VH1 CASES REPORTED. Page , Page ° p Carondelet, The, L’Hommedieu v. . 714 Detroit Fire & Marius Ins. Co., Ful- Cartier v. The F. & P. M. No. 2 .... 264 ler v. .... . ............ . . .... . .... 469 Castle, The Brucklay. ...... . . .. . . . 923 Deyo v. The Oswego ....... . ....., 720 Celluloid Manuf’g Co. v. Frederick Dimmick v. United States .......... 82 Crane Chemical Co ............,. L 110 Director, The .......... .. ......... . 335 Central Pac. R. C0., United Nickel Director, The, Balfour v .... . ..... . 335 Co. v.. .... . ......... . ..........,. 186 Disbrow v. The Walsh Brothers .... 607 Central Trust C0. v. Ohio Cent; R. Dize v. Lloyd ...................... 651 Co. .... . . .... . . . . ...... . ......... 520 Dooley v. Virginia, T. & C. S. & I.Co. 6 Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. Doon, The Bonnie ................. 770 & P. Co .................. . .. 622 Durham House Drainage Co.v. Arm- Central nion Telephone Co., Shef· strong .... . ...................... 596 Held v .... . . .......... . . ......... 164 Chae Chan Ping, In re. . . . .... . .. . . 431 Eaggle Manuf’g Co. v. Chamberlain Chamberlain P ow Co., Eagle Man- low Co ......... . ......... . . .. . 905 uf’g Co. v.. ...... . .... . ..... . ..... 905 Eclipse Manuf’g Co. v. Adkins,. ... 554 Chandler v. Calumet & H. Min. Edwards, Flynn v .................. 873 C0. . . .. .L . ..... . .... . . ..... ._.. . 665 Egyptian Monarch, The ............ 773 Chapman, Davis v. ................. 42 Egyptian Monarch, The, Roberts v. 773 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., McIn- Ellsworth, Webster v .... . . ........ 327 tosh v.... ........................ 661 Emerson, McMurray v .... ......... 901 Chicago Sewing-Machine Co., . Erin, The. ......................... 712 Schlicht & Field o. v. ........ _ 585 Erin, The, The Steam—Ship Sama- Chiesa v. Conover ...... . .......... 334 na v .... . .... . ................... 712 Choteau v. Harvey .... . . . .......... 541 Ettlesohn, Armstrong v .... . . . ..... 209 Choteau v. Union Pac. Ry. Co ...... 541 Evans v. The Belgenland.. .... .. . . . 504 Church of the Holy Trinity, United , States v. ...... . ......... . ....... 303 Fairbanks, Allen v ................. 402 Cincinnati, C. & H. V. R. Co., Pres- Farguson v Johnston .... . . .... .... 134 ton v........ .... . ..... .... .......r 54 Farrell, TheJames... ...... 500 City Ins. C0.,` Hamblet v.. . . ...... 118 Fee v. Orient Fertilizing C0.. ..... . 509 City of Baton Rouge, Texas & P. Felderward, United States v ........ 490 Ry. Co. v ...... . . .. . .... . ........ 845 Felix v. Patrick,. ...... . . . .... . .... 457 City of New York, Campbell v .... . 260 Fire-Extinguisher Mauuf’g Co., City of Springfield, The ...... . . .. . . 568 Preston v.. . .... . . ......... .. .... 721 City of Springfield. The, Luther v.. 568 First Nat. Bank v. Armstrong ..... . 59 City of Toledo, Scott v ............ . 385 Fish v. United States.. ............ 677 Clews v. Bardon .... . . . . ........... 617 Flynn v Edwards. .... . . .......... . 873 Clow v. Baker .... . . ..... . .... . .... 692 F. 0. Matthiessen &: Wiechers Sugar Clyde v. Steam Transp. Co. .... ... . 501 Refinery Co., The, v. The Ludvig Coats v. Merrick Thread Co ........ 324 Holberg and The Leonard Rich— Compagnie Bordelaise de Naviga· ards. .... . .. .... . ................. 914 tion a Vavpeur v The California... 563 Foote, Glenn v. .... . ....... . . . .. . . . 824 Connor v. icksburg & M. R. Oo., . 273 Foster v. Mansfield, C. ds L. M. R. Conover. Chiesa v. .... . ............ 834 Oo .... . .... . . . . ............... ... 627 Consolidated Electric Light Co., Foster, Neal v .... . .... . . . .... .. . . 29 Wood v. .... ... .... . . ............ 538 Foster, Pickett’s Heirs v ......... . 514 Cook, Buford v ..... . .... ... . . .... 21 Fotheringham v.Adams Express Co. 252 Cook, United States v. .... . . .... . .. 896 Foti v. The Boskenna Bay ......... 697 Corbin, Yale & Towne Manuf’g Fraker v. Houck .............. . .... 403 · Co. v... . . .... . . . .... . . . .. . . .. .. .. 765 Frederick Crane Chemical Co., Ce1· C. P. Raymond, The ...... . ..... ... 336 luloid Manuf’g Co. v ......... .... 110 C. P. Raymond, The, Browne v .... 336 Freeman v. The Australia.......... 332 Curtin, row City Directory Co. v, 829 Frelinghuysen v. Nugent .... .. .... 229 Cushman Tel. & Service Co.,.Ameri- Fuller v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins. can Bell Tel. Co. v ............... 488 Co .......... . .. .................. 469 Fuller, Shedd v ...... . ...... . . ..... 609 Dacotah, The .... . ............ .. .. 493 F. & P. M. No. 2, The ...... . ....... 264 Dacotah, The, Boschert v .......... 493 F. & P. M. No. 2, The, Cartier v. .. 264 Darrow v. The W. A. Levering ..... 511 Dary v. The Caroline Miller ........ 507 Gabriel, United States v .... . ....... 888 Davis v. Chapman. ................. 42 Gagnon, Goodrich Transportation Delany, Barlow v .................. 577 Co. v .... . . .. .... . ............... 123 Denton v. International Co. of Mex- Garrett v. New York Transit & Ter- ic0.............. ................ 1 mina1C0....... ................. 513