MBR! BEPOB'.l‘lD• h ‘ Page Page OOIIIIOUOOIIOUIOIOI v• City••|\••••••I\ McEnery, Wirt v .............. . .... 233 Jackson v. United States. ..... . .... _ 35 McLaughlin v. People’s Co. .... 574 James .A. Garfield, The .......... ... 474 Memphis & 0. R. P. Co., hittenton Jenks, Hancock lnspirator Co. v .... 9—11 Mannf’g Co. v..... .... ...... .... 896 Johanne Auguste, The. ..... ... . ... 134 Merrill, In re ....... ..... ... ....... 120 Johnson, Cawley v ...... . .... . ..... 492 Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., Johnston, Graham v ................ 40 Holmes Elec. Prot. Co. v.. ... .... 458 J. P. Donaldson, The, Slyfield v .... 671 Milan, Town of, Kelly v. .... ...... 842, J. P. Donaldson, The, Sonsmith v. . 671 Miller, Steam-Gauge & L. O0. v. ... 514 , ‘ Milligan v. Lalance & Grosjean Kansas City, McElroy v .... .· ....... 257 Manuf’g O0. . . .. ......... ... .... 570 Katie Collins, The ....... .. .... ... . 409 Missouri, 1. & N. Ry. C0., Farmers’ Kelly v. Town of Milan ....... .... . 842 L. & T. C0. v .......... . ......... 264 Kew Ock, In re .......... .......... 789 Moore v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Kimball v. Board Com’rs. ....... .... 145 Ry. Co .... .. .... .... . ......... 817 K0cl1,New Process Ferm. Co. v..... 580 Morden, Weir v. . .. .... ...... ...... 243 Koch, United States v.. .. ........ .. 873 Mossman, Newbury v. . .. . ... ...... 579 Kuhl v. Mueller ....... ....... ...... 510 Mueller, Kuhl v ..... ........... 510 _ _ Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Champlin. ... 85 Lady Boone, The . ................. 731 ‘ Lafayette Co. v. Neely ....... .... 738 Nat. Needle Co., Howe Mach. Co. v. 630 Lalance & Grosjean Manufig Co., . Nederlandsch, etc. v. The Lepanto. . 651 Milligan v ........ . ... ....... .... 570 Neely, Lafayette Co. v. . .. ...... .. . 738 Lamb v. Farrell ..... .· ..... .. .... . . 5 Neill v. The Francis .... .. ... . ...... 921 Lammers, Cowell v .... .. .... 210 Newbury v. Mossman .............. 579 Lawther v. Hamilton ...... .. ...... 811 New Castle N. Ry. Co. v. Simpson.. 533 Leach, Hart v. .. .... . . . . ... ...... 77 New Hampshire, The .............. 924 Leclanoha Battery Co. v. Western New Process Ferm. Co. v. Koch. 580 Elec. Co. ................ 538 New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Peo- Lee v. Farmers’ L. 8: T. Co .... .... 264 ria Gra e Sugar Co .... . ......... 878 Lepanto, The, Nederlandsch, etc., v. .651 New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Peo- Limited Tag, Case of . . . ........ ... 789 ria Starch M'anuf’g Co .......... .. 878 Litchiield, unkel v.._ .... . ......... 196 Norfolk & W. R. Co., Deming v .... 25 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co., Tompq North Balt. Pass. By. Co., Baltimore kinsv ......... ... ....... ........ 370 Car-Wheel Co.v................. 47 Lloyd, The. ... .................... 420 Look Tin Sing, In re. .. .... . .... . 905 Onderdonk v. Smith. .... ...... . . 588 Louisville City Ry. Co., Central One Thousand Three Hundred and Pass. Ry. Co. v. .. .. . ............ 358 Ten Tons of Coal, Hawgood v .... 681* Love v. Pamplin ................... 755 One Wire Rope Cable and New York Lucy D., The . ...... . .... . . ..... 142 Wire Rope Co., Blowers v ........ 352 Ludgate Hill, The . ................ 431 Luyties v. Hollender ........ ... .... 281 Palmer v. Scriven .... .. . ..... ...... 354 Lynn, The ....... ................... 815 Palmer, Reynoldsv................ 433 Pamplin, Love v ....... . . .. . . . ..... 755 Mack v. Sloteman . .. ........... . . . 109 Parkhurst v. Hosford. ... ........ .. 827 Mackey, City and County of San Pascal v. Sullivan ...... .... . .. ..... 496 Franciscov ............... ....... 539 Patterson Finkv .................. 602 Madison, United States v ..... . ..... 628 People’s Perry Co., Turner v ....... 90 ' Mahoney v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. People’s Railway Co., McLaughlin v. 574 Co .................... . ..... .... 817 Peoria Grape Sugar Co., New York Manuf’rs Nat. Bank, Ironsv.. ...... 197 Grape Sugar Co. v ........ . ..... . 878 Marlor v. Texas & P. R. Co. ... .... 383 Peoria Starch Manuf’g Co., New Matthews v. Iron-Clad Manuf’ Co. 641 ' York Grape Sugar Co. v. ......... 878 Maxwell Land-Grant Co., lixited Perry v. Corby..... ........ .... .... 15 Statesv...... ....... `.. .......... 19 Perryv. Corby ....... .. ...... ...... 737 I Mayor, etc., v. Ind. Steam-boat Co., 593 Peters v. Active Manuf’g Co ....... 319 Mayor, etc., Philadelphia & Reading Petersen, In re, v. Case. . . . . .... ... . 885 oa1&IronCo.v ........ , ...... .. 97 Peterson Cawley v................ 492 Mayumba, The, (tive cases,) ........ 476 Pevear,1n re ....... Q .......... 121 McA1pine v. Hed es ........ ....... 689 Philadel hia do Reading Coal & I. McDowell, United States v .... . .... 563 Co. v.¥l`he Mayor, ....... .. ...... 97