CASES REPORTED. . ix Page Page G. P. Trigg, The, Hansen v. ....... 708 Interstate Lumber Co., Kansas City Graham, altby v. .... . .... . . ...... 689 & T. R. C0. v. ....... .......... . 3 Gray v. B0hDOL....#... .... .... .... 266 Gray v. Mason ....... . ............ . 266 Jackson, In re .... . ................ 543 Gray v. Moore ..................... 266 Jackson, Rodebaugh v... ......... 882 Greenman, United States v ........ 64 Janesville Hay Tool Co., Boyd v.. . 887 Green, Smith v. ...... . . .... . . . . .... 424 Jarrett, McCormick v .... . . .... . . . . 380 Guiding Star, The, Western Manuf’g J. C. Hartt, The. .... . .............. 897 Co. v .......... .. ............... 641 J. C. Hartt, The, Old Colony Steam- Guinanlt, Western Land & Eu1igra· Boat Co. v. . . ..... .. . . .... . . . .. 897 tion Co. v .......... . ...... .. . .... 523 J. C. Tuthill, The, McFarland v .... 'T14 Gunon, United States v ...... . .... . . 263 Jennie Hayes, The .... . .... . . ...... 373 Jennings v. Johnson ............... 364 Hager, Swayne v ........ . .... . ..... 780 Johnson v. Brooklyn & C. R. Co. . . 147 Hagood v. Blythe .... . ....... . . . .. . 249 Johnson v. Steinway & H. P R. Co. 147 Hake v. Brown. ...... .. .......... . 783 Johnson, Jennings v ............... 364 Hall v. Ocean Ins. Co ........ . ..... 371 Jolly, United States v., two cases. . . 108 Hall, Norton Door Check & Spring Jones v. Williamson .... . .,.. . .... 756 Co. v .... . . . .. . ...... . . .......... 691 Jones, Georgia Infirmary for the Re- · ‘ Hamilton Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. lief and Protection of Aged and City of Hamilton .... . . .... . . .... 832 Aiiiicted Negroes v .... . ...... . . . . 750 Hansen v. The G. P. Trigg. .... . . . . 708 Jones, Republic Iron Min. Co.v .... 721 Hansen v. The M. M. Chase . . . .... 708 José E. More, The .... .. . .... . . ..... 122 Hardman v. Brett ................. 803 J osé E. Moré, '1`he, Kerr v .......... 122 Hartt, The J. C .... . ......... . ..... 897 Juillard v. Magone ................. 857 Haven, Borland v. ........... . . .... 394 Julia, The, Krohn v. ..... . . . . ...... 369 Hayes. The Jennie v ............... 373 Junge v. Hedden. .... . ............. 197 Hays v. Humphreys .... . ........... 283 Hedden, Junge v ...... ...... 197 Kansas City & T. R. Co. v. Inter- Hedden, Legg v .............. . .... 861 state Lumber Co ..... . ........... 3 Hedden, Rossman v ................ 99 Keeler, Standard Folding Bed Co. v. 693 Hedges v. Dixon County ........ . .. 304 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louis-‘ Heineken, H. Tibbe & Son l\lanuf`g ville & N. R. C0 ...... . ..... . .... 567 Co. v ........ . .,...... . .......... 686 Kerr v. The José E. More .......... 122 Hellebush v. Coughlin .... .... 294 Kinsley v. Buffalo, N. Y. & P. R. Hennessy v. City of St. Paul .... . .. 565 Co .... . . ...... .. .... . . . .... . 181 Heyward v. United States .... . ..... 764 Knapp, Morss v .................... 351 Hidden v. Kretzschmar .... . . . . .... 465 Knapp, The Gilbert .... . ........... 209 Hills v. Richmond & D. R. Co ..... 660 Knox County, Geo. D. Barnard & Hohenstein, Leary v .... . .......... 680 Co. v .... .. ...... . ............... 563 Hohorst v. Howard ................ 97 Knox County, Ninth Nat. Bank v.. 75 Hood v. Boston Car Spring Co ..... 792 Kobbe, The Augustine .... . ........ 696 Howard. Hohorst v .... . . . . .... . . . . 97 Kobbe, The Augustine .... . ........ 702 Howard, United States v ........... 666 Kretzschmar, Hidden v .... . ....... 466 H. Tibbe & Son Manuf’g Co. v. Krohn v. The Julia .... . . . .... . .... 369 Heineken .................. . 686 Hull v. A Cargo of Pig-Iron, etc.. . . 124 Langdon v. Branch .... . . .......... 449 Hull of The Edgar Baxter, The, La Scala v. Boughton .... . ......... 62 Everyv. ....................... . 219 Leary v. Hohenstein, . ............. 680 Hull of The Edgar Baxter, The, Lee v. Simpson .... . ..... . ......... 12 Park v ................. . ......... 219 Legg v. Heddon. ......... . . ....... SG1 Huma, Burton v .......... . ........ 738 Lehigh du W. Coal Co., Melloy v... 377 _ Humphreys v. St. Louis, I. M. ds S. Lehman v. Feld. .... . . . .... . ....... 852 Ry. C0.. ................ . .... . .... 307 Lehnen, Dickson v ................. 319 Humphreys, Hays v ................ 283 Leighton, Young v. ............ . . . . 46 Huskins v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Leverich, Burden Cent. Sugar Re- Ry. Co ........ .... .... 504 tin. Co. v. ........ . ........ . ..... . 67 Hyland, Fradley v .... . . . . .... . .... 49 Levy v. The Thomas Melville .... .. 271 Lewis, In re .... . ....... . . . ........ 543 I. M. North, The, O’Neil v ......... 270 Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith .... .. 359 Indurated Fibre Co. v. Amoskeag Lilienthal v. Wallach . .... . ....... 241 Indurated Fibre Ware Co ........ 695 Lincoln Driving Park Ass’n, Ingersoll v. Missouri Val. Life Ins. Young v .......... . .... .. .... 46 C0 ...... . .... . . ...... . ........ . . . 530 Littleton, Brightley v .... . . . . ...... 103 Ingham v. Pierce ..... . ............ 647 Lockwood, ’l`he Ann L ...... . ...... 233