Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

*580

the writ by inserting therein, as plaintiffs | the matter of Charles Davenport v. The in error, the names of the sureties.

Nathaniel Wilson, for plaintiff in error. Arthur A. Birney and Charles C. Cole, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. *The motion to rescind the judgment of dismissal, entered November 4, 1889, to restore the cause to the docket, and to amend the writ of error herein by inserting therein, as plaintiffs in error, the names of Henry A. Willard, John W. Thompson, Samuel Norment, and J. H. Baxter is granted, and case returned to the docket.

(136 U. S. 578)

IRWIN V. SAN FRANCISCO SAVINGS UNION.

(February 3, 1890.)

PUBLIC LANDS-SWAMP LANDS-PATENT FROM

STATE.

Under Act Cong. Sept. 28, 1850, granting to Arkansas and other states the swamp lands within their boundaries, a grant in præsenti is effected by the enactment of section 1, that the swamp and overflow lands "shall be, and the same are hereby, granted" to the states, notwithstanding the provisions of section 2, that the secretary of the interior shall "make out an accurate list and plats of the lands described, and transmit the same to the governor of the state, and, at the request of said governor, cause a patent to be issued to the state therefor, and on that patent the fee-simple of the land shall vest" in the state; and in ejectment for lands in California plaintiff may introduce a patent from the state, and evidence that the lands are swamp lands, though they have not been patented or listed to the state by the United States. Following Wright v. Roseberry, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985.

Error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of California.

Action of ejectment for certain swamp and overflowed lands in California contiguous to the United States navy yard, of which defendant was the officer in command. Plaintiff was allowed to introduce a patent from the state, and evidence that the lands were swamp lands, over the objection of defendant that it had not been shown that the lands had been patented by the United States to the state, or listed to the state as swamp lands. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error. George A. Nourse, for defendant in

error.

PER CURIAM. "It is conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error that this case is governed by Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985, and the judgment is therefore, upon the authority of that case, affirmed.

(136 U. S. 580)

DAVENPORT v. PARIS.

(April 14, 1890.)

Error to circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois.

An action to recover on railroad aid bonds and coupons issued by the town of Paris. The record contained the following stipulation "as to facts, etc.:" "It is stipulated in

Town of Paris, in assumpsit, now pending in the United States circuit court for the southern district of Illinois, that the instruments sued on, being bonds numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80, with coupons now attached, which purport to be the bonds of the town of Paris, were signed, respectively, by Henry Van Sellar and James A. Dittoe, on the dates of said instruments, and that the said Henry Van Sellar was on that date supervisor of said town of Paris, and that the said James A. Dittoe was on said date the town-clerk of said town of Paris. It is also agreed that a jury is waived in said matter. The above coupons are as follows: 61 of series 8, 9, and 10, and 51 of series 7, being 234 coupons. It is further stipulated that said bonds and coupons are

identical in character with the bonds and coupons in Skinner v. Town of East Oakland, tried in this court, and appealed to the United States supreme court, tried there, and reported in 94 U. S. 255, and issued in same manner, the only difference being that these bonds and coupons were issued by the town of Paris instead of the town of East Oakland. In case of appeal to the United States supreme court this case may be submitted under rule 20, on written briefs." Judgment below for the defendant, and plaintiff brings

[blocks in formation]

BALDWIN V. HAYNES.

(March 19, 1890.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. See 28 Fed. Rep. 99.

Frederick P. Fish, for appellant. Esek Cowen, for appellee.

No opinion. Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Augustus H. Garland, on behalf of counsel.

BIPPUS V. FARMERS' L. & T. Co.

(April 29, 1890.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United

No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pur- States for the district of Indiana.

suant to the tenth rule.

BALTIMORE & O. R. Co. v. SUTHERLAND.

(January 29, 1890.)

In error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio.

John K. Cowen and Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for plaintiff in error. John H. Doyle and G. R. Walker, for defendant in error.

No opinion. Judgment reversed, costs in this court to be paid by plaintiff in error, and cause remanded, with directions to remand to the state court.

BALTIMORE & O. R. Co. v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.

(January 8, 1890.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia.

John K. Cowen and Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for appellant. D. B. Lucas, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion.

BATCHELLER V. ADDEN. (December 18, 1889.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

S. P. Blanc, G. A. Breaux, and M. F. Dickinson, Jr., for appellants. A. A. Ranney, for appellees.

No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pur

suant to the tenth rule.

BASS V. MILMINE.

(May 5, 1890.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana. See 29 Fed. Rep. 632.

R. S. Taylor, for appellant. L. M. Ninde and T. E. Ellison, for appellee.

No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs, by a divided court.

BATE REFRIGERATING Co. v. EASTMAN. (January 20, 1890.)

In error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. See 24 Fed. Rep. 645.

E. N. Dickerson, Jr., for plaintiff in error. John R. Bennett, for defendant in

error.

John L. Cadwalader, for appellant. Herbert B. Turner and Benjamin H. Bristow, for appellee.

No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation, on motion of George H. Wickersham, for appellant.

BIRDSEYE v. HEILNER.

(April 24, 1890.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. See 26 Fed. Rep. 147.

Edmund Wetmore, for appellants. Livingston Gifford, for appellees.

No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

BLADES V. RAND.

(March 31, 1890.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. See 27 Fed. Rep. 93.

Charles K. Offield, for appellant. N. C. Gridley, for appellees.

No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

BLAIR V. WALKER.

(November 7, 1889.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri. See 26 Fed. Rep. 73.

Walter C. Larned, for appellants.

No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF YELLOWSTONE COUNTY V. Board of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTER COUNTY.

(May 23, 1890.)

Appeal from the supreme court of the ter ritory of Montana. See 9 Pac. Rep. 586.

E. W. Toole and W. F. Sanders, for appellant. J. W. Strevell, for appellee.

No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs. and cause remanded to the supreme court of the state of Montana.

BRADLEY & H. MANUF'G Co. v. CHARLES PARKER Co.

(October 2, 1889.)

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut. See 35 Fed. Rep. 748.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »