CASES REPORTED. xvii Page Page Kessinger v. Lcibracht .... . ........ 894 Jeffries v. Laurie .......... . ........ 198 Kessinger v. Vannatta ........ . .... 890 Schuler v. Israel ................... 8o1 Lindroth v. Litchneld .............. 894 Schuler v. Laclede Bank ....... . . . . 424 Mahin v. Pfeiffer .... . ....... . ..... 892 Schultz v. Ostrander ............... 295 McLane v. Leicht ........... .. . .... 887 State v. Morse .... . ................ 261 Wing v. Hoehl. .... . ............... 894 Steam-gauge & Lantern Co. v. Mey- Trose .... . .............. .. .... , urner v. ac man. .......... i .... °“‘“" C°""'”’ D K‘*““· gona.-za sages to Wgte .... . . ....... igg Clark v. Hammett ....... . .... . ..... 339 Oodwm v' Ou ‘''' ' ' ' ' ‘'''‘‘ ”' Doster v. Scully ......... . .. .... . . . . 782 W°°dW“rd V' G¤¤ld ‘‘‘‘ ‘ ‘°‘'‘‘‘''' 338 Flint v. County of Republic ....... S50 Cmcmr Cormr, D. Nnnnasxa. Crnourr Comm`, D. MINNESOTA. _ _ Anglo-Californian Bank v.)Ames. . . 727 Banks & Bros. v. West Pub. Co .... . 50 King Iron Bridge & Manuf g C0. v. Craig v. McArthur .... . ............ 911 Countyiof Otoe .... . .... . .... . .... 800 Davidson v. Wheelock .......... .. . 61 Root v. err1am. .... . . .... . .. . . .. . 909 May v. Western Assnr. Co .... . .... 260 Igowlor v. Bakor .... il. ............ 396 t. aul Ro er—mi 0. v. Great 5 Western Despatch Co ............ 434 NINTH CIRCUIT. Cmomr Comvr, E. D. Mrssomu. CIRCUIT Coom., D_ C_,_mFoRNu_ Anthony v. Louisville & N. R. C0., 724 · _ _______ 157 Beals v- ¤¤¤<>ie- M- & T- R- <>¤ -·-· 721 E?§‘§;'$*é§t,'%e·se;g1;ta;:t ........ at Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. C0., . 176 Hardt v_ Liborty Hm Consolidated ¤¤¤¤¤1L¤¤t<>¤· V- TMS <>- V- WMSL- St L- In re ........ . ................... as & P· · C0 ····-·-- ·· ···· · - ·— ·-·· 1* rnemkaur v. mind .... . ........ . 769 <><=¤¤=¤ Fmt C0- V- Wabash- St- L- Wmrm¤v.1>Ow .... . . .. ........ sev & P. Ry. C0 ...... . .... . ........ . . 159 Watormou v_ Wotormoo ____________ 327 Ce£t11;alRTru5t C0. v. Wabash, St. L. 175 Woodmg v_ North Bloomhold . . . o. .... ...... . ..... ·_ _ __________ _ ______ 795 ogtgtiaiiugt 00. v. Wabash, St. L. 794 G""°1M"‘ C° . Ry. o .... . .... . ........ . . . . Chamberlain v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 18] Cmcurr Counr, D. 0mm0N. Co ...... . . . . .... . ........ . . . . .... . Cleveland Rolling—mill C0. v. Texas Coiiin v. City of Portland. ....... 412 & St. L. Ry. Co. .... . .... . . . . ..... 250 Hatch v. Wallamet Iron Bridge Co. 673 - Danzig v. Gumersell ............... 185 Hickox v. Elliott ............ . ..... 830 Dodd v. Ghiselin ...... . . . . .... . .... 405 Holladitly Case, The .... . . . . ........ 830 Eells v. Johann ........ . . .......... 327 Kie v. nited States .... . ..... . .... 351 Freund v. Yaegerxnan . . . . .... . .... 248 Oregonian Co. v. Oregon Ry. & Funk v. Anglo-American Ins. Co,. . 336 Nav. Co., ( our cases,) .... . . . ._ .... 277 Home v. Hoyle .... . ...... .. . . .... 216 Scheurer v. Columbia-street Bridge Jeffries v. Laurie .... . . ........... 195 Co .... .. .... . ..... .. .... .... .... 172 27 FED. .1