Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 201 U. S.

of Appeals of the District of Columbia. March 5, 1906. Dismissed with costs, on motion of The Solicitor General for the plaintiff in error. The Attorney General for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error.

No. 377. SIDNEY TURNER DYER, BY ELISHA DYER, JR., HER NEXT FRIEND, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. March 5, 1906. Dismissed at the cost of the appellees, per stipulation. Mr. Arthur W. Machen and Mr. Arthur W. Machen, Jr., for appellants. Mr. W. Cabell Bruce for appellees.

No. 568. SIEBRAND H. NIEWENHOUS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE NEW YORK AND HARLEM RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. March 9, 1906. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. Edward S. Hatch for plaintiff in error. Mr. Ira A. Place for defendants in error.

No. 224. SIMON BURNS ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN W. HAYES ET AL. Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. March 15, 1906. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. John Ridout and Mr. R. Golden Donaldson for appellants. Mr. Henry E. Davis for appellees.

No. 635. WALTER H. WREN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. RICHARD RIGGS ET AL. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. March 19, 1906. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. C. A. Culberson for the defendants in error. No one opposing.

201 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.

No. 301. ELIZA L. POPE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ANNA CLARA FALK ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. April 2, 1906. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. F. Bird for plaintiff in error. Mr. James K. Polk, Mr. Andrew Wilson and Mr. Noel W. Barksdale for defendants in error.

No. 369. BENJAMIN C. CHOUTEAU, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM KLAPMEYER. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. April 2, 1906. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. F. Bird for plaintiff in error. Mr. James K. Polk, Mr. Andrew Wilson and Mr. Noel W. Barksdale for defendant in error.

No. 232. THOMAS J. BRESLIN v. JAMES G. CARROLL. On a certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. April 11, 1906. Stricken from the docket. Mr. Thomas E. French for Breslin. No appearance for Carroll.

No. 6, Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF ALPHONSO B. BOWERS AND BOWERS CALIFORNIA DREDGING COMPANY, PETITIONERS. April 16, 1906. Dismissed on authority of counsel for the petitioners. Mr. John H. Miller for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.

No. 9, Original. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COMPLAINANT, v. NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY ET AL. April 16, 1906. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. W. B. Stratton, Mr. Wallace B. Douglas and Mr. E. C. Macdonald for complainant. Mr. W. P. Clough, Mr. George B. Young, Mr. John W. Griggs, Mr. M. D. Grover and Mr. C. W. Bunn for defendants.

ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890 (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Alexander v.
United States, 117: (see Witnesses): Hale v., Henkel, 43; Nelson v.
United States, 92.

CIVIL SERVICE ACT of January 16, 1883 (see Civil Service): United States
v. Wickersham, 390.

IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES, Act of February 25, 1903 (see Witnesses, 2):
Hale v. Henkel, 43.

JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 709' (see Jurisdiction, A 10): Joy v. St. Louis, 332;
(see Jurisdiction, A 11), West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 506; (see
Jurisdiction, A 12): Keen v. Keen, 319. Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat.
443 (see Jurisdiction, A 1): New Mexico v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F.
Ry. Co., 41. Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433 (see Jurisdiction,
C 3): Blair v. Chicago, 400. Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 7 (see Appeal
and Error, 1): Ex parte National Enameling Co., 156.

NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5151 (see Jurisdiction, C 4; National
Banks, 2): Wyman v. Wallace, 230; (see National Banks, 1): Christo-
pher v. Norvell, 216.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, § 10 (see Juris-
diction, A 5, 7): De la Rama v. De la Rama, 303.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, Rev. Stat. §§ 641, 642 (see Removal of Causes):
Kentucky v. Powers, 1.

SHIPPING, Harter Act, 27 Stat. 445, § 3 (see Maritime Law): The Wildcroft,
378.

TARIFF ACT of 1897, 30 Stat.. 156, 205, par. 98, 7 (see Customs Duties):
United States v. Downing, 354.

TERRITORIAL PRACTICE ACT of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27 (see Jurisdiction,
A 4): De la Rama v. De la Rama, 303.

WISCONSIN Enabling Act of August 6, 1846 (see Public Lands, 3): Wis-
consin v. Hitchcock, 202.

ADULTERY.

See DIVORCE.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10.

ALIMONY.

See JURISDICTION, A 3, 5, 6.

AMENDMENT.

See STATUTES, A 4.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A.

ANTI-TRUST LAW.

See WITNESSES.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Final or interlocutory decree-Effect of appeal under section 7 of act of
March 3, 1891.

Plaintiffs brought suit upon a single patent, in which there were twelve
claims. The Circuit Court found that three of the claims were invalid
and nine valid, of which five had been infringed, and referred it to a
master to report the amount of damages and dismissed the bill as to
the claims found invalid and not infringed. Defendants appealed
from the decree and plaintiffs also filed cross appeal assigning as errors
the rulings adverse to them. The Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
the cross appeal. Petition for mandamus to compel that court to
take jurisdiction of the cross appeal denied and held, that the decree
was interlocutory and not final and in the Federal courts no appeal
can as a general rule be taken except from a final decree. The appeal
authorized by § 7 of the act of March 3, 1891, does not bring up the
cause as a whole; and, unless otherwise specially ordered, the case,
except for hearing of the appeal from the interlocutory order, proceeds
in the lower court as though no appeal had been taken until final judg-
ment. Cases in which a bill has been dismissed as to some of the de-
fendants and a separable controversy as to others referred to a master
for an accounting, and in which the dismissal has been treated as a
final decree, have no application to a case of joint liability, or in which
there is only a single defendant. Ex parte National Enameling Co.,
156; Ex parte Automatic Switch Co., 166.

2. Bonds; irregularities in; necessity for entry of order regarding.
Although irregularities may exist in appeal bonds, if the cases are sent
back for further proceedings no order need be entered here regarding
them. Amadeo v. Northern Assurance Co., 194.