Cases not otherwise Reported.

No. 145. WILKINS v. TOURTELOTT. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. April 3, 1893: Judgment affirmed, with costs, by a divided court. Mr. James M. Mason, Mr. William M. Springer and Mr. J. W. Day for plaintiffs Mr. Jefferson Brumback and Mr. Wallace Pratt

in error.

for defendants in error.

No. 853.

WILLIAMS V. ABEEL. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. March 7, 1893: Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Eugene Williams for plaintiff ir Mr. E. H. Graham for defendants in error.

error.

No. 854. WILLIAMS v. WILCOX. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. March 7, 1893: Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Eugene Williams for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. H. Graham for defendants in error.

APPENDIX.

I.

AMENDMENT TO RULES.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1892.

It is ordered that Equity Rule 67, as promulgated May 2, 1892, be, and it is hereby, amended by adding thereto the following:

"Upon due notice given as prescribed by previous order, the court may, at its discretion, permit the whole, or any specific part, of the evidence to be adduced orally in open court, on final hearing."

(Promulgated May 15, 1893.)

793

II.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT of THE UNITED STATES FOR OCTOBER TERM, 1892.

Number of cases on the appellate docket at the close of
October Term, 1891, not disposed of

1073

Number of cases remaining undisposed of, showing a reduc

tion of 139 cases

934

794

INDEX.

ADMIRALTY.

1. A steam vessel, the N., backed out from her slip in Jersey City, towards
the middle of the Hudson River between Jersey City and New York,
preparatory to turning down to go to sea. Another steam vessel, the
S., was going down, above the N., and nearer the New York shore,
on her way to sea. It was customary and necessary for the N. to
back out of her slip to about the middle of the river. The S. knew
of such practice of the N. When the N. had reached the middle of
the river she stopped her engines and the S. assumed she would go
ahead, and herself proceeded without any material change of course,
under slow speed, until she got near enough to observe that the N.
was continuing to make sternway at considerable speed, and might
bring herself in the path of the S. Then the S. stopped her engines,
being about 1000 feet away from the N., and one minute after, upon
observing that the N. still continued to make sternway at a speed
which indicated danger of collision, put her engines at full speed
astern and ported. The N., after stopping her engines, waited two
minutes before putting her engines at half speed ahead, and two
minutes more before putting her engines at full speed ahead. The
vessels collided, the N. and the S. both of them making sternway at
the time; held, that the N. was in fault and the S. not in fault. The
Servia, 144.

2. The S. was justified in assuming that the N. would pursue her cus-
tomary course and took timely measures to avert a collision. Ib.
3. The statutory steering and sailing rules had little application in the
case and it was rather one of "special circumstances." Ib.

ALIENS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4 to 9.

CASES AFFIRMED.

1. This case is dismissed upon the authority of Hohorst v. Hamburg-Amer-
ican Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262. Nash v. Harshman, 263.

2. Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106, affirmed and applied. Cates v. Allen, 451.
See CUSTOMS DUTIES, 8, 9;

DEED, 2;

JURISDICTION, A, 4;

PATENT FOR INVENTION, 13;

PUBLIC LAND, 8.