STEWART v. COFFIN. 1897.) No. 486. Eugene P. Carver and E. E. Blodgett, for petitioner. Edward S. Dodge, for respondent. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the First circuit denied. See 26 C. C. A. 379, 81 Fed. 239.

SUMMERS v. WHITE, United States Marshal, et al. (November 29, 1897.) No. 140. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 17 C. C. A. 631, 71 Fed. 106. Lionel C. Burr, for plaintiff in error. John L. Webster and James H. McIntosh, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

SWENSON v. SAGE. (January 10, 1898.) No. 220. In error to the supreme court of the state of Minnesota. See 67 N. W. 544. Moses E. Clapp, for plaintiff in error. A. T. Britton and A. B. Browne, for defendant in error. The Attorney General, for the United States, filed brief by leave of court. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, with directions that the motion to dismiss, and the affidavits and depositions filed thereon in this court, be transmitted to the said supreme court of Minnesota for such consideration and action as to that court may seem fit.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. DIETZ. (November 10, 1897.) No. 125. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. See 17 C. C. A. 524, 71 Fed. 531. John F. Dillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. ELLIOTT. (November 10, 1897.) No. 126. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. See 18 C. C. A. 139, 71 Fed. 378. John F. Dillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. HOLLADAY. (April 14, 1898.) No. 445. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. See 27 C. C. A. 558, 83 Fed. 452. John F. Dillon, Winslow S. Pierce, and David D. Duncan, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. D. D. Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. THOMPSON. (November 10, 1897.) No. 123. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. See 17 C. C. A. 524, 71 Fed. 531. John F. Dillon and Winslow S. Pierce, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

ror.

THORP v. BONNIFIELD et al. (October 18, 1897.) No. 270. On a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. See 27 C. C. A. 686, 83 Fed. 1022. John M. Thurston, for plaintiff in erE. S. Pillsbury, for defendants in erNo opinion. The question whether the United States circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit has jurisdiction of the case is answered in the negative, on the authority of Mining Co. v. Ripley, 151 U. S. 79, 14 Sup. Ct. 236, and The Coquitlam v. U. S., 163 U. S. 346, 16 Sup. Ct. 1117.

ror.

UNION ST. RY. CO. OF SAGINAW, MICH., v. SNOW. (December 6, 1897.) No. 467. In error to the supreme court of the state of Michigan. See 71 N. W. 1073. De Forest Paine, for plaintiff in error. George W. Weadock, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authori ty of Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679, 12 Sup. Ct. 114; Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388, 7 Sup. Ct. 916; Sioux

UNITED STATES v. McGLASHAN. (May 2, 1898.) No. 233. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit. See 18 C. C. A. 172, 71 Fed. 434. The Attorney General and Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States. George E. Sutherland and H. L. Eaton, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Hunt v. U. S., 166 U. S. 424, 17 Sup. Ct. 609.

UNITED STATES v. MAISH et al. (May 31, 1898.) No. 297. Appeal from court of private land claims. Matt. G. Reynolds, for the United States. Rochester Ford and George Lines, for appellees.

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

This case resembles that of Ely's Adm'r v. U. S., 171 U. S. 242, 18 Sup. Ct. 840. The proceedings for the sale were had in 1820 and 1821 and before the same intendant. We deem it unnecessary to add anything to what was stated in that opinion as to the law controlling. It is sufficient to say that, while the claim now made is for 46,696.2 acres, the application for purchase was for four sitios (17,353.84 acres). All the proceedings contemplated a sale of only that amount of land. Thus the appraisers stated that "from their examination they said that each sitio should be valued at thirty dollars, taking into consideration that none of them had running water or natural standing water, but that water facilities might be obtained by means of a well." The first of the three final auctions was reported in these words:

"In the city of Arizpe, on the 13th day of December, 1821, there met as a board of auction the provisional intendant, as president, and the other members that compose it, to hold the first auction of the lands to which these proceedings refer, and they caused the people to be assembled at this office by the beating of the drum, and many persons gathered at the office of the intendant, when the auctioneer, Loreto Salcido, in their presence, was ordered to ask for a bid, which he did in a loud and clear voice, saying: 'Here before this board of the treasury are being sold four sitios of public land for the raising of cattle. situated at the place called San Ygnacio de la Canoa, within the jurisdiction of the military post of Tubac, surveyed in favor of Tomas and Ygnacio Ortiz, residents of that same town, and appraised in the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, being at the rate of thirty dollars for each sitio, it being necessary to dig a well to make the land useful. Whosoever wishes to make a bid upon this land, let him come forward and do so in the manner established by law before this board, where his bid will be heard, notice being given that the Rev. Father Fray Juan Bano, minister of the mission of San Xavier del Bac, in the name of Ygnacio Sanches and Francisco Flores, resident citizens of the same town, had bid for said land the amount of two hundred and ten dollars; and with the understanding that on the third auction, which is to take place on the day after to-morrow, the sale shall be settled upon the highest bidder.' As no bidder appeared, the board adjourned, and the minutes were signed by the president and members of this board."

At the third auction a bid of $250 was made, and on that bid the property was struck off to Tomas and Ygnacio Ortiz, who subsequently paid into the treasury the full amount of the purchase price, with all charges. Nothing seems to have been done on this purchase until 1849, when title papers were issued by the substitute treasurer general of the state of Sonora.

Without repeating the discussion contained in the foregoing opinion, we think that the grant should be sustained for the four sitios purchased, petitioned, and paid for, and for no more. As the grant was confirmed in toto, we are compelled to order that the decree of the court of private land claims be reversed, and the case remanded to the court for further proceedings.

UNITED STATES v. MILCHRIST. (October 12, 1897.) No. 273. Appeal from the court of claims. See 31 Ct. Cl. 403. The

VALK v. UNITED STATES. (October 18, 1897.) No. 13. Appeal from the court of claims. See 29 Ct. Cl. 62. John C. Chaney, for appellant. The Attorney General, Asst. Atty. Gen. Howry, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Thompson, for the United States. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on the authority of Marks v. U. S., 161 U. S. 297, 16 Sup. Čt. 476, and Leighton 7. U. S., 161 U. S. 291, 16 Sup. Ct. 495.

VENNER v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. et al. (May 9, 1898.) No. 641. W. E. Blake, for petitioner. W. M. David McClure, H. B. Turner, Wm. A. Underwood, and Frederick B. Van Vorst, for respondents. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit denied. See 28 C. C. A. 688, 84 Fed. 1022.

WALKER v. DORAN et al. (October 12, 1897.) No. 256. In error to the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. See 46 Pac. 67. C. W. Wright, Barclay Henley, and John Mullan, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Barnes, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error.

WALTON et al. v. MORGAN ENVELOPE CO. (May 31, 1898.) No. 660. Walter D. Edmonds, for petitioners. Melville Church and J. B. Church, for respondent. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Third circuit denied. See 30 C. C. A. 383, 86 Fed. 605.

WARNOCK v. DE WITT. (November 4, 1897.) No. 102. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. See 40 Pac. 205. M. L. Ritchie, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule, and cause remanded to the supreme court of the state of Utah.

WARREN v. CHANDOS et al. (February 28, 1898.) No. 327. In error to the supreme court of the state of California. See 47 Pac. 132. J. C. Bates, for plaintiff in error. Horace G. Pratt, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 14 Sup. Ct. 131; Dibble v. Land Co., 163 U. S. 63, 16 Sup. Ct. 939; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 679, 18 Sup. Ct. 229.

WATKINS v. RENNIE. (October 12, 1897.) No. 14. In error to the United States court for the Indian Territory. W. H. Ledbetter, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

WESTERN ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO ♥. J. H. MOHLMAN CO. (November 8, 1897.) No. 494. Michael H. Cardozo, for petitioner. Treadwell Cleveland, for respondent. No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit denied. See 28 C. C. A. 157, 83 Fed. 811.

WHITE et al. v. BUTLER. SAME ▼ RUCKMAN. (May 31, 1898.) Nos. 540 and 541. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia. Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd and Joseph H. Gaines, for appellants. Charles J. Faulkner, for appellees.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

Butler, the appellee in the first of the above cases, was a storekeeper of the United States at the Hannis distillery at Martinsburg, W. Va.

Ruckman, the appellee in the second case, was also a storekeeper at the same distillery.

The bill in each case is substantially like that in White v. Berry (just decided) 18 Sup. Ct. 917. The relief asked by Butler and Ruckman is the same as that asked by Berry, and the decree rendered in behalf of each was the same as that rendered in Berry's Case.

For the reasons stated in the opinion just delivered in White v. Berry, the decree in each of the above cases must be reversed, and the causes remanded, with directions to dismiss the bills. It is so ordered.

Adams v. Cowen.

Board of Com'rs of Gunnison County, Colo., v. Rollins & Sons.

Board of Com'rs of Lake County, Colo., v. Dudley.

Bosworth v. Carr, Ryder & Engler Co.

Bosworth v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St. Louis.

Canada Sugar-Refining Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America.

Chew Hing Lung & Co. v. Wise.

Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Bosworth.

City of Richmond v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Ger man Sav. Inst.

Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co.

Erie & W. Transp. Co. v. Union Steamboat Co. Guarantee Co. of North America v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank & Trust Co.

Huntting Elevator Co. v. Bosworth.

18 S.C.

King v. Williamson.

Knott v. Botany Worsted Mills.

Lackawanna Iron & Coal Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co.

Low v. Blackford.

McMullen v. Hoffman.

Moran v. Dillingham.

Pierce v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. Rau v. Bosworth.

Sioux City Terminal Railroad & Warehouse Co.
v. Trust Co. of North America.
United States v. Morrison & Son.

United States v. Wolff & Co.
Wade v. Travis County, Tex.

Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Reliance Marine
Ins. Co.

Whitman v. National Bank of Oxford.