996
79 FEDERAL REPORTER.
the trial judge's rullngs, In the progress of the trial, on demurrers or exceptions to the pleadings or the admission or rejection of evidence. The finding of the judge was general, and to the effect that the court "is of oJ;linion that plaintiff has proven no cause of action." assi,gnment of error is substantially that "the court erred In rendering judgment against plaintiff." It thus clearly appears that the record presents no matter which can be reviewed on wrIt of error. City of Key West v. Baer, 13 C. C. A. 572-577, 66 Fed. 440-445, and cases there cited. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.
GRAvms v. STEWART et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 20, 1896.) No. 633. Error from the Oircuit Oourt of the United States for the Northern District of New George L. Lewis. for plaintiff in error. John G. Milburn, for defendants in error. No opinion. JUdgment of circuit court affirmed, with interest and costs.
Eastern District of Michigan. H. O. Wisner and Fred O. Harvey, for appellant. John C. Shaw, for appellee. No opinion. JUdgment of district court affirmed. HAYDEN v. BROWN. (Circuit Oourt of Appeals, Second Olrcult. February
HARVEY v. WINNEY. (Circuit Oourt of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 24, 1896.) No. 405. Appeal from the District Oourt of the United States for the
3, 1896.) No. 607. Appeal from the Oircult Oourt of the United States for the District of Vermont. W. L. Burnap and T. G. Strong, for appellant. George
W. Ellis, for appellee. No opinion. Order entered on consent reversing judg. ment.
HOSTETTER CO. v. BECKER. (CirCUit Court of Appeals,,8econd Circuit. January 13, 1897.) Appeal from the Olrcult Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. OharlesPutzel, for appellant. Albert H. Clarke, for appellee. Before W ALLAOE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. Decree atllrmed, With costs, on opinion of circuit court. See 73 Fed. 297. . "',. ,
HUBBARD v. TOD et at (Circuit Court of Appeals"JJJighth Circuit. April of the United States for tIle Northern District of Iowa. JohnC. Ooombs and Henry J. Taylor, for appel· lant. Francis B. Daniels, D. B. Henderson, Louis G. Hurd, George W. Wickersham, and George W. Kiesel, for appellees. No opinion. Affirmed by a divided court, and costs divided. 13, 1896.) No. 641. Appeal from the Circuit
JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES; (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit December 19, 1895.) No. 532. Appeal from the Circuit Oourt of the United States fOf,the, So1}-thernDllltrict of New York. Stanley, Olarke & Smith, for appellant. ,Wllilacli! Macfarlane,. U. S., Atty. No opinion. Afllrmed on opinion of court belo\y.· 6{1 Fed, 72(».
MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.
997
JONES T. MEEHAN et al. (CIrcuIt Court at Appeals, Elgllth CIrcuIt. May 28, 1896.) No. 771. Appeal from the CIrcuIt Court of the United States tor the
District of MInnesota. James A. Kellogg, for appellant. Orville Rinehart, C. D. O'Brien, and 'l'homas D. O'Brien, for appellees. No opinion. Diilmisaed, with costs, for want of jurisdiction, on motion of appellees.
KELLEY-GOODFELLOW SHOE 00. et al. v. SCALES et a1. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 8, 1896.) No. 640. Error to the United States Court for the Northern District of Indian Territory. Harrison O. Shepard and Joseph M. Hill, for plaintiffs in error. William T. Hutchings, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the twentyHcond rule. for want of prosecution.
KING et at. T. LEWIS. (CirCUit Court at Appealll, Sixth Circuit. October 26, 1896.) No. 444. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the 'Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. J. W. Jenner, for plaintiffs. Darius Dirlam, for defendant. No opinion. Judgment atflrmed.
KINGMAN et al, v. WESTERN MANUF'G CO.l (CircuIt Court at Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 21. 1896.) No. 763. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. James H. McIntosh, for plaintiffs In error. G. M. Lambertson and Walter J. Lamb, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, for want of jurisdiction, on motion of defendant In error. KINNEY et al. v. CUNNINGHAM et al. (Circult Court ot Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 18, 1896.) No. 798. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Can-oll S. Montgomery and Matthew A. Hall, for appellants. D. W. :Merrow, for appellees. Dismissed, at costl of appellants, without attorney fee in the court of appeals or the circuit court, pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
LIVE STOCK CAR-EQUIPMENT CO. v. MAY et al. (Circuit Court at Appeals, Second Circuit. December 18, 1895.) No. 478. Appeal from the Circuii Court of the United States for the Eastern District of J\'ew York. W. E. Simmonds and Chas. M. Stafford, for appellant. Ira Leo Bamberger and Cowan, Dickerson & Brown, for appellees. No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs, on opinion of court below. MAGNA OHARTA SILVER MINING & TUNNEL CO. et aI. T. HOLE. IClrcuft Coort of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. .Tune 29, 189G.) No. 822. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for tlJe District of Colorado. E. Sowers, for appellee. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, with costa, purluant to the sixteenth rule, on motion of appellee. · Rehearing denied September 21, 1896.
