CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY OF BALTIMORE NEW LINCOLN HOTEL COMPANY, Plaintiff in

February 2, 1900. Dismissed, per stipula- the appellee. tion, on motion of Mr. William P. Metcalf for the defendant in error.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the with costs, on motion of Mr. William Fitch State of Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of the United States.

OCTOBER TERM, 1899.

ORDER.

Ordered, that an amendment be made of rule 31 of this court, to take effect at the commencement of the October term, 1900, so that the rule, as amended, shall read as follows:

31.

Form of printed records and briefs: All records, arguments, and briefs, printed for the use of the court, must be in such form and size that they can be conveniently bound together, so as to make an ordinary octavo volume; and, as well as all quotations contained therein and the covers thereof, must be printed in clear type (never smaller than small pica), and on unglazed paper.

Promulgated May 14, 1900.

APPENDIX II.

Supreme Court of the United States.

OCTOBER TERM, 1899.

ORDER.

The reporter having represented that, owing to the number of decisions at the term, it will be impracticable to put the reports in one volume, it is therefore now here ordered that he publish an additional volume in this year, pursuant to section 681 of

the Revised Statutes.

February 26, 1900.

Supreme Court of the United States.

OCTOBER TERM, 1899.

ORDER.

It is now here ordered by the court that all the cases on the docket not decided, and all the other business of the term not disposed of by the court, be, and the same are hereby, continued until the next term of the court.

May 28, 1900

1224

GENERAL INDEX

TO THE

FOUR VOLUMES CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK,

175, 176, 177, 178.

OCTOBER TERM, 1899.

ABANDONMENT.

Of Action, see ACTION OR Suit, 6.
Of Policy, see INSURANCE, 4, 5.

ABATEMENT.

See APPEAL and Error, 62.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

or finding made concerning them, but in
which a decree is made for an injunction
only, does not constitute such an election of
remedy as will preclude a subsequent action
for the recovery of damages for the in-
fringement. Brady v. Daly,
109

3. The fact that there are no resident
mortgagees in a particular case does not
make the question of discrimination between
nonresident and resident mortgagees by a
statute merely an abstract or moot question,
so as to preclude a decision against the va-
lidity of the statute, if it makes a discrimi-

1. The rule that payment of a less sum in
satisfaction of a larger sum is not binding
for want of consideration applies only when
the larger sum is liquidated, and when there
is no consideration whatever for the surren-nation
der of a part of it, and the rule itself is
considered so far with disfavor as to be con-
fined strictly to cases within it. Chicago,
M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Clark,
1099

2. The payment of a specified sum con-
ceded to be due by including certain items
but excluding disputed items, on condition
that the sum so paid shall be received in full
satisfaction, will be sustained as an extin-
guishment of the whole sum, where the ag-
gregate amount is in dispute.

ACCOUNT.

See REFERENCE.

ACTION OR SUIT.

against nonresident mortgagees,
with respect to sharing in the distribution
of the assets of an insolvent foreign corpo-
ration. Sully v. American Nat. Bank, 1072

4. Shares of stock in a Michigan corpo-
ration, being by the laws of that state
deemed personal property, must be so con-
sidered within the meaning of the act of
Congress of March 3, 1875, authorizing an
order to bring in absent defendants who are
not inhabitants of or found within the dis-
Id. trict, in a suit to remove any encumbrance
or lien or cloud upon the title to real or per-
sonal property within the district where
such suit is brought. Jellenik V. Huron
Copper Min. Co.
647

1. A proprietor of lands crossed by a
canal which the state has contracted with
the Federal government to maintain cannot
take advantage of a default of the state in
this particular, when he was not a party to
the contract. Walsh v. Columbus, H. V. &
A. R. Co.
548

6. A suit in a Federal court which the
successful plaintiff abandoned pending ap-
peal, in order to bring a new action in a
state court, which was unsuccessful, cannot
be resuscitated after the lapse of sixteen
2. A suit for an injunction against in-years, for the purpose of defeating the ac
fringement of a copyright, in which an ac- tion of the state court, in which the decree
counting of profits is asked, but in which no of the Federal court was not set up as a bar,
evidence of profits is offered, or any decree and which sustained a defense arising after
U. S., BOOK 44.
77
1225