TABLE OF CONTENTS. CARRIER OF PERSONS. [The cases in the Circuit Courts of Appeal are arranged in numeri- cal order and the cases in the Circuit Courts according to States in [v] TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. [For convenience of reference the Table of Cases Reported shows whether the case reported in this volume appears in one or more of the various systems of Reports and Reporters.] Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Meyers.62 Fed. Rep. 367; 10 C. C. A. 485...429 Baltimore & Potomac R. R. Co. V. .102 U. S. 577; 26 U. S. Sup. Ct. (Lawy. ed.) 235; I Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 71.... .340 I .349 Bess v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co..35 W. Va. 492; 14 S. E. Rep. 234; 29 Am. St. Rep. 820 .126 Boggess v. Chesapeake & Ohio R'y Co..37 W. Va. 297; 16 S. E. Rep. 525; 23 Brown v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Brown (Adm'x) v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co.. L. R. A. 777. 134 .54 Wis. 342; 11 N. W. Rep. 356; 11 .80 Wis. 162; 49 N. W. Rep. 807.....258 Burt v. Douglas County Street R'y Co .83 Wis. 229; 53 N. W. Rep. 447; 4 Am. Elect'l Cas. 329 .10 Wash. 507; 39 Pac. Rep. 128; 5 Am. Elect'l Cas. 388 C Cameron v. Union Trunk Line .270 96 Carroll v. Burleigh (Receiver)..........15 Wash. 208; 46 Pac. Rep. 232 ..... .103 Chesapeake & Ohio R'y Co. v. Clowes..93 Va. 189; 24 S. E. Rep. 833.... Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co. v. Carpenter... Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y .56 Fed. Rep. 451; 5 C. C. A. 551; 12 U. S. App. 392 60 .486 .151 U. S. 209; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; 38 U. S. Sup. Ct. (Lawy. ed.) 131. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. R. ..95 U. S. 697; 24 U. S. Sup. Ct. (Lawy. ed.) 542 . .... -373 ..345 Cohen v. West Chicago Street R'y Co..60 Fed. Rep. 698; 9 C. C. A. 223; 18 Davis v. Chicago & Northwestern R'y Delamatyr v. Milwaukee & Prarie du Chien R. R. Co..... Detroit & Milwaukee R. R. Co. v. Cur- Dimmey (Adm'r) v. Wheeling & Elm .18 Wis. 175. .24 Wis. 578. 138 .180 .23 Wis. 152; 99 Am. Dec. 141 ......161 .......27 W. Va. 32; 55 Am. Rep. 292 ....III Dudley v. Front Street Cable R'y Co...73 Fed. Rep. 128... Fowler v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co... 18 W. Va. 579; 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Graham v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.....39 Fed. Rep. 596 Grisim v. Milwaukee City R'y Co......84 Wis. 19; 54 N. W. Rep. 104.. R'y Co... H Haff v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R'y ... .571 .14 Fed. Rep. 558. Hardy v. Milwaukee Street R'y Co .89 Wis. 183; 61 N. W. Rep. 771.....283. Harkey v. Texas & Pacific R'y Co.....11 Fed. Cas. 522; I Tex. L. J. 116... ..655 Hart v. West Side R. R. Co........ ..86 Wis. 483; 57 N. W. Rep. 91......277 Hathaway v. East Tennessee, Virginia Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Davidson..64 Fed. Rep. 301; 12 C. C. A. 118; 24 U. S. App. 354.. .441 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Davidson..76 Fed. Rep. 517; 22 C. C. A. 306...449 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Foley.....53 Fed. Rep. 459; 3 C. C. A. 589; 10 U. S. App. 537.. Imhoff v. Chicago & Milwaukee R'y Co.20 Wis. 344. Co....... .470 144 68 Indianapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Irish v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co......4 Wash. 48; 29 Pac. Rep. 845; 31 Am. St. Rep. 899 |