Page Mercer County v. Provident Life & Trust Co. of Philadelphia (C. C. A.).. 623 .. Meridian Waterworks Co., New Orleans & Page Mercadante, United States v. (C. C. A.)... 46 Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., Sherry v. (C. C.) 565 620 348 Olympia Light & Power Co., American Loan & Trust Co. v. (C. C.)....... .. A.) 289 294 Mills Manuf'g Co. v. Whitehurst (C. C. A.) 496 Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' International Minchen v. Hart (C. C. Α.). 207 219 O'Neil, Waite v. (C. C.)... Owens. American Mortg. Co. of Scotland v. (C. C. A.) Union of North America (C. C.)........ 695 Mooney v. Buford & George Manuf'g Co. Co. v. (C. С.) (CC. A.)... .. 32 Moloney v. American Tobacco Co. (C. C.) 801 Parker, Gulf States Land & Improvement Moonlight, The, Burger v. (D. C.)........ 282 Morris, Johnston v. (C. С. А.).. 890 Morris, Morton v., two cases (C. C. A.)... 392 Mueller, American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. 399 204 129 Patterson, Blackshere v. (C. C. Α.). 864 244 903 508 Muirheid v. Consolidated Ice-Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 688 Murphy, United States v. (C. C. A.).....1008 Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Selby (C. C. A.) Pierpoint Boiler Co., Stirling Co. v. (C. C.) 780 260 561 980 Porter, Mack v. (C. С. А.). 236 Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, Ritter v. (C. C. A.).. Port Huron Fibre-Garment Manufg Co., 567 American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. (C. C. A.) 516 Potomac, The (C. C. A.). 535 National Button Works v. Wade (C. C.).. 298 National Land Imp. & Manuf'g Co., State Preston v. Finley (C. C.). Trust Co. of New York v. (C. C.)... 575 National Mach. Co. v. Wheeler & Wilson Price v. The Elmbank (D. C.)....... Proceeds of The Advance, Huntington v. (C. C. A.). 610 791 Manuf'g Co. (C. C.).. 185 Neall v. Schrader (C. C. A.).... 537 Proceeds of The Advance, Huntington v. (C. C. A.). Nelson, Oregon Imp. Co. v. (C. C. A.). Newgass v. Atlantic & D. R. Co. (C. C.).. New Memphis Gas & Light Co. v. City of Memphis (C. С.). 952 Proceeds of The Allianca, Huntington v. (C. C. A.). Proceeds of The Allianca, Huntington v. (С. С. А.). 793 791 793 New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Meridian Waterworks Co. (C. C. A.).. 227 Proceeds of The Segurancia, Huntington v. (C. C. A.). 791 Newton v. Buck (C. C.). 777 New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. (С. С.).. Proceeds of The Vigilancia, Huntington v. (C. C. A.). 791 594 New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., Park v. (C. Proceeds of The Vigilancia, Huntington v. (C. C. A.)... 793 C.) 594 Niagara Falls Paper Co. v. Crouckett (C. C. A.) 535 Nicaragua, The (C. C. A.)......... Nicolaysen v. Orr & Laubenheimer Co. (C. 207 Provident Life & Trust Co. of Philadelphia, Mercer County v. (C. C. A.).. Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. (C. C.) 623 211 Putnam v. Brooker (C. C.)... 271 C. A.) 207 Norfolk & W. R. Co., Fidelity Insurance, 736 Northern Pac. R. Co., De Lacey v. (C. C. A.) Ray v. Tatum (C. С. А.). 112 726 uf'g Co. v. (С. С. А) 464 Northern Pac. R. Co., Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. (С. С.)... Rhino v. Emery (C. C. A.). 382 26 Richardson v. Campbell (C. C.). 525 Norton, Wheaton v. (C. C. A.).. ...... 688 Richmond & D. R. Co., Clyde v. (C. C. A.) 121 Ritscher, Carpenter v. (C. C. A.).. 283 ..... Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York 543 .... xi Saline County, Graves v. (C. C. A.)... 945 Townsend v. Hagar (C. C. A.). 949 743 Α.) 687 .. . Saunders v. The Coleridge (D. C.). ..... 676 Travis County, Wade v. (C. C.). 985 Saunders, Huntington v. (C. C. A.)....... 10 Tripp Giant Leveller Co., Bresnahan v. (C. Savage v. Worsham (C. C.).... 601 C. A.) 920 Sawyer v. Williams, three cases (C. C.). 296 Turner, Waples-Platter Co. v. (C. C. A.).. 289 Sayward v. Dexter, Horton & Co. (C. C. A.) 758 Ulman v. Ritter (C. C.). .....1000 Scanlan v. Tenney (C. C.).. 225 Underwriter, The (D. C.)... .1021 Schallenberger, In re (C. C.)... 491 Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 147 Schlochtermeyer, Heaton Peninsular But United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co. ton-Fastener Co. v. (C. C. A.). 520 (С. С.) 585 Schrader, Neall v. (C. C. A.)... 537 C.)........ 51 Schrader, Western Assur. Co. v. (C. C. 771 Α.) 543 41 Schreiber & Sons Co. v. Grimm (C. C. A.) 671 159 Scott v. Hamner (C. C. A.).. 289 .... Scribner, Bancroft v. (C. C. A.)......... 988 791 46 Selby, Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. (C. C. Α.).. 1008 980 44 Shaw v. Dix (C. C.).. 166 United States, Abbott v. (C. C. A.). Sickles, McBride v. (C. С.). 908 United States, Davis v. (C. C.). Sloan v. Mitchell (C. C. A.).. 89 Smith, Wichita Nat. Bank of Wichita v. (C. C. A.) United States v. Benjamin (C. C.). Α.)..... 972 Sherry v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. (C. C.).. 565 United States, Blumenthal v. (C. C.).....: United States, Dennison Manuf'g Co. v. (C. (C. C.). 262 United States, Hensel v. (C. C.). . 566 89 957 285 Snow, Enterprise Manuf'g Co. of Pennsyl- Stirling Co. v. Pierpoint Boiler Co. (C. C.) Stuart v. Hayden (C. C. A.)... 152 50 47 52 ..... 52 252 688 43 260 United States, Kleeberg v. (C. C.)........ 44 C. A.) 780 1 ....... .... Van Valkenburg, Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Vigilancia, The (C. C. A.) 687 793 402 936 Villars, Currell v. (C. C.) 330 (C. C.) Wade v. Travis County (С. С.). 985 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Spradling (C. C. A.) 152 A.) 289 Waite v. O'Neil (C. C.). 348 650 Tatum, Ray v. (C. C. Α.)..... 637 648 936 Page Waples-Platter Co. v. Turner (C. C. A.)... 289 Whitesides, Elder v. (C. C.). Warax v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 171 Willamette. The (С. С. А.). 54 Williamson, American Fibre-Chamois Co. 936 v. (C. C. Α.). bolaget v. (C. C. A.). Western Assur. Co. v. Schrader (C. C. A.) 543 Western Electric Co.. Thomson-Houston Wilson, In re (D. C.). 568 508 Page 724 Wichita Nat. Bank of Wichita v. Smith (C. C. A.) Wilgus v. Germain (C. C. A.)............ 773 Williams, Sawyer v., three cases (C. C.).. 296 79 656 Electric Co. v. (C. C. A.).. 530 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Thom (C. C.).. 712 Wilson v. Pauly (C. C. A.).. 129 254 601 688 301 185 White v. United States (C. C. A.)........ 251 Whitehurst, Jonathan Mills Manuf'g Co. ▼. (С. С. А.) 496 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS. LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. v. STOCKTON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 21, 1896.) No. 445. 1. ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS-TIME OF SUING OUT WRIT. The six months within which a writ of error to the circuit court of appeals must be sued out does not begin to run while a motion for a new trial is pending. Railway Co. v. Murphy, 4 Sup. Ct. 497, 111 U. S. 488, applied. 2. SAME-ALLOWANCE OF WRIT. A formal petition for the allowance of a writ of error is not requisite to the vesting of jurisdiction in the circuit court of appeals. Therefore, where the writ was issued by the clerk of a circuit court without the filing of any petition therefor, or the allowance thereof by any judge, but the judge subsequently, and within the time limited, signed a bill of exceptions and a citation, held, that this was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the appellate court. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida. H. Bisbee and C. D. Rhinehart, for plaintiff in error. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and BOARMAN, District Judge. PARDEE, Circuit Judge. The defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error in this case upon the following grounds: (1) No petition for a writ of error was made or filed herein. (2) No writ of error was allowed herein, on petition or otherwise. (3) The writ of error was issued by the clerk of the circuit court in which judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered, without a petition filed therefor, and without an allowance thereof by a judge of said circuit court, or by a judge of the circuit court of appeals of the Fifth circuit, authorized by law to allow such writ of error. (4) The only action taken in respect of, or in reference to, the appeal based on the said writ of error herein, by a judge authorized by law to allow v.72F.no.1-1 2 writs of error, was the signing of the bill of exceptions herein, on the 14th day of November, 1895, and the signing of citation herein, by Hon. James W. Locke, a judge of the said circuit court of the Southern district of Florida, on the 9th day of November, 1895, more than six months after the entry of the judgment herein sought to be reviewed, which said judgment was entered on the 1st day of May, 1895. We have examined the record and considered the argument of counsel. The judgment in the court below was rendered on the 1st day of May, 1895, and thereupon a motion for a new trial was entered, which was overruled on the 2d day of June, 1895. The citation directing the defendant in error to answer in this court was signed and issued on the 9th day of November, 1895, more than six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed, but within six months from the date when the motion for a new trial was overruled. The time limited for suing out a writ of error does not begin to run while there is a motion for a new trial pending. Railway Co. v. Murphy, 111 U. S. 488, 4 Sup. Ct. 497. A formal petition for the allowance of a writ of error, in order to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction, is not necessary. Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447; Ex parte Virginia Com'rs, 112 U. S. 177, 5 Sup. Ct. 421. Even in case of appeal, the approval of the bond and signing of citation has been held to be a sufficient allowance of the appeal. Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262, and cases there cited. In the instant case, the judge of the circuit court signed the citation, and accepted the bond tendered. It seems very clear that the motion to dismiss this writ of error on the grounds stated should be overruled, and it is so ordered. GOLDEN v. BRUNING et al. (Circuit Court, D. Indiana. February 12, 1896.) REMOVAL OF CAUSES-SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY. : G.. as administrator of J. F. B., deceased, brought a suit in a court of the state of Indiana against W. H. B., a citizen of New York, and C., a citizen of Indiana, for an accounting of the affairs of a partnership composed of J. F. B. and W. H. B., the assets of which were alleged to consist in part of real estate purchased for partnership purposes. It was averred that such real estate was originally conveyed to C., who held it in trust for the firm for a time, and then conveyed it to her mother, who held it in trust for the firm until she died, intestate, leaving C., J. F. B., and W. H. B. as, her heirs; and that, after her death, C. and J. F. B. conveyed their interests to W. H. B., in trust for the firm; but that both C. and W. H. B., respectively, claimed the land as their individual property, C. claiming that the deeds made by her were procured by the fraud of W. H. B. Held, that C. was a necessary party to the suit, and there was no separable controversy between the plaintiff and W. H. B. which could be removed to the federal court. McCullough & Spaan, for complainant. Smith & Korbly and Miller, Winter & Elam, for defendants. |