« AnteriorContinuar »
NICK GUBVICH V. UNITED STATES. [No. BENJAMIN F. McCAULLY, Petitioner, 0. 435.]
UNITED STATES. [No. 651.] On a Certificate from the United States Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court of Appeals of the District of ColumCircuit.
bia. No appearance for Gurvich.
See same case below, 33 Wash. L. Rep. The Attorney General for the United 306. States.
Messrs. Arthur A. Birney and Henry F. May 1, 1905. On the authority of Rass- Woodard for petitioner. mussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516, The Attorney General and Solicitor Genante, 514, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 514, the ques-eral Hoyt for respondent. tion is answered that the district court of May 15, 1905. Denied. the United States for the district of Alaska, division No. 1, erred in compelling the plaintiff in error to go to trial before a FRANCIS H. DUEHAY, Petitioner, v. Disjury composed of only six persons. An
TRICT OF COLUMBIA. [No. 638.] nounced by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Co
lumbia. WILLIAM S. BRYAN, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH C. DUPOYSTER et al. [No. 632.]
Mr. Samuel Maddox for petitioner.
Messrs. A. B. Duvall and F. H. Stephens Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
for respondent. the Sixth Circuit.
May 29, 1905. Denied. Mr. Justice See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 417, 130 Brewer took no part in the consideration Fed. 83.
and disposition of this application. Messrs. C. C. Calhoun and S. T. G. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Ira Julian for respondents.
D. G. FRITZLEN et al., Petitioners, v. BOATMay 8, 1905. Denied.
MEN'S BANK OF ST. LOUIS, Mo. [No. 647.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for CONSUMERS' Gas TRUST COMPANY et al., Pe- the Eighth Circuit.
titioners, v. BYRON C. QUINBY. [No. 637.] See same case below, 135 Fed. 650.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Messrs. D. R. Hite and H. J. Bone for peUnited States Circuit Court of Appeals for titioners. the Seventh Circuit.
Mr. James S. Botsford for respondent. Mr. Addison C. Harris for petitioners. May 29, 1905. Denied.
Messrs. Ferdinand Winter and Alexander
PITCH PINE LUMBER COMPANY, Petitioner,
v. WILLIAM S. ROSASCO et al. [No. 653.]
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the LOUIS A. DARNAL, Petitioner, 0. UNITED STATES. (No. 641.]
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the the Second Circuit. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
Messrs. Harrington Putnam and Chas. O. the Sixth Circuit.
Burlingham for petitioner.
Messrs. J. Parker Kirlin and Charles R. Mr. W. M. Smith for petitioner. No brief in opposition.
Hickox for respondents. May 8, 1905. Denied.
May 29, 1905. Denied.
STEPHEN A. RALLI et al., Petitioners, v. DI BRUNSWICK - BALKE - COLLENDER COMPANY,
RECT NAVIGATION COMPANY [No. 639); Petitioner, v. JOHN G. KLUMPP et al.
Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. the Fifth Circuit.
See same case below, 65 C. C. A. 447, 131 Messrs. John F. Lewis, Francis 8. Lans, Fed. 255. and James B. Stubbs for petitioners.
Mr. Joseph C. Clayton for petitioner. Mr. M. F. Mott for respondent.
Mr. Louis C. Raegener for respondents. May 15, 1905. Denied.
May 29, 1905. Denied.
WILLIAM H. STAAKE, Trustee, Petitioner, v. | IGNACIO ROSALES Y CUELI, Plaintiff in Er
WATTS, ROBERTSON, & ROBERTSON, et al. ror, v. DOLORES MOYA Y RODRIGUEZ, [Nos. 656, 657.]
Guardian, etc., et al. [No. 431.] Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the In Error to the District Court of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for United States for the District of Porto the Fourth Circuit.
Rico. See same case below, 133 Fed. 717.
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, J. SpaldMessrs. H. Gordon McCouch and Samueling Flannery, and Wayne MacVeagh for W. Cooper for petitioner.
plaintiff in error. Mr. 8. Hamilton Graves for respondents. Mr. George H. Lamar for defendants in May 29, 1905. Denied.
May 29, 1905. Dismissed for the want
of jurisdiction. Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, MARTHA RAPHAEL, Administratrix, etc., Pe- 192 U. S. 149, 48 L. ed. 385, 24 Sup. Ct.
titioner, v. RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAIL Rep. 247; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, WAY COMPANY et al. [No. 659.]
130 U. S. 210, 32 L. ed. 908, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the 503; Filhiol v. Maurice, 185 U. S. 108, 46 United States Circuit Court of Appeals for L. ed. 827, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Louisville the Eighth Circuit.
& N. R. Co. v. Louisville, 166 U. S. 709, 41 See same case below, 65 C. C. A. 632, 132 L. ed. 1173, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 725; HarriFed. 12.
son v. Morton, 171 U. S. 38, 43 L. ed. 63, Mr. Charles Locke Easton for petitioner. 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 742.
Messrs. Wm. Mason Smith, A. H. Joline, and E. M. Shepard for respondents.
EDWARD W. SHOESMITH, Appellant, v. H. May 29, 1905. Denied.
MEYER Boot & SHOE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY et al. [No. 588.] JOHN B. MCPHERSON, Judge, etc., Peti Appeal from the District Court of the
tioner, v. AMERICAN SODA FOUNTAIN COM- United States for the Northern District of PANY. [No. 663.]
Mr. Wm. R. Payne for appellant.
May 29, 1905. Dismissed for want of juMay 29, 1905. Denied.
risdiction. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661,
35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; MayJOHN C. ORRELL et al., Plaintiffs in Error, nard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, 38 L. ed. 179,
v. BAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY. [No. 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; United States v. 398.]
Jahn, 155 U. S. 113, 39 L. ed. 89, 15 Sup. In Error to the Supreme Court of the Ct. Rep. 39; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, State of Mississippi.
191 U. S. 232, 48 L. ed. 161, 24 Sup. Ct. See same case below, 83 Miss. 800, 36 So. Rep. 119.
Messrs. E. L. Russell, E. M. Barber, Frederic D. McKenney, J. Spalding Flannery, UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. EMIL Wm. Hitz, and Wayne MacVeagh for plain DIECKERHOFF et al. [No. 610.] tiffs in error.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Mr. E. J. Bowers for defendant in error. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
May 29, 1905. Dismissed for the want of the Second Circuit. jurisdiction, on the authority of Schlosser The Attorney General, and Solicitor Genv. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, ante, 654, 25 eral Hoyt for petitioner. Sup. Ct. 654, decided at this term.
Mr. W. Wickham Smith for respondents.
April 24, 1905. Granted.
Sheriff of the City and County of San
JOSE MAULEON Y CASTILLO, Appellant, v.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto No counsel for appellant.
Rico. Mr. Wm. R. Harr for appellee.
Mr. T'rederico Degetau for appellant. May 29, 1905. Docketed and dismissed, No appearance for appellee. with costs, on motion of Mr. William R. April 26, 1905. Dismissed, with costs, Harr for the appellee.
pursuant to the Tenth Rule.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. CORNELL | PETER PEARSON et al., Petitioners v. WILLSTEAMBOAT COMPANY.' [No. 624.]
IAM WILLIAMS, United States CommisPetition for a Writ of Certiorari to the sioner of Immigration. [No. 622.] United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the the Second Circuit.
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for The Attorney General and Solicitor Gen- the Second Circuit. eral Hoyt for petitioner.
Mr. Eugene Treadwell for petitioners. Mr. Robert D. Benedict for respondent. The Attorney General and Solicitor GenMay 1, 1905. Granted.
eral Hoyt for respondent.
May 8, 1905. Granted.
EX PARTE; IN THE MATTER OF OLI NIFOU, EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF BENJAMIN Petitioner. [No.
F. McCAULLY, Petitioner. [No. Motion for Leave to File Petition for Original.] Writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari. Motion for Leave to File Petition for
Mr. Gilbert F. Little for petitioner. Writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari.
The Attorney General and Solicitor Gen- Messrs. Arthur A. Birney and Henry F. eral Hoyt opposing.
Woodard for petitioner. May 1, 1905. Denied.
May 29, 1905. Denied.
END OF CASES IN VOL. 25
as rules of decision, see "Courts,” § 6.
Particular causes or grounds of action.
Relief against monopoly, see "Monopolies," $ 2.
Particular forms of action.
Particular forms of special relief.
Establishment and enforcement of trust, see
"Trusts," $ 1.
Particular proceedings in actions.
Actions”; “Process”; “Removal of Causes”;
Particular remedies in or incident to actions.
See "Garnishment”; “Injunction"; "Receiv-
Proceedings in exercise of special jurisdictions.
Suits in admiralty, see "Admiralty.”
Review of proceedings.
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.
See "Injunction," $ 1.
Operation and effect of former adjudication, see
interest, see "Interest," $ 1.
§ 1. Jurisdiction.
Admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts held
to extend to libel against the vessel for negli-
gently colliding with a beacon built on piles
Public laws in New Jersey are in force in the
littoral waters of Sandy Hook peninsula below