xvi CASES REPORTED.
Puge Page
` E. V. Mundy, The. .......   ..... 173 Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Nolan. 276
Flower v. City of Detroit; ........... 292 State of Tennessee v. Pullman South-
Rothschild v. Matthews. ........... 6 ern Car Co ....... . ....... . .... ... 276
Wallace v. British American Assur. State of Tennessee v. Whitworth., . 75
Co .............................. 66 State of Tennessee v. Whitworth. . . 81
Wallace v. Thames & Mersey Ins.
. Co., (two cases,) ..... . ...... . ... . 66 CIIIUUII. C0UR.I._ W_ D_ TENNESSEE_
Drsrmcrr Couirr, E. D. Mrcmeau. Brewer v. Jacobs ..............   217
, Davis v. Memphis City Ry. Co . . .. .. 883
J. F. Warner, The ................. 342 Flash v. Wilkerson ......... ....... 689
United States v. Van Vliet ..... . .   641 Miller v. Ridgely .... . ..... .. .... .. 889
Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Patterson.. 49
A Cmcuxr Comvr, W. D. Mrcmolm. ·
_ Drsrmor Courrr, W. D. Tmivumssnn.
Morse v. lhblet ...... . ............. 501
I Tweedy, Ex parte ......... .. . . . . ... 84
Cmourr Comvr, N. D. Omo.
Burke v. Globe Ins. C0 .... . ....... 200
Cleveland Ins. Uo.,In re ..... . ...... 20u SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
I Crnourr Comvr, N. D. Omo, E. D. CIRCUIT COURT, N_ D_ ILLINOIS
MCFEHYY V- New Y“”`k¤ P· & O· R· 130 Barry v. Crane Bros. Manuf’g Co... 396
(40 ..·•.q..•. ....··...• .......". Frazer v' Gatcs & Scoviuc Iron
Wo1·l<s ......... . ............. . . . 439
Cmourr Comvr, N. D. Omo, W. D. Gilbert v. Weir Plow Co ........... 428
— · Glasgow v. Fritts .... .. . . .......... 391
Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. Ketcham v. Jacques ........ . ...... 399
& P. Ry. C0. .................... 138 London Guaranty & Accident Co. v.
Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cen- Geddes .................... . ..... 639
tral Trust Co ............... ... .. 138 Marine Grain & Stock Exchange v.
L Vblcesgern Union 'l`el. Co .......... 23
I _ _ lc ar and v. Brown ..... . ........ 787
» CIRCUIT COURT" S' D` OHIO McFarland v. Deere & Mansur Man-
WaShbu,r¤ & Moen Manufyg UO. V. 11 7g C0. ...~.......». ........"... 781
· · · · _ · Norton v. Haight ..... . ............ 787
Cincinnati Barbed wire Fence C0. 712 glibc] IIIBIBBIVGI Fans Cutlery CO. I I 282
tate o l iuois v. Fletcher. ..... .. . 776
CIRCUIT C°Im'I`» S- D· OHI°» W- Dr Wollensak v. Reiher .... . ..... . . . . - 651
Mosler Safe & Lock Co. v. Mos1er.. . 901 ,
Odell v. Stout. .t .... ..... .... .. .... 159 Drsrnicr COURT, N. D. ILLLNoIs.
Avon The ............... ......... 905
DISTRICT C°m°T* S' D' 0mO* W' D` george llgiirray, The.. .. ........... 117
— B. 1 k h ____________ 253 tar V. uellcr ...... . ..... ....... 447
Thoma Sher Oc ’ T B United States v. Frazer ............. 106 _
Cmourr Comvr, E. D. Tmmmssmm.
_ _ Cmonrr Comvr, D. INDIANA.
City of Knoxville v. Knoxville & O.
R.C0 .... ....................."- 758 Burger v_(}]·gndR3pjdg&I_R_Q0_ 56]
C<%glazier v. Louisville, N. A. & C.
(j M_D_T _ y.Co ....... . ....... . ....... .... 568
CIRCUIT 0UBT° ENNESSEE Gottfried v. Crescent Brewing Co. .. 433
East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Gottfried v. Galf. ....... . ......... . 433
Bate ..... . ........... . .......... 480 Gottfried v. Hack .... .. ............ 433
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bate ...... 480 King v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co ....... . . 413
Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Mont- ` Merrill v. Town of Monticello .... .. 589
. gomery C0 ..... . ......... . . . . .... 276 Webster v. Mitchell ................ 869