Decisions announced without Opinions. No. 378. FENWICK HALL COMPANY v. TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK. Error to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted January 3, 1898. Decided January 10, 1898. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648. Mr. Lewis E. Stanton for motions to dismiss or affirm. Mr. M.W. Seymour opposing. No. 440. Error to the Supreme Motions to dismiss or affirm Decided January 10, 1898. HAMMOND V. HORTON. Court of the State of Missouri. submitted November 15, 1897. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73; Hammond v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, 150 U. S. 633; Romie v. Casanova, 91 U. S. 379; also see Hammond v. Horton, 37 S. W. Reporter, 825; Hammond v. Johnston, 93 Mo. 198; Hammond v. Gordon, Ib., 223; Block v. Morrison, 112 Mo. 343. Mr. John B. Henderson for motions to dismiss or affirm. Mr. Henry H. Denison opposing. No. 510. MCDONNELL v. JORDAN. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama. Motion to dismiss submitted December 20, 1897. Decided January 10, 1898. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Bender v. Pennsylvania Company, 148 U. S. 502, and cases cited. Mr. David D. Shelby, Mr. Richard W. Walker and Mr. Richard R. McMahon for motion to dismiss. Mr. Laurence Cooper and Mr. William Richardson opposing. No. 327. WARREN v. CHANDOS. Court of the State of California. affirm submitted February 21, 1898. Error to the Supreme Decisions announced without Opinions. 1898. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co., 163 U. S. 63; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 679. Mr. Horace G. Pratt for motions to dismiss or affirm. Mr. J. C. Bates opposing. No. 509. DARRAGH v. H. WETTER MANUFACTURING COMAppeal from the United States Circuit Court of Ap peals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted February 21, 1898. Decided February 28, 1898. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Carey v. Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, 161 U. S. 115. Mr. U. M. Rose and Mr. G. B. Rose for motion to dismiss. Mr. John McClure opposing. No. 546. MEYER v. Cox. Error to the Superior Court of Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin. Motion to dismiss submitted March 21, 1898. Decided March 28, 1898. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Werner v. Charleston, 151 U. S. 360, and Union Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374. Mr. Howard Morris for motion to dismiss. Mr. Rublee A. Cole opposing. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. No. 536. CARROLL, TRUSTEE, v. GOLDSCHMIDT. Second Circuit. Denied January 10, 1898. Mr. Arthur v. Briesen for petitioner. Mr. Edwin H. Brown opposing. No. 554. POST v. BURNHAM. Third Circuit. Denied January 10, 1898. Mr. Joseph S. Clark and Mr. Richard C. Dale for petitioners. No. 555. FULTON v. FLETCHER. Court of Appeals of the Decisions announced without Opinions. District of Columbia. Denied January 10, 1898. Mr. D. W. Baker for petitioner. No. 525. WASHBURN & MOEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. RELIANCE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED. First Circuit. Granted January 17, 1898. Mr. Eugene P. Carver and Mr. E. E. Blodgett for petitioner. Mr. Frederic J. Stimson opposing. No. 535. BoSWORTH, RECEIVER, v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS. Seventh Circuit. Granted January 17, 1898. Mr. Bluford Wilson and Mr. P. B. Warren for petitioner. Mr. M. F. Watts and Mr. S. P. Wheeler opposing. No. 562. SMILEY V. BARKER. Eighth Circuit. Denied January 17, 1898. Mr. Frederic H. Bacon for petitioner. Mr. T. F. Burke and Mr. B. F. Fowler opposing. No. 567. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF PRESQUE ISLE v. ASHLEY. Sixth Circuit. Denied January 31, 1898. Mr. Henry M. Duffield for petitioner. Mr. C. E. Warner opposing. No. 561. GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA V. MECHANICS SAVINGS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. Sixth Circuit. Granted February 28, 1898. Mr. William L. Granbery and Mr. Albert D. Marks for petitioner. No. 579. DE LA VERGNE REFRIGERATING MACHINE Co. v. GERMAN SAVINGS INSTITUTION. Eighth Circuit. Granted February 28, 1898. Mr. Charles II. Aldrich and Mr. F. W. Lehmann for petitioner. Mr. Eleneious Smith opposing. Decisions announced without Opinions. No. 584. MORAN v. DILLINGHAM. Fifth Circuit. Granted February 28, 1898. Mr. L. W. Campbell for petitioner. No. 587. DODGE v. STRASBURGER. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Denied February 28, 1898. Mr. Chapin Brown, Mr. Henry P. Blair and Mr. Arthur H. O'Connor for petitioner. Mr. Leon Tobriner and Mr. I. W. Nordlinger opposing. No. 588. BUCKSTAFF v. RUSSELL & Co. Eighth Circuit. Denied February 28, 1898. Mr. Charles O. Whedon, Mr. John H. Ames and Mr. A. S. Tibbets for petitioner. No. 590. MAGRUDER v. BELT. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Denied February 28, 1898. Mr. H. Randall Webb and Mr. J. J. Waters for petitioner. Mr. F. H. Mackey opposing. No. 580. POPE, RECEIVER, V. LOUISVILLE, NEW ALBANY AND CHICAGO RAILROAD CO. Seventh Circuit. Denied March 7, 1898. Mr. John S. Miller and Mr. W. P. Fishback for petitioner. Mr. G. W. Kretzinger and Mr. E. C. Field opposing. No. 603. NATIONAL SAFE DEPOSIT, SAVINGS AND TRUST CO. v. GRAY. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Denied March 21, 1898. Mr. K. Ross Perry for petitioner. Mr. Samuel Maddox opposing. No. 609. HARDING V. MINNEAPOLIS NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Eighth Circuit. Denied March 21, 1898. Mr. M. II. Boutelle for petitioner. Mr. S. S. Burdett opposing. H. VOL. CLXIX-47 Decisions announced without Opinions. No. 602. DODGE v. MENASHA WOOD SPLIT PULLEY COMPANY. Seventh Circuit. . nied March 28, 1898. Mr. Lysander Hill for petitioner. Mr. William F. Vilas opposing. Mr. Edward Rector filed a brief, in opposition to the petition, in behalf of certain outside interested parties, by special leave of the court. |