(Supreme ODOM v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RY. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Dec. 16, 1909.) Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge. W. R. Brassel and W. E. Andrew, for appellant. A. H. Arrington and John R. Tyson, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed for want of assignment of errors. PIERCE et al. v. HAAS. (Supreme Court of Alabama. June 30, 1909.) Appeal from Probate Court, Mobile County; Price Williams, Judge. Action between Annie Pierce and others and George R. Haas, as administrator, etc. From the judgment, said Pierce and others ap peal. Appeal dismissed. Gregory L. & H. T. Smith, for appellants. Pillans, Hanaw & Pillans and William Cowley, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed by appellant. ROGERS v. MOBILE AUTO CO. (Supreme Nov. 11, 1909.) Appeal Court of Alabama. from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County: Saffold Berney, Judge. Inge & Armbrecht, for appellant. Elliott G. Rickarby, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Assumpsit by Mobile Auto Company against H. Ross Rogers. Affirmed for want of assignment of errors. HALSELL et al. v. BARNES. Court of Alabama. Nov. 24, 1909.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; Samuel H. Sprott, Judge. James A. Mitchell, for appellants. C. J. Brockaway and A. S. Van De-bama. Nov. 25, 1909.) graaf, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. HENDERSON et al. v. ALLEN. (Supreme Court of Alabama. June 8, 1909.) Appeal from Chancery Court, Coffee County; J. A. Carnley, Special Chancellor. M. Sollie, for appellants. J. F. Sollie, for appellee. Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Lee County; A. E. Barnett, SMITH V. MOON. (Supreme Court of Ala Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. SMITH v. SOUTHERN LIME & CEMENT CO. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Dec. 16, 1909.) Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge. D. H. Seay, for appellant. J. Sternfeld, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed for want of assignment of errors. DOWDELL, C. J. The question presented is purely one of fact. A careful consideration of the evidence fails to disclose the charge of fraud alleged as a reason for reforming the former decree. The action of the trial court in disSOUTHERN RY. CO. v. HOLMAN. (Sumissing the bill was without error. SIMPSON, DENSON, and MAYFIELD, JJ., preme Court of Alabama. Nov. 15, 1909.) Ap concur. Affirmed. HENRY v. FROHLICHSTEIN. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Nov. 9, 1909.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Samuel B. Browne, Judge. Ervin & McAleer, for appellant. Gregory L. & H. T. Smith, for appellee. PER CURIAM. A motion to establish bill of exceptions having been heretofore denied, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. LINDSEY v. LINDSEY. (Supreme Court of Alabama. June 18, 1909.) Appeal from Chancery Court, Choctaw County; Thomas H. Smith, peal from Chancery Court, Sumter County; PER CURIAM. Dismissed by agreement of parties on file. STATE ex rel. HERVEY v. WILLIAMS, PER CURIAM. Affirmed for want of assign STATE ex rel. HINES v. JOHNSON et al. (Supreme Court of Alabama. Nov. 25, 1909.) Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. C. Nesmith, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed on certificate. BOYETT v. BOYETT. Florida. April 27, 1909.) from Circuit Court, Santa (Supreme Court of In Banc. Appeal Rosa County; J. PROUT et al. v. DADE COUNTY SECURITY CO. (Supreme Court of Florida. May 7, 1909.) In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Minor S. Jones, Judge. Geo. A. Worley, for appellants. PER CURIAM. The bill in this cause was Emmet Wolfe, Judge. T. F. West, for appel-filed by the appellee against the appellants. lee. There was decree for the complainant, and the defendants appealed. Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellants. See, also, 55 Fla. 816, 47 South. 12. END OF CASES IN VOL. 50. |