Xof section 1, in township 15, range 13, aforesaid; thence southeasterly, to a point on the south line of lot 5 aforesaid, 1,540 feet west of the center of section 1, last aforesaid; thence south 2,050 feet, to a point 1,540 feet west of the north and south open line through said section 1; thence southwesterly, to the S. W. corner of the N. E. of the S. W. of section 21, in township 75 N., range 44 W. of the fifth principal meridian; thence southeasterly, to a point 660 feet south of the N. E. corner of the N. W. % of the N. E. 4 of section 28, in township 75 N., range 44 W., aforesaid; and said line produced to the center of the channel of the Missouri river. Commencing again at the point of beginning first named, namely, a point on the south line of section 20, in township 75 N., range 44 W. of the fifth principal meridian, produced 861% feet west of S. E. corner of said section, and running thence Southeasterly to a point 660 feet east of the S. W. corner of the N. W. % of the N. W. of section 28, in township 75 N., range 44 W. of the fifth principal meridian, and said line produced to the center of the channel of the Missouri river. The territory lying on the west of said line from the point last aforesaid to the section line between sections 2 and 3, in township 15 N., range 13 E. of the sixth principal meridian, according to the government surveys in Nebraska, and also the territory lying north of the above-described line, to where it intersects the middle, east, and west line of section 1, in said township and range, and the territory ly. ing east of the above-described line from the point last aforesaid to the Missouri, are in the state of Nebraska, and the lands included between and within the abovedescribed line are in the state of Iowa. It is further ordered that the costs of this suit be paid by the parties equally. So ordered. BARNEY V. WATERBURY. (March 14, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. The Attorney General, for plaintiff in error. Samuel F. Phillips and A. W. Griswold, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of the solicitor general for plaintiff in error. BEER V. MACKIN. (April 4, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska. Jefferson Chandler and John L. Webster, for plaintiff in error. John F. Dillon and Harry Hubbard, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest, by a divided court. BELT V. CUMMING. (April 7, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Georgia. v.12s.c.-62 BRADFORD GASLIGHT & HEATING Co. v. CITIZENS' LIGHT & HEAT Co. (November 16, 1891.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United Joseph W. Blythe, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. States for the western district of Pennsyl- CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. Co. v. STATE of Iowa. vania. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana. Ferdinand Winter and The Attorney Gen eral, for appellant. Solomon Claypool, for CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co. v. STATE OF appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. BRUMBACK v. BROADBENT. (July 28, 1891.) Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Idaho. See 16 Pac. Rep. 555. S. S. Burdett, for appellant. George Ainslie, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK V. BACON. (May 16, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Ten nessee. Edgar M. Johnson and W. M. Baxter, for appellant. H. H. Ingersoll and R. M. Edwards, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, per stipulation. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Dey. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Iowa. See 38 Fed. Rep. 656. Joseph W. Blythe, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. Co. v. SMITH. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Iowa. IOWA. (March 30, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Iowa. See 33 Fed. Rep. 391. John W. Cary, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. CHICAGO & N. W. Rr. Co. v. SMITH. Appeal from the circuit court of the Unit ed States for the southern district of Iowa. W. C. Goudy and N. M. Hubbard, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. W. C. Goudy, for appellant. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. SMITH. (April 4, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the Unit ed States for the southern district of Iowa. Thomas F. Withrow, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. STATE OF IOWA. (April 4, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Iowa. Thomas F. Withrow, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. CHICAGO WIRE & SPRING Co. v. AMERICAN WIRE CO. (November 23, 1891.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. M. R. Powers, for plaintiff in error. COMMERCIAL NAT. BANK v. BROWN. (March 24, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio. C. C. Baldwin, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pur No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. C. W. Needham, for plaintiffsuant to the tenth rule. in error. CHOTEAU V. KANSAS CITY STOCK-YARDS Co. (March 30, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Missouri. A. Comingo, for plaintiff in error. Wallace Pratt and Frank Hagerman, for defendant in error. COOKE V. GLOBE FILES Co. Appeal from the circuit court of the United W. E. Gleeson and M. S. Hopkins, for appellant. R. H. Parkinson, J. G. Parkinson, and William A. McKenney, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. suant to the tenth rule. CHURCH V. SWANN (March 28, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama. T. A. Hamilton, for appellant. Isaac P. Martin, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. CITIZENS' ST. Ry. Co. OF PINE BLUFF v. JONES. (March 9, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas. See 34 Fed. Rep. 579. Jefferson Chandler and J. N. Taylor, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. CITY OF AUGUSTA V. Bard. (April 21, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas. See 30 Fed. Rep. 906. 8. O. Thacher, for plaintiff in error. A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, and George R. Peck, for defendant in error. No opinion. BAY COUNTY v. DOUGLASS. (November 4, 1891.) Error to the circuit court of the United CASS COUNTY V. PARKER. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Missouri. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. S. S. Burdett, for appellee. COVERT V. SARGENT. (March 4, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. See 42 Fed. Rep. 298. William H. King, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. CRAMER V. UNITED STATES. (January 29, 1892.) Appeal from the court of claims. George A. King, for appellant. The At Dismissed, with costs, pur- torney General, for the United States. FIDELITY & CASUALTY Co. oF NEW YORK v. MORRIS. (January 11, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado. C. S. Thomas, for plaintiff in error. S. P. Rose, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest, by a divided court. FIRST NAT. BANK OF PINE BLUFF v. HANOVER NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK. (March 9, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas. Jefferson Chandler and John M. Taylor, for plaintiff in error. John McClure, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. FLAHERTY v. UNITED STATES (April 11, 1892.) Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Montana. See 19 Pac. Rep. 553. C. W. Holcomb and J. H. McGovern, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule, and remanded to the supreme court of the state of Montana. FOOTE v. GLENN. (April 27, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. See 36 Fed. Rep. 824. Alfred Mills, for plaintiff in error. Charles Marshall and John Howard, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. FORBES V. THOMAS. (March 3, 1892.) FOWLER MANUF'G Co. v. CAMERON. (December 14, 1891.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. Thomas H. Rodman, Charles D. Adams, and W. C. Witter, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. FRANCIS V. UNITED STATES. Appeal from the court of claims. George A. King, for appellant. The At torney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed, pursuant to the tenth rule. FRANCOEUR v. NEWHOUSE. (March 21, 1892.) Error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of California. See 43 Fed. Rep. 236. A. L. Hart, for plaintiff in error. S. S. Burdett, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. S. S. Burdett, for defendant in error. GAGE V. KEllogg. (October 22, 1891.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York. See 26 Fed. Rep. 242. John Dane, Jr., for appellant. John W. Munday and Edmund Adcock, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. GILMAN V. LAKE. (January 11, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of California. M. A. Wheaton, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. Error to the supreme court of the state of GLOBE TEL. Co. OF NEW YORK V. AMERNebraska. See 35 N. W. Rep. 411. Randolph Coyle and F. J. Lavender, for plaintiff in error. fendant in error. John L. Webster, for de ICAN BELL TEL. CO. (March 10, 1892.) Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pur- See 31 Fed. Rep. 729. suant to the tenth rule. |