolc. . . . . . 286 Davenport & St. P. R. C0., Loomis v. 30l
Town of Waldwiek, Morgan v ...... 286 Davenport & St. P. R. Co., Price v. 301
Huthsing v. Bosquet .............. . 54
Loomis v. Davenport & St. P. R. C0. 301
Miller v. Chicago, B. & Q. lt. Co. .. 97
EIGHTH CIRCUIT, Priele v. na;e¤p¤rE)&ksIiJ.1i ic.Cc¤.. 301
ay or v. (J arter a . ns. o.. . 566
¤¤=¤¤¤ COM- E D- A¤m¤··~¤ Wl“Jk5I.`}’?.`TiY.Y‘..°.1{iYl??1.7J.?T.l°: 136
T U Beebee, United States v. ........ . . 36
Mitchell v. Roberts .............. 776 Cmcnrr Cormr, D. Iowa, S. D.
Roberts, Mitchell v.... .... ........ 776
Rust, Texas & st. I.. Icy. cn. v. ..... 275 Central R. C0., F=¤rmcrs’ L. & T.
Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust .... .. 275 _ Lo. v ............. . .... . ......... 758
United States v. Beebee .......... 36 I¤H(13Y¤€1‘S’ L. & T. (.0. v. Cent. R, "58
. 0 ................ . ............. i
Cnwurr Cormr, D. COLORADO. C C N D I W D
HKCU1T onnr, . . own, . .
Adams v, Spangler ..............   133
Amie Min. Co., Little Pittsburgh Boynton, Hartley v......'.... .. ..». 873
Consol. Min. Co. v. ........ ..... 57 Hartley v. Boynton... ........ ..... 573
Appel}, Greenwald v ...... .. ..... .. 140
Battle Mountain S. Co., Mnnville v.. 126
Belden Mining Co., Manville v. .... 425 DISTRICT C°UIIT· S· D· IOWA-
Crow, White v .......... . ........ .. 98 _ _ _,
Cunard ]\[i¤i¤g (]()_, Fggtg v________ 46 ATLQUSUS,ThE...................., 0So
Denver, S. P. tl: P. R. Co., Denver
& R. G. Ry. C0. v. ............... 867 Cmcmr Courrr, D. KAN.. s.
Denver &. R. G. Ry. Co. v. Denver, QT
S. P. S: P. R. C0. .... . .....   867 Atchison, T. 6: S. F. R. Co., Nicker-
Foote v. Cunard Mining C0 .....   46 son v .... . . ...................... 40S
Foster v. Ohio-Colorado Reduction Missouri River R. Co., Pryzbylo-
61: Mining C0. ......... . ...... ... 130 wicz v ............ . .............. 492
Green, Linn v .... . ......... . .... . . 407 Nickerson v. Atchison, T. S: S. F. R.
Greenwald v. Appell ..... . ......... 140 Co. .... . . . .· ............ . ......... 408