V111 CASES REPORTED.
Page Page
Central Trust Oo., Wabash, St. L. & Crescent Brewing Co., Gottfried v.. 433
P. Ry. Co. v.. ..   . .· ..... -.· .... 138 Grine, Grindrod v .... _ .............. 257
Central Trust Co., Wabash, St. L. & · s Cunningham-Y. M80H3D16B, & Trad-
. P. Ry. Co. v. .....   .... . ..... 269 ers’ lns. Co ...................... 66
Central Trust Co.,Wabash, St. L. & Cunningham, Kimball v. .......... 445
P. Ry. Co. v ....... . ........ _ ..... 272 Curran v. Craig .... ............... 101
Chafee, Moulton v ................. 26 Currier, Melendy v ............... . . 129
Chandler v. Town of Attica ........ 625 Curry v. Lloyd . . . . ................ 258
Charter Oak Ins. Co., Singer v ..... 774 » »
· Cheney, Morse v.. ..... ,. . . ....... =   380 Dale v. Redfield ..... V ....... .   .... 506
Cheney, Pope v ....... . ...... . ..... 177 Davis v. Memphis City Ry. C0 ...... 883
Chewett v. Moran . .......... . .... 31 Davis, Simpson v ............ .. .... 444
Chicago, B. & Q,. lt.Co v. Wasserman 872 Day, Goodyear Rubber C0. v. ....... 44
Chicago, B. & Q,. It Co., Wasser- Decker,.LeonaL‘d v. .......... . ..... 741
man v ....,.... . ................. 872 Decker, Schuyler v.· .... . .... . ..... 741
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Deere & Mansur Manufig Co., Mc-
Grethen v., (two cases,) .... . .... 609 Farland v ......... .. ....... . ..... 781
Chicago, M. & St. P; Ry. C0., Nis· Deering v. Ladd ............. . .. . l. 575
kern v ....... ‘..;. ......... . ...... 811 De Gran v. Wilson ...... . .....   560
Chicago, R. 1. at P. Ry. Co., Hen- Delaware, L. .& W. R. Co., Wilkin-
drickson v...; .................. . 569 son v ....... . ..... . .............. 353
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Wes- , Democrat, Chrissenger v. .. .... .   753
singer v.. . . .... . ............... . 569 ~ Deputy-marshals, In re.. . . ........ 153
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Wl1it· Dillon, Flash v ..... . ............... 1
ney v ..... · ............ . .......... 569 Dimuck, Converse v ......., ;, ,..... 573
Chiniquy, Sloanev .............   213 Downs v. Allen, (two cases,) ........ 805
Chrissengorv. Democrat ........... 753 Downs, Allen v ......... .' .......... 805
Cincinnati Barbed-wire Fence Co., , Drew, The .............. . ......... 852
~Washhurn& Moen Manuf’g Co.v. 712 Duff v. St. Louis Wooden-ware
City of Columbus, The ............. 460 Works ..... . ..... . ........ . ...... 340
City of De Soto, Laird v. ....... . . . . 421 Dnham, Hambleton v. . ......... ‘. .. 465
City of Detroit, Flower v ........... 292 Dull, Southern Pac. R. C0. v ....... 489
City of Greenville, The. ............ 347 Durham v. Fire dla Marine lns. C0,. 468
Ci(y of Knoxville v. Knoxville & O. Duquesne Nat. Bank v. Mills ...... 611
{. Co. . .....,...... . ....... . ..... 758 V K .
City of New York v. Independent E. A. Packer, The .... . ............ 668
Steam-boat Co ................... 801 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v.
City of 'Watertown, Amy v .... . .... 418 Bate ..... . ........... . ......... . 480`
City and County of San Francisco v. Eastern R. Co., Stitt v ............. 649
Mackey ..... , ....... .. ...... . ..... ts02 Eastern Townships Bank v. Vermont `
Clark, United States v. ............ 387 Nat. Bank .........- . ............ 186
Clark, United States v ............. 708 Edwin H. Webster, The .... . ...... . 17].
Clemens v. Estes ................. . 899 Elliott, Hickox v ........... . ...... 13
Cleveland Ins. C0.,In re. ........... 200 Erstein v. Rothschild .............. 61
C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Town Estes v.'BeIford. .... . ......   .... 275
of Loraine ............. . ......... 54 Estes v. 'Worthington. ..... . ....... 822
Coleman, Price v., (two cases,) .... . . 694 Estes, Clemens v ........ . .......... 899
Coley, Hurst v. ... ............. .... 183 Everest v. Buifalo Lubricating Oil
Coley, Lockwood v ...... . .......... 192 C0 ...................... . .   . .. . 252
Colglazier v. Louisville, N. A. & C. E. V. Mundy, The ................. 173·
Ry. Co ........... . ............... 568 Ewing, Kerbs v ................... . 693
Commercial Tel. C0., Gold & Stock
Tel. Co.v .... , ........ , .......... ’ 838 Fargo v. Redheld; .......... . ..... 373
Converse vt·Dimock:   ...... . ..... 573 Faucctt v. Boston & Savannah
Coster, Freriebsv ........ . .......... 637 Steam-ship C0 .......... . . . .... .. 460
County of Cktibbcha, Mobile Sav- ~ Fife v. Bohlcn.... ..... V. .......... . 8.78
ings Bank v ............ . ........ 580 Fire & Marine lns. Co., Durham v.. 468
Covington, Bennett v .............. 816 Fischer v. Hayes ................ V. .. 92
Coyle, Glenn v ........... . ........ 417 Fischer v. Hayes ............ .. ..... 529
Craig, Curran v. L ......... ‘ ......... 101 Five Hundred and Forty-three Thou-
Crane Bros. Manuf’g Co., Barry v. . 396 sand Three Hundred and Twenty-
Cranston v. A Cargo of Two Hun- nve Feet of Pine Lumber, Fort—
dred and Fifty Tons of Coal ...... 614 ier v ......... . . . .............. .. 790