Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 215 U.S. No. 76. J. A. HUGHES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE COLLIN COUNTY NATIONAL BANK. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. January 7, 1910. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Clayton C. Dorsey and Mr. William D. Hodges for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. No. 175. CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. January 18, 1910. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. Moritz Heim for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. T. Young, Mr. George W. Peterson and Mr. Al J. Smith for defendant in error. No. 507. WOODWARD CARRIAGE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. PITTS LIVERY COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. January 19, 1910. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellants. Mr. T. D. Cobbs for appellants. No appearance for appellees. No. 338. THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. CHARLES S. SARGENT. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. January 24, 1910. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bowers for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for plaintiff in error. Mr. Luther C. Harris for defendant in error. No. 750. FRED ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE 215 U.S. Case Disposed of in Vacation. UNITED STATES. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. January 24, 1910. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bowers for defendant in error. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for defendant in error. No appearance for plaintiff in erro". No. 109. T. M. STANCLIFT ET AL., ETC., APPELLANTS, v. CHARLIE FOX ET AL. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. January 24, 1910. Dismissed with costs pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. William T. Hutchings for appellant. Mr. Preston C. West for appellees. No. 695. RACHEL A. RICHARDSON, CLAIMING TO BE RACHEL A. BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARY S. REEVES ET AL. In error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. January 26, 1910. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Tracy L. Jeffords for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Benjamin H. Schwartz and Mr. Milton Strasburger for defendants in error. CASE DISPOSED OF IN VACATION. No. 65. PATRICK COX, APPELLANT, v. LUMAN T. HOY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. July 7, 1909. Dismissed pursuant to the 28th rule. Mr. William Dillon for appellant. Mr. William G. Johnson and The Attorney General for appellee. INDEX. ACTIONS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3; EQUITY, 2, 3, 4, 7; PARTIES. ACTS OF CONGRESS. COMMERCE, Act of February 4, 1887, § 15, as amended in 1906 (see CONSPIRACY, Rev. Stat., § 5440 (see Criminal Law, 2): United States v. COPYRIGHTS, Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 212 (see Copyrights, 2): CUSTOMS, Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, § 9, 26 Stat. 131 (see Customs Law, 1): United States v. Mescall, 26. Tariff EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 232 (see Em- IMMIGRATION, Act of February 20, 1907, 34 Stat. 898 (see Statutes INDIANS, Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388 (see Indians, 2, 4): JUDICIARY, Act of 1789 (see Courts, 1): Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana 621 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 501. Act of March 3, 1891, § 5, tion, A 2, Statutes, A 2): United States v. Corbett, 233. Rev. Stat., OLEOMARGARINE, Act of May 9, 1902, § 6, 32 Stat. 193 (see Statutes, PHILIPPINE ORGANIC ACT of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Jurisdic- tion, A 10): Reavis v. Fianza, 16. Section 22 (see Philippine PUBLIC LANDS, Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489 (see Public Lands, 4): PUBLIC WORKS, Labor and Material Law of February 24, 1905, 33 Stat. ADMIRALTY. 1. Jurisdiction of case involving salvage service to vessel in dry dock. arise from all perils which may encompass a vessel when on 2. Jurisdiction over vessel in dry dock. A vessel used for navigation and commerce does not cease to be a |