V1l1 CASES REPORTED.
` Page Page
Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. Council Bluffs City Water-works
& P.   C0 .... . ........ .. ...... 69 C_o., Harrison & oward Iron Co.
Central - rust C0. v. Wabash, St. L. vb ........... . . . . ........ . .... . . . . 170
& P. Rly. Co.. ............ . . ...... 693 County of Leavenworth v. Chicago,
Charles arker Co., Bradley dc Hub- R. I. & P. R. C0 ......... . ....... 219
bard Manuf’g C0. v .... . . . . ...... 907 Courier Co., Judson v. .... . . . . .... . 705
Chas. L. Baylis, The .... . .... .... .. 862 Courtland Wagon Co., Withnell v.. 372
Chas. L. Batylis, The, Burns v ...... 862 Covert v. Curtis. .... . .............. 43
Chase, Ree v ..... . .... . . . . ....... 94 Crossley v. Fabbri .... . ........ . .. . 44
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Reed Crystal Stream, The. ............ . .. 575
v. ..................... .. . ........ 886 Crystal Stream, The, Malloryv. .... 575
Chicago Ry. Equip. Co., Merchants’ Culver, Wilkinson v ........ . . . .... 639
Nat. Bank v. .... . ................ 809 Curtis v. Wortsman ........ .. . ..... 893
Chicago, R. I. do P. R. Co., County Curtis, Covert v .................... 43
of Leavenworth v. .... . . . .. ...... 219 Curtis & Co. Manuf’g Co., Abbott v. 402
Chicago du A. Ry. Co., Missouri Pac.
Ry. Co. v .... . ..... . ........... .. 317 Davis v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. C0.-
Chittenden, Cook v .... . . .......... 544 two cases .... . ....... . ....... . . . . 786
Ch1tt1ck, Lewis v ...... . ..... . ..... 176 De Arrotegui, Morgan, L. & T. S. S.
ChowGooPooi,Inre. ....   ..... 77 Co.v ...... . ....... .. ....   ...624
Chrolithion Collar & Cuff Co., Cel- De Magathias, Doboy & Union Isl-
luloid Manuf’g Co. v .... . . . . ..... 482 and el. Co. v .... . . . . .... .. . .... 697
‘ City of De Soto, Laird v .... . .... .. 76 Demerest, The A .... . . . .... . . ...... 921
City of Evansville, Moulton v ..... 382 Demerest, The A., Ronan v. .... .   921
City of Evansville, Portland Sav. Detroit & Lake Superior Copper Co.,
Bank v ......... . .......... . ..... 389 Mineral Range R. Co. v ...... . . . . 515
City of Evansville, Post v. ......... 393 Dick v. Oil Well Supply Co .... . . . . 105
City of Lincoln, The ......... . . . .. . 835 Dick v. Struthers .... . . . . ...... . . . . 103
City of Lincoln, The, Post v .... . .. 835 Doboy & Union Island Tel. Co. v.
a City of Mexico, The. . . : ........... 924 De Magathias .................... 697
City of Mexico, The, United States Doherty, United States v. ......   . 28
v ...... . ..... . ......... . . . . ...... 924 Dorlan v. Guie. .... . ..... . . . . .... . . 816
City of New York, The .... . . . . .... 149 Dravo v. Fabel. .... . ............... 116
City of Niles, Philbrick v ...... . . . . 265 Drew, The. .... . ........... . ....... 457
City of St. Louis v. The Maggie P. . 202 Drew, The, Brewers’ Ice Co. v .... . 457
Clapp v. Nordmeyer .... . . . . ....... 71 Dreyfus v. Schneider ...... . . . . .... 481
Clark v. American D. 82: I. Co .... . . 641 Duden, Maloy v.. . ............ . . . .. 673
Clausen v. The Commodore Jones. . 506 Duff, Carte v ............ . .... . . .... 183
Cobb, Reed v ........ . . .... . . . . .... 94 Durant, Hazard v ...... . . . . .... . . . . 26
Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land do Cat-
tle C0 .... . ................... .   791 Edison Electric Light Co., Consoli-
Coe F. Young, The .... . . .......... 457 dated Electric Light Co. v. ....... 719
Coe F. Young, The, New Jersey Edith Godden, The .... . .......   511
. Steam-boat 0. v .... . . . . .... . ... 457 Edith Godden, The, Sylvester v .... 511
Coiiin v. The O. M. Hitchcock ..... 777 Egypt, The ........ . . .... . ......... 320
, Columbia, The ...... . . . .. .... . .... 844 Egypt, The, Acker v .... . .... . ..... 320
Comerford, United States v .... . . . . 902 Egypt, The, Houston v. ...... . . .... 320
Comfort, The .... . .. ............ 158, 159 Egypt, The, Person v ........ .. .... 320
Commodore Jones, The .... . . . .. . .. 506 Eight Hundred and Forty-one Tons
Commodore Jones, The, Clausen v. 506 of Iron Ore ...... . ............... 864
Commonwealth, Jones v .... . . .... 666 Erastus Corning, The .............. 572
Consolidated Amador Mine, Fish- Erastus Corning, The, Pennsylva-
er v. .............. . .............. 201 nia R. Co. v.. ......... . ...... .. .. 5*72
Consolidated Electric Light Co. v.
— Edison Electric Light 0. .... . .. . 719 Fabbri, Crossley v ........ . ....   44
Consolidation Coal 0., Merchants' Fabel, Dravo v. .... . . .... . . .... . .. . 116
& M. Transp. C0. v .............. 451 Falk v. Robertson ................. 897
Continental Ins. Co. v. The Freder- Faure v. Sinking Fund Com’rs ..... 641
ick E. Ives. .... . ........... . ..... 447 Fay v. Allen .............. . ........ 201
Cook v. Chittenden .......... . . .... 544 Fi elitivi Trust Co. v. Gill Car C0. . . 737
Cornelia M. Kingsland, The. ....... 856 Field, olt v. .... . . . . .... . ......... 123
Cornelia M. Kingsland, The, Caf- · Filley v. Littleiield. ....   ......... 282
fray v. .... . . . . .... . . . . .... . . ..... 856 First Nat. Bank v. Scotland Co .... 395
Corning, The Erastus .... . . . . ...... 572 First Nat. Bank v. Treasurer of Lu-
Cottle v. Krementz ................ 494 cas Co .... . ....... . . . . ........ .. . 749