xvi CASES REPORTED.
Page Page
Crizcurr Cormrr, W. D. Mrcmean. Wetherell v. Keith. .... . ........ .. . 364
Josslyn v. Phillips ................. 481 CIRCUIT COUEE D_ INDIANE
Drsmicr Couivr, E. D. lllrcmoan. Bankers Sa Merchants Tel. Co. of
Ind. v. Bankers &Mcrchants’ Tel.
Clarion, Tho. ............ . ......... 128 C0. of N. Y .... . . . .. ........ . .... 536
Farm§rs’(l... & T. C0. v. Chicago do 14
A. y. 0. ............ . . .... . .... F
'CIRCUIT COUB/L S` D' OHIO' Richardson5v. qounty of Grant ....  
· ~ . Stanton v. hip ey ...... . . . .. ...... 98
HWY Bm P“b· °°· "· Smlm ····· 914 Taylor v.Rice .... .. .....,.. .. .... .. 264
Cmcurr Courvr, S. D. Oruo, E. D. CIRCUIT COURT. El D. WISCONSIN-
Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Bel- . .
- Calkins v. Oshkosh Carria re Co. . . 296
laire Stamping Co.. .... . ......... 377 May V. County of Fond du iacn · I I 691
Crncurr Conair, W. D. Tmmnssmn. CIRCUIT COURT, W. D. WISCONSIN. _
'h .K ', .,R.C.544' _ _
iqgiiegrvi Thai; .(?1.tK .?t.? ...... T). 429 G¤g¤¤ V- ¤<>¤¤¤v ¤f St- ¤¢<>¤= -····· 333
DISTRICT COURT, W-_ D_ TENNESSEE Dxsrnror Couirr, E. D. Wrsconsm.
Holt v. The Oregon............. 751
Thomas v. Thorwegan .... . ........ 400 Kirby vt Thames & M. IM. C0.   l 221
Oregon, The ........   ......   751
S. ArEde1éson;I%`h<§   ..... . ......  
. . . s ....... "
SEVENTH omouitr. “"° “” " ° " °' °“
Cmcorr Comavr, N. D. Lnmnoxs. EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Blades g _Ban¢kM§NalEy£ & (gona . 93
Brown an rs a e anu ’g 0.
Bv. Stud¢§l1tak;r1Bros. Manuf’g Co.. 273 DISTRICT COURT; W' D' ARKANSAS'
utler v. ec e ........ . ........ . . 1
City OE Galesburg V- Galesburg WE 321 Wolf, In re .... . ....... . ........... 606
ter 0 ...... . ..... .. ......... . ....
Commercial Mauurg oo. v. Fair- Cuwvw Comm N. D. Iowa C. D.
bank Canning C0 .... . .......... . 78 ‘
Craudgl v_ Accidcc; {cc qc_ cf}; A_ 40 Hough v. Buchanan ._ .......... . . . . 328
Foster v. City or Joliet .... . ....... eas Whitehead v- Eutwhmle-· ··..··-· 778
Globe Nail Co. v. Superior Nail Co. 450
Globe Nail Co. v. Superior Nail 00.. 454 CIRCUIT CgUBT’ N_ ])_ IOWA, E_ ])_
Halliday v. Covel .... . . ............ 217
g¤¤<=¤%< Inspiratvr 0<>- v- L¤11y· ·- 232 comin v. oi-was .... . .. .... . ....... 644
oe v. nap ........... . ........... w· _Ed · t ____ _ _____ 324
§ons v. ManéifT;;tugers’ Nat. Bank. 52; mmmans v gmg Ou
ontross v. u ar .... . ..........
OES BEEE MfEmg»g O0_ v_ Crane 0 Cmcurr Comzr, N. D. Iowa., W. D.
ros. anu ’g o ......... . ...... 55 .
Owsley v. Pope Manuf’g C0 .... . .. . 100 gmhrw `6lHMk°r ·‘‘'‘' ' ' ° °'’•‘‘••*  
Pope Manuf’g Co. v. Owsley ....... 100 SUM V6.       ·   ·····  
Racine Secder Co. v. Joliet \Vire— 10**5 $$,86 SEP   yb °· v· l` 770
check Rower Co ................. 367 °“¤°· · · · Y* ° ···•·····
Robbins v. Lincoln .... . . . . .... . . . . 342
Smith v. Murray .... . . .... . ........ 69 Cmcurr Counsr. S. D. Iowa.
Taylor v. Robertson... . ........ . . . . 537
Thayer v. Spaulding ............... 66 Adams v. May .... . ................ 907
Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Han- Bryant v. Thompson. ....   ....   881
ford.. ............................ 588 Dcimer v. Franz .... . .. .... . .. ...... 890
— Western Land & Cattle Co. v. Plumb 598 Kessingor v. Hinkhouso. .... . ...... 883