1004
81 FEDERAL REPORTER,. DOW et a1. T. UNITED STATES. (CIrcUit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 21, 1897.) No. 922.
CERTIORARI TO PBRFEOT REOORD.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Motion for a writ of certiorari. Denied. Greeley W. Whitford and Henry V. Johnson, for the motion. Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and LOCHREN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The motion of the defendant in error for a writ of certiorari to the court below for the purpose of perfecting the record herein is denied, (1) because it does not appear from the moving papers that the portions of the evidence which the defendant lnerror seeks to have returned to this court form a part of the bill of exceptions in the case; (2) because it appears from the motion papers ibat the absence of the evidence can .be of no disadvantage to the defendant in error, since it seeks to sustain tI;Ie ruling of the court admitting the evidence, Which Is omitted, and submitting the case to the jury, and the appellate court wlll presume that the ruling of the trial court upon these questions was rlght, unless the evidence admitted by Its ruling appears in the printed record.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. OREGON IMP. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, ·Nlnth Circuit. June 1, 1800.) No. 234. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. Dolph, Mallory, Simon & Strahan and Dolph, Nixon & .Dolph, for appellant. A. F. Burleigh, Zera Snow, and Milton W. Smith, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed after argument.
F ARMERS;ioAN & TRUST CO. v. OTIS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Clrcu1t. June 1, 1896.) No. 279·. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Washington. Dolph, Mallory & Simon, for appellant. Zera Snow and H. M. Herman, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed by agreement, pursuant to the twentieth rule.
.
FRANKUN v. UNION LOAN &: TRUST CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 29, 1894.) r>lo. 129. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.· 'Charles D. Houghton, for appellant. EdwIn Lamme, R. E. Houghton, and W. J. Curtis, for appellee. No opinion. By cotlsent the de<'ree entered upon· the appeal In Southern California Motoi'...Road Co. v. Union Loan lit Trust Co., 29 U. S. App. 110, 12 C. C. A.. 215, and 64 Fed. 450, stands against the appellant ,In this appeal
GILLINGHAM: etal. v. mLUGAN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 17, 1897.) No. 496. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Templeton & cates, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed for failure to print record, pursuant to the twenty-third rule. GREEN et aI. v. AMERICAN SODA-FOUNTAIN CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, ThIrd Circuit. March 4, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Counsel for appellants
MEMORANDUM
1005
requested to bave taxed, as part of the co!tts for printIng, the blll· of· Alfred M. Slocum Company for reprinting complainant's record; and under rule 23 this WllB· to which order counsel for appellants dUly excepted. Strawbridge & Taylor, for appellants. Joshua Pusey, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Under the circumstances of the case, which we do not think tt necessary to state, as counsel have not differed respecting the facts, we are ot opinion that the conclusion reached by the clerk of this court upon the contested question of costs is right, and accordingly his taxation of the costa 18 confirmed.
HUNT v. FARMERS' LOAN &; TRUST CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth (lircuit. June 4, 1896.) No. 269. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. William L. Brewster, for plaintiff in error. L. L., ¥cArthur, for defendant In error. No opinion. Dismissed by agreement, pursuant to the twentieth rule. I
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. ATCIDSON, T. &; S. F. R. CO. (Ctrcuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 1, 1896.) No. 93. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. No opInion. Dismissed on motion of Henry S. Foote, United States attorney, tor appellant. See 50 Fed. 295.
LEAVENWORTH COAL CO. Y. UNITED STATES. (CIrCUit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. .March 1, 1897.) No. 628. Appeal trom the Circuit Court of the United States for the DIstrict of Kansas. Robert Crozier, Lucien Baker, and Wllllam C. Hook, for appellant. W. C. Perry, U. S. Dist. Atty. No opinion. Reversed in part and affinned in part, by consent of parties, pursuant to compromiae.
McPECK Y. CENTRAL VERMONT R. 00. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First (lircuit. June 19, 1897.) No. 187. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for theDlstrlct of Massachusetts. This was an action by Henry McPeck against the Central Vennont Rallroad Company to recover damages for personal Injuries. The court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff sued out a writ of error. The judgment of the circuit court was afl'lrmed (79 Fed. 590), and plalntlff now petitions for the right to file in the circuilt court a motion for a new trial, and to be heard thereon, etc. Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, a.nd WEBB, Dlstrl.ct Judge. No opinion. Petition denied.
MARKHAM et at. v. DAISY MANUF'G CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 18, 1897..) No. 487. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. James Whittemore and Edward Rector, for appellants. H. Fisk, for appellee. No opinion. Decree reversed 8.Ild bU!, ordered dismissed.
NATIONAL HARROW CO. v. HENCH et at (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. March 24, 1897.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States tor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-third rule. See 76 Fed. 667.