BRENNAN & Co. SOUTHWESTERN AGRICUL-| PEDRO PEREA et al., Administrators, etc., TURAL WORKS et al., Petitioners, v. DowAGIAC MANUFACTURING COMPANY. [No. 372.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See same case below, 62 C. C. A. 257, 127 Fed. 143. Appellants, v. GUADALUPE PEREA DE HARRISON et al. [No. 45.] Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. See same case below (N. M.) 70 Pac. 558. Messrs. A. E. Willson and Border Bow- of jurisdiction. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. man for petitioners. Mr. Fred L. Chappell for respondent. October 17, 1904. Denied. MINNESOTA MOLINE PLOW COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. DOWAGIAC MANUFACTURING COMPANY. [No. 377.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 61 C. C. A. 352, 126 Fed. 746. 661, 35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. 145 U. S. 608, 36 L. ed. 834, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354, 36 L. ed. 1002, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Haseltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 U. S. 130, 46 L. ed. 117, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 49. Mr. Ephraim Banning and Thos. A. Ban- UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. R. F. Down ING & Co. [No. 380.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Attorney General, Solicitor General Hoyt, and Assistant Attorney General MoReynolds for petitioner. Mr. Albert Comstock for respondent. F. AUGUSTUS HEINZE et al., Petitioners, v. BUTTE & BOSTON CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY. [No. 223.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 61 C. C. A. 63, 126 Fed. 1. Mr. John J. McHatton for petitioners. Messrs. John A. Garver and James M. Beck for respondent. October 24, 1904. Denied. EUREKA COUNTY BANK, Petitioner, v. IDA K. CLARKE. [No. 326.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 571, 130 Fed. 325. Messrs. J. C. Campbell, Oscar J. Smith, and A. E. Cheney for petitioner. Mr. Alfred Chartz for respondent. MOBILE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Peti- | SEATTLE DOCK COMPANY, Plaintiff in Er tioner, v. CITY OF MOBILE et al. [No. 373.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See same case below, 60 C. C. A. 689, 125 Fed. 1003. ror, v. SEATTLE & LAKE WASHINGTON WATERWAY COMPANY et al. [No. 390]; CANNEL COAL COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. SEATTLE & LAKE WASHINGTON WATERWAY COMPANY et al. [No. 391]. In Error to the Supreme Court of the Messrs. Frederick G. Bromberg and Eu-State of Washington. gene H. Lewis for petitioner. Mr. Harry T. Smith for respondents. See same case below, 35 Wash. 503, 77 Pac. 845. Messrs. R. A. Ballinger, J. T. Ronald, and M. A. Ballinger for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Julius F. Hale and Eugene Semple for defendants in error. October 31, 1904. Judgments affirmed, with costs. New Orleans v. New Orleans Waterworks Co. 142 U. S. 79, 35 L. ed. 943, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142; Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line, 146 U. S. 646, 36 L. ed. 1119, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 38 L. ed. 331, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548; Allen v. Forrest, 8 Wash. 700, 24 L. R. A. 606, 36 Pac. 971; Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Hafins, 20 Wash. 272, 55 Pac. 54; and Seattle & L. W. Waterway Co. v. Seattle Dock Co. 35 Wash. 503, 77 Pac. 845. CHESLEY C. MOSES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. [No. 381.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the In error to the Supreme Court of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for State of New York. See same case below in Court of Appeals, 173 N. Y. 84, 65 N. E. 949, and in Appellate Division, 64 App. Div. 525, 72 N. Y. Supp. 312, 780. the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 60 C. C. A. 600, 126 Fed. 58. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for petitioner. The Attorney General, Solicitor General Mr. Charles M. Stafford for plaintiff in Hoyt, Assistant Attorney General Pradt, error. Mr. Thomas Young for defendants in error. October 31, 1904. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 47 L. ed. 525, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472; Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. S. 89, 47 L. ed. 965, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 735. See Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122, 56 N. E. 538; Southampton v. Jessup, 173 N. Y. 84, 65 N. E. 949; People ex rel. Howell | v. Jessup, 160 N. Y. 249, 54 N. E. 682. MINNIE KILPATRICK, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA, & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. [No. 30.] In Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 57 C. C. A. 255, 121 Fed. 11. Mr. W. O. Davis for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. W. McLoud for defendant in error. October 31, 1904. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Southern P. Co. v. Seley, 152 U. S. 145, 38 L. ed. 391, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 530, and case remanded to the United States court for the central district of the Indian Territory. and Felix Brannigan for respondent. October 31, 1904. Denied. A. F. KENNEY, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. ALBERT LOUIE. [No. 386.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 63 C. C. A. 584, 128 Fed. 856. Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and James M. Ashton for petitioner. Mr. Albert W. Buddress for respondent. October 31, 1904. Denied. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY et al. [No. 46.] Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See same case below, 57 C. C. A. 224, 120 Fed. 934. The Attorney General for appellant. October 31, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt for the appellant. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appel- | YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD lant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Appeal from the United States Circuit October 31, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt for the appellant. COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. HENRY In Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin Messrs. J. M. Dickinson and Edward Mayes for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. November 14, 1904. Judgment reversed, with costs, on the authority of Chicago, R. 1. & P. R. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 43 L. ed. 1144, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 797, and cause remanded for further proceedings. SIEGMUND LUBIN, Appellant, v. THOMAS A. Appeal from the United States Circuit See same case below, 58 C. C. A. 604, 122 Fed. 240. Mr. Charles N. Butler for appellant. Mr. Melville Church for appellee. November 7, 1904. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374, 40 L. ed. 461, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318. PHYLLIS E. DODGE, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. [No. 397.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See same case below on first writ of error, 56 L. R. A. 130, 49 C. C. A. 287, 111 Fed. 164, on second writ of error, 65 C. C. A. 603, 131 Fed. 849. Mr. W. Wickham Smith for petitioner. WILLIAM M. MEFFERT, Plaintiff in Error, v. In Error to the Supreme Court of the See same case below, 66 Kan. 710, 72 Pac. 247. Mr. J. Jay Buck for plaintiff in error. ton for defendants in error. November 14, 1904. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 42 L. ed. 1002, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 32 L. ed. 623, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 47 L. ed. 563, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74, 40 L. ed. 80, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985. PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, ETC., Petitioner, v. SARAH GUYON, Administratrix, etc., et al. [No. 399.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 410, 130 Fed. 76. MORRIS UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. The Attorney General, Solicitor General Messrs. Maxwell Evarts and Charles Page Reynolds for petitioner. for petitioner. Mr. Wm. Denman for respondents. Messrs. Albert Comstock, William R. Sears, and A. B. Browne for respondents. November 28, 1904. Granted. Messrs. W. K. Richardson and Thos. B. of jurisdiction, on the authority of Meagher Kerr for respondent. November 28, 1904. Denied. ATLANTA, KNOXVILLE, & NORTHERN RAIL- the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Charles N. Burch for petitioner. Messrs. Alex. Pope Humphrey, W. A. Henderson, and L. Jourolmon for respond ent. November 28, 1904. Denied. GOLDENBURG BROTHERS & COMPANY, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. [No. 418] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. 145 U. S. 608, 611, 36 L. ed. 834, 835, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876; Haseltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 U. S. 130, 46 L. ed. 117, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 49, and cases cited. See Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Miller, 115 Ga. 92, 41 S. E. 252; Augusta R. Co. v. Andrews, 92 Ga. 706, 19 S. E. 713. CHARLES F. DODGE, Appellant, v. GEORGE ELLIS & JOHN J. HERLIHY. [No. 219.] Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas. Messrs. Wayne MacVeagh, Frederic D. McKenney, and J. Spalding Flannery for appellant. Messrs. Howard S. Gans and Henry G. Gray for appellees. December 5, 1904. Final order affirmed, with costs. Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 442, 130 642, 29 L. ed. 250. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1148; Fed. 108. Mr. Thomas H. Clark for petitioners. The Attorney General and Solicitor General Hoyt for respondent. November 28, 1904. Denied. Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 29 L. ed. 544, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; Kohl v. Lehlback, | 160 U. S. 293, 40 L. ed. 432, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Hyatt v. New York, 188 U. S. 691, 47 L. ed. 657, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456. : CADARR et al. [No. 438.] UNITED STATES ex rel. FRANK B. EDWARDS, | UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. GEORGE E. In Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. See same case below, 22 App. D. C. 419. Messrs. Henry A. Craig and J. W. Catharine for plaintiff in error. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The Attorney General and Solicitor General Hoyt for petitioner. No one opposing. December 5, 1904. Granted. The Attorney General and Solicitor Gen- W. J. MCCAHAN SUGAR REFINING COM. eral Hoyt for defendants in error. December 5, 1904. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of South Carolina v. Seymour (United States ex rel. South Carolina v. Seymour) 153 U. S. 353, 38 L. ed. 742, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 871; United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280, 34 L. ed. 700, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; United States ex rel. Phillips v. Ware, 189 U. S. 507, 47 L. ed. 922, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 852. BALTIMORE & OHIO COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COLONIAL COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, Trustee, etc., et al. [No. 400.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Harry B. Arnold for petitioner. Messrs. Louis Marshall and John Doyle for respondents. December 5, 1904. Denied. PANY, Petitioner, v. STEAMSHIP "WILDCROFT," etc. [No. 441.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Messrs. H. L. Cheyney and John F. Lewis for petitioner. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin for respondent. Mr. Henry M. Ward for plaintiffs in error. The Attorney General for defendant in error. December 5, 1904. Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General H. Hoyt for the defendant in error. Messrs. John E. Parsons and H. B. Closson for petitioners. SALT RIVER VALLEY CANAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. HENRY E. SLOSSER [No. 447]; MARICOPA CANAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARTIN GOULD [No. 448]; GRAND CANAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. TOM BROCKMAN [No. 449]. Appeals from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. Mr. Charles J. Kappler for appellees. December 5, 1904. Docketed and dis missed, with costs, on motion of Mr. C. J. Kappler for the appellees. ST. LOUIS EXPANDED METAL FIREPROOFING COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STANDARD FIREPROOFING COMPANY. [No. 179.] In Error to the Supreme Court of the The Attorney General and Solicitor Gen- State of Missouri. eral Hoyt for respondent. December 5, 1904. Denied. NEW YORK BAKING POWDER COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS. [No. 432.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See same case below, 134 Fed. 385. Mr. Philip Mauro for respondent. See same case below, 177 Mo. 559, 76 S. W. 1008. Mr. James A. Carr for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Frank L. Shepard and Hervey S. Knight for defendant in error. December 12, 1904. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 47 L. ed. 480, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375; Turner v. Richardson, 180 U. S. 87, 45 L. ed. 438, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 295; Home for Incurables v. New York, 187 U. S. 155, 47 L. ed. 117, 63 L. R. A. 329, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356, 47 L. ed. 214, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137. |