1 GAIN REPORTED. Pago · hg! Kansas City, S. & M. R. Co., Allen v. 668 Lyle, Shropshire v. . ... ..•...... .. . 694 ‘ Kansas City, S. do M. R. Co., Arm- strong v ......... . .... . . ......... 668 Machela v. The W. M. Wood. .... .. 569 Kansas City, S. & M. R. Co., Barthol- Mack v. Jones ..................... 189 omew v .............. . . . .. ....... 668 Macy v. Remnants, etc., of the Mary Kansas City, S. &M. R. C0.,O’Neil v. 663 K. Campbell. . . .. . ..... . ......... 840 Kasson, Markell v .... . . ..... . .. . . 104 Madgie, The .... . .................. 926 Keegan. In re .... . . .... . ..... . . .... 129 Magowan, Stevenson v .... . . . . .. 824 Keener v. Union Pac. Ry. C0 .... . . 126 Maguire v. The Fort Lee .... . ...... 570 Keith, Union Edge-Setter C0. V. . . .. 46 Mann v. Appel. . . . .... . .... . ..... . . 378 Kells v. Boyd.. .... . ..... .......... 621 Manning, Fish v .... . .............. 340 Kelly v. Heddon............. .... L. 607 Manson v. New York, N. H. & H. Kel1y,Meersv .... ....... .... 153 R. Co .... .... .. ....... .. .... . 297 Kenny v. The Da§o ....... . .... 574 Markell v. Kass0n................. 104 Keokuk & H. Bri ge Co., St. Louis Mary K.`Campbell, The .... ... .... . 840 · & St. P. Packet Co. v .... . ....... 755 Mary Lord, The. .... . .............. 416 Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting & Retin- Mary Lord, Claimants of the, Car- ' ingCo ...... . .......... ...... .... 560 sonv .... .. .... . ..... .. .... ......416 Keystone, The .... . . .... . .... . . .... 412 Mary Powell, The. ......... . .. . .... 622 Keystone, The, Menendez v .... .... 412 Mary Powell, The, Moore v .... . . . . 622 Kimball v. The Ethel .... . . . ....... 576 Mary Powell C0., The, v. The Phil- . Knights of Pythias, Wiggin v. .... . 122 lip Sinnott. . . .... . ..... . . .. . .... 622 Knower v. Haines .... .. ..... ...... 518 Mather, Stanleyv .... ............. . 860 . Kochert, Phillips v. .. . .... . .. . . ... 39 Mathews, The Dora .... . . . .. . . .. . . . 619 , Koehler,»Ex parte. . . . ..... .. . . .... 315 May v. County of Jefferson .... ... . 473 Kohn v. Ryan.. . ..... .. .... ..... . 636 May v. County of Rails ..... . ...... 473 Krementz. Cottle v .... ... ... .... . . 42 May v. County of St. Genevieve .... 473 Mayor, The, Gamewell Fire-Alarm La Compania Bilbaina, etc.,v. Span- el. C0. v. . .... . . . ........... .. . 312 ish·American L. & P. Co .... . .... 492 McArthur v. Scott ........ . ........ 521 Ladd v.'Fnster .............. . . .. . . . 827 McCabe v. Old Dominion Steam-Ship Lamb,TheL.L.. ............ ...... 29 Co. .... . ............. .. ...... ....234 Lamont v. Grand Lodge Iowa Le- McConnell, Bates v .... . ........... 588 gion of Honor .... . ....... .. ..... 177 McCrory v. Chicago, M. &. St. P. Lancaster,SimmonsHardwareCo.v. 445 Ry. Co. . .... . ................... 531 Lancaster Wedemeyer v .... .. .... 446 McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour- Langtry, ln re .... ................. 879 Mills Co. ................. . .... .. 577 ~ Lanier v. Alison .... . ..... . .... .... 100 MeElmurray v. Loomis .... .... .... .395 La Rue v. Western Electric C0. .... 80 McLean v. Clark ........ .... .. .. . . . 501 Lawrence Manuf’g Co. v. Tennessee McLean v. Hager .... . . . . ...... . .. . 602 Manuf’g Co. ...... . .............. 776 Itflcgpown, Lehman v. . . . .. .. . .... 138 Lazensky v. Supreme Lodge Knights Mc illiams, Lloyd v. .... . . . .... .. . 261 of Honor... ........ ...........-.. 592 Meers v. Kelly .... .. ....... . .... ... 153 . Lehman v. McQu0wn. ....... . .. . . . 138 Mellin v. Horlick ...... . . ..... .. . .. . 865 Leverett. Vannerson v ....... .,..... 376 Melville, The Thomas .... .. .... ... . 486 Levy v. The Thomas Melville. . . .. . 486 Melvin v.Robinson .... . .... . ...... 634 Libby v. Crossley. ............... . . 647 Memphis & C. R. Co., Gibson v .... 553 Ligowski Clay·Pigeon C0. v. Ameri- Menendez v. The Keystone .... . . . . 412 can C1ay·B1rd Co. (two cases)... . 466 Mercantile Ins. Co., Oskosh Pack- Ligowski Cl_ay—Pigeon Co., Ameri- ing & Provision Co. v .......... . . 200 can Clay-Bird C0. v .... .. .. .. .. . . 466 Merino Shoe Co., Pontiac Knit Boot Lingham. Bennett v ...... . ....._.. 85 Co. v ............................ 286 Lippert. Emerson, Smith & Co. v. . 911 Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., Lizzie Frank, The ......... ........ 477 Holmes Electric rotective Co. v. 562 Lizzie Frank, The, Hurley v. . . .. .. 477 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Fuller v. 696 L.·_L. Lamb, The. ..... . .... ........ 29 Middleton,Schillingerv............ 736 Lloyd v. McWilliams.............. 261 Minnie, The ........ .... ...·..-.. 301 Lloyd v. The Theresina............ 90 Minnie, The, Gedney v .... .... .... 301 Lockhart v. Morey.» . . ............. 497 Mira A. Pratt, The ......... ..,..... 572 Loomis, McElmurray v. .... . .. . . .. . 395 Mira A. Pratt, The, Sibley v .... . . . . 572 Louisville & N. R. o., Samuels v.. 57 Mississippi & T. R. Co., ohnson v. 551 Louth v. The Joseph Stickuey .... . 156 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & Lovell Manuf’g Co., Cary v. ...... . 844 P. Ry. O0.. .... . ................. 526 Lowenstine, Jennings v....,... .... 84 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & Lowry v Story. .................. 769 P. Ry. Co .... .................... 527