(289 F.)

FARLEY V. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 21, 1923.) No. 3483. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington. Criminal prosecution by the United States against Robert C. Farley. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

PER CURIAM. Upon the answer of the Supreme Court (43 Sup. Ct. 197, 67 L. Ed.) to the questions certified to it by this court in the case of Brooks v. United States (No. 3522) 289 Fed. 1020, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to discharge the plaintiff in error.

HEITLER v. UNITED STATES, and four other cases. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 2, 1923. Rehearing Denied June 14, 1923.) Nos. 3266-3270. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Criminal prosecutions by the United States against Michael Heitler, against Nathaniel Perlman, against Mandel Greenberg, against Frank McCann, and against George F. Quinn. Judgments of conviction, and defendants separately bring error. Affirmed. See, also, 274 Fed. 401. Weymouth Kirkland and Robert N. Golding, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs in error. Edwin A. Olson and John E. Byrne, both of Chicago, Ill., for the United States. Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The record discloses a contrariety of evidence as to the guilt of the defendants who were on trial, a number of whom the jury acquitted. Concededly there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, would support its verdict of conviction of plaintiffs in error. Error is assigned and urged mainly on the rejection of evidence, remarks in closing argument to the jury of the district attorney, and the rulings thereon of the trial judge, the court's charge to the jury, and the failure to prove certain ones of the alleged criminal objects of the conspiracy charged. In our judgment it will serve no useful purpose to present here discussion of these or the other alleged errors. Suffice it to say, we find none of them sustained. No reversible error appearing, each of the judgments herein is affirmed.

HUCK et al. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 16, 1923.) No. 286. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Criminal prosecution by the United States against Annie Huck and Charles Huck. Judgment of conviction, and defendants bring error. Affirmed. George Wolf, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. William Hayward, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Elmer H. Lemon, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Middletown, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States. Before ROGERS, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed in open court.

MCKINNEY v. BLACK PANTHER OIL & GAS CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 3, 1923.) No. 5573. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Charles A. Dickson, of Okmulgee, Okl., W. W. Pryor, of Wewoka, Okl., George M. Swift, of Okmulgee, Okl., Charles A. Houts, of St. Louis, Mo., and Lafayette Walker, of Okmulgee, Okl.. for appellant. J. C. Stone and Archibald Bonds, both of Muskogee, Okl., C. B. Stuart and M. K. Cruce, both of Oklahoma City., Okl., J. H. Gordon, of McAlester, Okl., Edward R. Jones, and Ephriam H. Foster, both of Muskogee, Okl., and Ralph A. Smith, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellees.

PER CURIAM. Decree of District Court modified and affirmed, without costs to either party in this court, per stipulation. See, also, 280 Fed. 486.

MINFORD et al. v. MOORE & MCCORMICK CO., Inc. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 21, 1923.) No. 280. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Libel in admiralty by Levis W. Minford and others, doing business under the partnership name of Minford, Leuder & Co., against the Moore & McCormick Company, Inc. Libel dismissed (285 Fed. 207), and libelants appeal. Affirmed. Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (Ray Rood Allen, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants. William Hayward, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Horace T. Atkins and Glen R. Snider, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Before ROGERS, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel., etc., et al. v. DESLOGE CONSOL. LEAD CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 6, 1922.) No. 5961. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. O. L. Munger, of Piedmont, Mo., Thomas Mathews, of Flat River, Mo., and P. H. Cullen, R. T. Finley, F. M. Curlee, and Charles M. Hay, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants. Edward A. Rozier, of Bonne Terre, Mo., and Robert A. Holland, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs, on motion of appellee.

STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel., etc., et al. v. FEDERAL LEAD CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 6, 1922.) No. 5960. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. O. L. Munger, of Piedmont, Mo., Thomas Mathews, of Flat River, Mo., and P. H. Cullen, R. T. Finley, F. M. Curlee, and Charles M. Hay, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants. Robert A. Holland, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs, on motion of appellee. See also (D. O.) 265 Fed. 305.

STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel., etc., et al. v. ST. JOSEPH LEAD CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 6, 1922.) No. 5959. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. O. L. Munger, of Piedmont, Mo., Thomas Mathews, of Flat River, Mo., and P. H. Cullen, R. T. Finley, F. M. Curlee and Charles M. Hay, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants. Edward A. Rozier, of Bonne Terre, Mo., and Robert A. Holland, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs, on motion of appellee.

UNITED STATES v. KO SAI CHEUNG. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 11, 1922.) No. 5745. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. James E. Carroll, of St. Louis, Mo., U. S. Atty. Albert W. Johnson, of St. Louis, Mo., Benjamin L. White, of Kansas City, Mo., and Byron F. Babbitt, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Motion to set cause for reargument denied, and decree reversed, without costs to either party in this court, and cause remanded, etc., on motion of appellant. For former opinion, see 281 Fed. 988.

WINTER et al. v. MIDLAND NAT. BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1922.) No. 6229. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota.

(289 F.)

Grimson & Snowfield and T. D. Pierce, all of Langdon, N. D., for plaintiffs in error. George Hoke, of Minneapolis, Minn., and C. J. Murphy, of Grand Forks, N. D., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Writ of error docketed and dismissed, with costs, pursuant to rule 16 (188 Fed. xi, 109 C. C. A. xi), on motion of defendant in error. See, also, 289 Fed. 1023.

(Circuit

WINTER et al. v. MIDLAND NAT. BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1922.) No. 6230. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota. Grimson & Snowfield and T. D. Pierce, all of Langdon, N. D., for plaintiffs in error. George Hoke, of Minneapolis, Minn., and C. J. Murphy, of Grand Forks, N. D., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Writ of error docketed and dismissed, with costs, pursuant to rule 16 (188 Fed. xi, 109 C. C. A. xi), on motion of defendant in error. See, also, 289 Fed. 1022.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 289

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.

II. ANOTHER ACTION PENDING.

9 (D.C.) Suit by corporate officer held not to defeat suit by corporation, the parties being different.-No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co. Chandlee, 526.

V.

4 (D.C.) Relief not granted, where cause

12 (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Pendency of another of action is based on illegal act.-Hunter v. action for same cause in state court no ground Wheate, 604. for abatement in federal court.-Boston & M.6 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Without power to decide moot questions or abstract propositions R. R. v. Dutille, 320. of law.-Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 964. 12 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Laches or lapse of time less than statutory limitation no defense.-Huff v. Ford, 858.

15 (D.C.) Suit by corporate officer held not to defeat suit by corporation, the parties being different, and the suit being subsequently dismissed.-No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co. v. Chandlee, 526.

16 (D.C.) Woman is not relieved from civil liability for participating in illegal act.-Hunter v. Wheate, 604.

Laches no defense.-Id.

III. JOINDER,

SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA

TION, AND SEVERANCE. 53 (2) (D.C.) Cause for different damages from same wrong cannot be split.-Poling v. Washington Loan & Trust Co., 610.

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.

3 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Right of lateral support is absolute only as respects land in natural condition.-Scranton Coal Co. v. Graff Furnace Co., 305.

Woman consenting to illegal operation can-4(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Negligence essential not recover for negligence in performing it.-Id. to recovery as to buildings.-Scranton Coal Co. v. Graff Furnace Co., 305.

ACCOUNT.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. for 6 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Equity jurisdiction adjustment of complicated accounts not created by numerous transactions of same character.-Huff v. Ford, 858.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.

4(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Whether lateral support negligently withdrawn held for jury.Scranton Coal Co. v. Graff Furnace Co., 305. ADMINISTRATION.

See Executors and Administrators.

ADMIRALTY.

vage; Seamen; Shipping; Towage.

14 (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Equity has jurisdiction See Collision; Maritime Liens; Pilots; Salof suit to compel accounting by employee breaching contract creating fiduciary relation.First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank v. Rogers, 953.

ACCOUNT STATED.

1. JURISDICTION.

20 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) State cannot provide rules for enforcement of rights in admiralty.Cassil v. U. S. Emergency Fleet Corporation, 774.

19(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of conLibelant could not avail himself of statute tract on cost plus basis not warranting recovery as for account stated.-The Spica, 436. as to common-law remedy.-Id.