Зображення сторінки


Page Ritter, Ulman v. (C. C.).

..1000 Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Billings Robinson, Alabama & G. Manuf'g Co. v.

& Spencer Co. (C. C.)...

.1016 (C. C. A.)

708 Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey Rosenberg v. Jett (c. c.)..

90 Electric Railway Specialty Co. (C. C.). .1016 Ross-Meehan Brake-Shoe Foundry Co. v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. y. Western Southern Malleable Iron Co. (C. C.).... 937 Electric Co. (C. C. A.).

530 Rothschild v. Hasbrouck (C. C.)..... 813 Thum, Andrews v. (C. C. A.).


Toledo Consol. St. R. Co., Bidwell . (C. C.) 10
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Barker (C. O. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co., Continental

Trust Co. of New York v. (C. C.)..

92 St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. Drake (C. C. Town of Monticello, Merrill v. (C. C. A.).. 462 A.) 915 Townsend v. Hagar (C. C. A.).

949 Saline County, Graves v. (C. C. A.). .1023 Township of Ninety-Six, Folsom v. (C. C. Sal sbury v. Bennett (C. C.).


687 Saunders v. The Coleridge (D. C.). 676 Travis County, Wade v. (C. C.).

985 Saunders, Huntington v. (C. C. A.). 10 Tripp Giant Leveller Co., Bresnahan v. (C. Savage v. Worsbam (C. C.)..

C. A.)

920 Sawyer v. Williams, three cases (C. C.). 296 Turner, Waples-Platter Co. v. (C. C. A.).. 289 Sayward v Dexter, Horton & Co. (C. C. A.) 758 Ulman v. Ritter (C. C.)....

.1000 Scanlan v. Tenney (C. C.). 225 Underwriter, The (D. C.).

.1021 Schallenberger, In re (C. C.)..

491 Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Johnson (C. Schipper v Consumer Cordage Co. (C. C.) 803 C. A.)

147 Schlochtermeyer, Heaton Peninsular But United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co. ton-Fastener Co. v. (C. C. A.). 520 - (C. C.)

585 Schrader, Neall v. (C. C. A.). 537 United States v. Benjamin (C. C.).

51 Schrader, Western Assur. Co. v. (C. C. United States v. Fuller (D. C.)...

771 A.) 543 | United States v. Hensel (C. C.).

41 Schreiber & Sons Co. v. Grimm (C. C. A.) 671 United States v. McCord (D. C.)... 159 Scott v. Hamner (C. C. A.)..

289 United States v. McDonald (C. C. A.). 898 Scribner, Bancroft v. (C. C. A.).

988 lnited States v. McNeily (C. C. A.). 972 Segurancia, The (C. C. A.)..

791 United States v. Mercadante (C. C. A.)... 46 Selby, Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York United States v. Murphy (C. C. A.). 1008 v. (C. C. A.).. 980 United States v. Stern (C. C.)....

44 Shaw v. Dix (C. C.). 166 United States, Abbott v. (C. C. A.).

686 Sherry v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. (C. C.).. 565 United States, Blumenthal v. (C. C.).. 48 Sickles, McBride v. (C. C.)... 908 United States, Davis v. (C. C.)..

49 Sloan v. Mitchell (C. C. A.).

89 United States, Dennison Manuf'g Co. v. (C. Smith, Wichita Nat. Bank of Wichita v. C. A.).

258 (C. C. A.) 368 United States, Dominici v. (C. C.).

46 Snow, Enterprise Manuf'g Co. of Pennsyl United States, Foppes v. (C. C.).

45 vania v. (C. C.)... 262 United States, Hensel v. (C. C.)..

.52 Sobrio v. Manhattan Life Ins, Co. (C. C.).. 566 United States, Kleeberg v. (C. C.).

252 South Carolina R. Co., Bound v. (C. C. A.) 89 United States, Loo Way v. (C. C. A.).

688 Southern Malleable Iron Co., Ross-Meehan United States, Lutcher v. (C. C. A.). 968

Brake-Shoe Foundry Co. v. (C. C.).... 957 | United States, Matthews v. (C. C.).... Southern Pac. Co., British & Foreign Ma United States, Pings v. (C. C. A.).


260 rine Ins. Co. v. (C. C. A.).

285 United States, Stachelberg v. (C. C.).. 50 Spradling, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 152 United States, Stemmler v. (C. C.).

47 Stachelberg v. United States (C. C.). 50 United States, Stern v. (C. C.).

52 State Trust Co. of New York v. National United States, White v. (C. C. A.).

251 Land Imp. & Manuf'g Co. (C. C.).. 575 United States, Wood v. (C. C. A.).

251 Stemmler v. United States (C. C.).

47 Stern v. United States (C. C.)....

52 Van Dyke. Atlantic Ave. R. Co. v. (C. Stern, United States v. '(C. C.). 44 C. A.)

458 Stirling Co. v. Pierpoint Boiler Co. (C. C.) 780 Van Valkenburg, Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Stockton, Louisville Trust Co. v. (C. C. A.) 1 Manuf'g Co. v. (C. C.).

277 Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricul Vigilancia, The (C. C. A.).

791 tural Works, Hammond v. (C. C. A.)... 687 Vigilancia, The (C. C. A.).

793 Stuart v. Hayden (C. C. A.). 402 Villars, Currell v. (C. C.)

330 Sydvenska Angfartygs Aktiebolaget

Voight, Evening Post Pub. Co. v. (C.C. A.) 883 Wessels (C. C. A.).

936 Vulcan Brass Co., Cleveland Faucet Co. v. (C. C.)

505 Tatum, Ray v. (C. C. A.)...

112 Taylor Burner Co. v. Diamond (C. C.).... 182 Wade v. Travis County (C. C.)...

985 Tenney, Scanlan v. (C. C.).....

Wade, National Button Works v. (C. C.).. 298 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Spradling (C. C. A.) 152 Waite v. O'Neil (C. C.)..

348 Thom, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (C. C.).. 712 Walker, Block v. (C. C. A.).

650 Thomas, Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. (C. C. Walrath v. Champion Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 978 A.)

289 | Walton & Flan Co., Wheeler v. (C. C.) 906




Page Waples-Platter Co. v. Turner (C. C. A.)... 289 Whitesides, Elder v. (C. C.).

724 Warax v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. Wichita Nat. Bank of Wichita v. Smith (C. (C. O.) 637 C. A.)

568 Waydell v. Gabrielson (C. C. A.). 618 Wilgus v. Germain (C. C. A.).

773 Weld, Hammond Buckle Co. v. (C. C. A.).. 171 Willamette, The (C. C. A.).

79 Werckmeister, Pierce & Bushnell Manuf'g Williams, Sawyer v., three cases (C. C.).. 296 Co. v. (C. C. A.)...

54 Williamson, American Fibre-Chamois Co. Wessels v. The Ceres (C. C. A.). 936 V. (C. C. A.).

508 Wessels, Sydvenska Angfartygs Aktie Wilson, In re (D. C.).

656 bolaget v. (C. C. A.).

936 Wilson v. Pauly (C. C. A.) Western Assur. Co. v. Schrader (C. C. A.) 543 Winchester, Baird v. (C. C. A.).

755 Western Electric Co.. Thomson-Houston Wood v. United States (C. C. A.).

254 Electric Co. v. (C. C. A.).

530 Woodbury v. Allegheny & K. R. Co. (C. C.) 371 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Thom (C. C.).. 712 Woodward. Aiken v. (C. C. A.).

.1019 Western Union Tel. Co., Greene v. (C. C.).. 250 Worsham, Savage y. (C. C.).

601 Wheaton y. Norton (C. C. A.).

688 Wheeler v. Billings (C. C. A.).. 301 Yacubian, Dadirrian v. (C. C.)...

.1010 Wheeler y. Walton & Whann Co. (C. C.) 966 Young Lock-Nut Co., Young Reversible Wheeler & Wilson Manuf'g Co., National

Lock-Nut Co. v. (C. C.).

62 Mach. Co. v. (C. C.)....

185 Young Reversible Lock-Nut Co. v. Young White v. United States (C. 0. A.).

Lock-Nut Co. (C. C.)....

62 Whitehurst, Jonathan Mills Manuf'g Co. Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Manuf'g Co. v. Van V. (C. C. A.) 496 Valkenburg (C. C.)...








(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 21, 1896.)


The six months within which a writ of error to the circuit court of appeals must be sued out does not begin to run while a motion for a new trial is pending. Railway Co. v. Murphy, 4 Sup. Ct. 497, 111 U, S.

488, applied. 2. SAME-ALLOWANCE OF WRIT.

A formal petition for the allowance of a writ of error is not requisite to the vesting of jurisdiction in the circuit court of appeals. Therefore, where the writ was issued by the clerk of a circuit court without the filing of any petition therefor, or the allowance thereof by any judge, but the judge subsequently, and within the time limited, signed a bill of exceptions and a citation, held, that this was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the appellate court. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida.

H. Bisbee and C. D. Rhinehart, for plaintiff in error.
A. W. Cockrell, for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and BOARMAN, District Judge.

PARDEE, Circuit Judge. The defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error in this case upon the following grounds: (1) No petition for a writ of error was made or filed herein. (2) No writ of error was allowed herein, on petition or otherwise. (3) The writ of error was issued by the clerk of the circuit court in which judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered, without a petition filed therefor, and without an allowance thereof by a judge of said cir. cuit court, or by a judge of the circuit court of appeals of the Fifth circuit, authorized by law to allow such writ of error. (4) The only action taken in respect of, or in reference to, the appeal based on the said writ of error herein, by a judge authorized by law to allow


writs of error, was the signing of the bill of exceptions herein, on the 14th day of November, 1895, and the signing of citation herein, by Hon. James W. Locke, a judge of the said circuit court of the Southern district of Florida, on the 9th day of November, 1895, more than six months after the entry of the judgment herein sought to be reviewed, which said judgment was entered on the 1st day of May, 1895.

We have examined the record and considered the argument of counsel. The judgment in the court below was rendered on the 1st day of May, 1895, and thereupon a motion for a new trial was entered, which was overruled on the 2d day of June, 1895. · The citation directing the defendant in error to answer in this court was signed and issued on the 9th day of November, 1895, more than six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed, but within six months from the date when the motion for a new trial was overruled. The time limited for suing out a writ of error does not begin to run while there is a motion for a new trial pending. Railway Co. v. Murphy, 111 U. S. 488, 4 Sup. Ct. 497. A formal petition for the allowance of a writ of error, in order to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction, is not necessary. Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447; Ex parte Virginia Com’rs, 112 U. S. 177, 5 Sup. Ct. 421. Even in case of appeal, the approval of the bond and signing of citation has been held to be a sufficient allowance of the appeal. Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262, and cases there cited. In the instant case, the judge of the circuit court signed the citation, and accepted the bond tendered. It seems very clear that the motion to dismiss this writ.of error on the grounds stated should be overruled, and it is so ordered.

(Circuit Court, D. Indiana. February 12, 1896.)

No. 9,280.


G., as administrator of J. F. B. deceased, brought a suit in a court of the state of Indiana against W. H. B., a citizen or New York, and C., a citizen of Indiana, for an accounting of the affairs of a partnership composed of J. F. B. and W. H. B., the assets of which were alleged to consist in part of real estate purchased for partnership purposes. It was a verred that such real estate was originally conveyed to C., who held it in trust for the firm for a time, and then conveyed it to her mother, who held it in trust for the firm until she died, intestate, leaving C., J. F. B., and W. H. B, as her heirs; and that, after her death, C, and J. F. B. conveyed their interests to W. H. B., in trust for the firm; but that both C. and W. H. B., respectively, claimed the land as their individual property, C. claiming that the deeds made by her were procured by the fraud of W. H. B. Held, that C. was a necessary party to the suit, and there was no separable controversy between the plaintiff and W. H. B. which could be removed to the federal court.

McCullough & Spaan, for complainant.
Smith & Korbly and Miller, Winter & Elam, for defendants.

BAKER, District Judge. On June 27, 1895, the complainant, John M. Golden, administrátor of the estate of John F. Bruning, deceased, filed his bill in equity in the circuit court of the county of Jefferson, in the state of Indiana, for an accounting and settlement of the affairs of a partnership alleged to have existed between the decedent, in his lifetime, and William H. Bruning, under the firm name and style of John F. Bruning & Co. Clara Copeland and her husband, William M. Copeland, are made parties defendant with William H. Bruning, to reach the entire assets of the firm, and to have a full and final accounting of the partnership affairs. The complaint avers that, at the time of the death of John F. Bruning, the firm, which had been engaged in the mercantile business, was the owner of a large amount of assets consisting of personal property and choses in action, of the value of $150,000, and of two certain parcels of real estate, of the ag. gregate value of $30,000. It is further averred that one parcel of the real estate, of the value of $20,000, was purchased by the firm with partnership assets for the use of the firm in the conduct of its business, and that it was so used from the time of its purchase until the termination of the partnership, and has continued to be so used by William H. Bruning, as surviving partner, ever since; that, at the time said real estate was so purchased, it was conveyed to Clara Copeland, in trust for the use and benefit of the firm; that she contin. ued to hold the title thereto in trust as aforesaid until February 26, 1885, when, by deed, she conveyed the same to her mother, Catherine A. Bruning, who held the same in trust for the firm until November 21, 1889, when she died intestate, at Jefferson county, Ind., leaving, as her only heirs, John F. Bruning, since deceased, William H. Bruning, and Clara Copeland; that, since her death, John F. Bruning and Clara Copeland have, respectively, conveyed any interest they might have in said real estate to William H. Bruning, in trust to hold the same for the use and benefit of the partnership; that Clara Copeland claims she is the individual owner in fee simple of said real estate, under the deed executed to her therefor, as sole grantee therein, and that, by the fraud and coercion of William H. Bruning, the convey. ance from her to her mother was procured, and that likewise, by his fraud and coercion, the respective deeds from her and her father were

ocured, and therefore Clara Copeland and her husband are made parties defendant, that she may answer as to her interest in said real estate. It is further averred that William H. Bruning claims to be the sole owner of all of said partnership assets and property, and has converted the same to his own use. The defendant William H. Bruning, who is a citizen of the state of New York, filed his petition in the state court to procure the removal of the suit into this court, on the ground that Clara Copeland, who is a citizen of the state of Indiana, was joined as a party defendant in bad faith, and to prevent a removal, and on the further ground that the cause of action is separable, and can be fully tried and determined without her presence as a party defendant. The cause having been removed, the complainant now moves the court to remand the same to the circuit court of Jefferson county, Ind.

« НазадПродовжити »