CASES REPORTED. ‘ LX Page " Page Five Hundred and Sixty Thousand _ Gunning, United States v;;..`. ..... 653 and Sixty-two Feetiof Pine Lum- ' ’ - ~ i 4 , 4 `ber,Fortierv .... .... ........ 790 Hack,Gottfuiedv.............. .... 433 Flash v. Dillon ........ ‘ ............ 1 Hagerman, Newton v`. . .’.eL~·L._.‘... . . 525 Flash v. Wilkerson ...... Q ........ ‘. 689 Hague, United States v..;.. .... 706 Fletcher, State oflllinois v ......... 776 Haight, Norton v .... . . ._. .—. . ...... . 787 Floating Dry-dock, Snyder v ....... 685 Hall, Hatch v . . .L. . . ..... . . . 438 Florida, The. . .................. 617 Hambleton v. Duham ...... .... . .. . 465 Flower v. City of Detroit ........... 292 Hamilton J. Mills, The ............. 790 Fortier v, Five Hundred and Forty- Hammond v. Franklin J. .... . ...... 833 three Thousand Three Hundred Harrison, In re .... .. ........ 528 and Twenty-nve Feet of Pine Lum- Hassler, Norris v .... . ..... . . .. .. 401 ber ........ . . . ............ . ...... 790 Hastings, Becker v .......... . . ..... 827 Fortier v. Five Hundred and Sixty Hatch v. Adams ....... . . . . . `. ... . 434 ‘ Thousand and Sixty·two Feet of Hatch v. Hall ..... . ............... 438 Pine Lumber ................. ..‘ `790 Hayden v. Oriental Mills .... . .’ .... 103 Fox v. Patton ...... ........... .... 746 Hayes, Fischer v ................. ,. 92 Franklin, Hammond v. ........... .. 833 Hayes, Fischerv ..... L ............. 529 · Frazer v. Gates & Scovillc Iron · .H. B. Scutt do C0., Washburn & Works ......... . ............. 439 `Moen Manui’g Co. v. ............ 710 Frazer, United States v ......... Q . . 106 Hendrickson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Frerichs v. Coster ................ ....637 Ry. Coll. ....... . ......... . .... 569 . Frericks v. Bcrmcs ............... `. 424 Henry M. Clark, The .............. 752 Fricke v. Hum ..................... 302 Hottie Ellis, The ............. _ ...... 350 Friedlander, Vitcrbo v ............. 422 Hickox v Elliott. .................. 13 Fritts, Glasgow v ...... . ........... 391 Hill, La. Belle Iron Works v ....... . 195 Hill, Sharon v ...... . .............. 28 , Galf. Gottfried v ................... 433 Hill, Woosterv ...... . ..... .. ...... 830 Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell. .... . . 197 Hodgin, Capital City Bank v ...... ,. 209 Gates & Scoville Iron Works, Fru- Holmes Electric Protective Co; v. zer v .......... . ......... . . . ..... 439_ Metropolitan Burglar Alarm C0-.. 341 Geddes, London Gua1·anty»& Acci- » Hospes v. Northwestern Manuf‘g& V A dent Co. v ................... ... 639 Car Co .......... . ............... 565 George Murray, The .... . .......... 117 Howard, Adams v ...... . ...... » .... 656 George Taulane, The . . ..... 799 Howard Drake, The ...... . . . . ..... 617 Gibson v. Scribner ..... . ...... . .... 840 Hum, Fricke v ...... . .......... ·.. .. .302 Gilbert v. Weir Plow Co ........... 428 Hunt v. Mercantile Ins. Co. . .~ .... 503 Gilliland, Goldsmith v ............. 865 Hunt, Lindley v ................ ... 52 Gladlolus. The ...... . ......... 454 Hunter No. 2, The ................ ·. 795 Glasgow v. Fritts ............... · . . . 391 Hurst v. Coley ...... . .............. 183 Glen (Jove Manuf’g Co. v. Ludellng 823 ‘ Glenn v. Coyle ...... . .............. 417 Independent Steam-boat C0., Cityof Glenn v. Glcnny. ..... . ..... . ...... 417 New York v .......... . .......... · 801 Glenn v. Labatt ................. 417 Indiana, The ................. . .... 925 Glenn v. Soule ........... . ......... 417 lnnis v. Oil City Boiler Works...; I 780 Glenny, Glenn v ...... . ..... . ...... 417 Insurance Co., In re ; .............. 109 Globe Ins. Co., Burke v. ......... , 200 Insurance Co. of N. A.., Sperry vf'. . 516 . Gold & Stock Tel. Co. vi Commercial Insurance Co. of N. A. ‘v. Liverpool ·‘ Tel. Co. . .. ...... . ....... . .. .... . 838 & Great Western Steam C0 ..... ”. . 715 Goldsmith v. Gilliland ............. 865 International Tooth Crown Oo. v. Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb Mills ...................... . . 659 Fencing Co ...... .. .......... 635 Ismaele, The ..... . . .' ...... .. ...4.. 559 Goodyear Rubber C0. v. Day ........ 44 Gordon, United States v ............ 250 Jacobs, Brewer v. . .. ............... 217 Gottfried 'v. Crescent Brewing Co. .. 433 Jacques, Ketcbam v. ........ . L. 399 Gottfried v. Gatf ...... ` ............. 433 Jenkins v. McTigue ............... . 148 Gottfried v. Hack ...... . . . . ........ 433 Jenkins, Mill Creek Distillery Co. v. 359 erase Rapids & 1. R. Co., Burger v. 561 Jenkins, Shufeldt v ...... . ......... 359 Grapeshot, The .................... 123 Jersey City & B. 1{.·C0,.', Sutherland v. 356 , Grethen v. Chicago, M. & St. P. By. J. F. Warner, The.. . . ...... . .... 342 Co., (two cases,) ...... . .......... 609 , , · V · Griudrod v. Crine. ..... . ..... . ..... 257 Kansas City, St. J. & O. B. R. Co., Gross v. St. Paul, F. & M. Ins; Co.. 74 McLennan v .... . r. ..... . .... .‘. 199