Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 204 U. S.

Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. George A. Titterington for petitioner. Mr. John W. Wray for respondents.

No. 566. MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, PETITIONER, v. T. T. MATHIESON. February 25, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Frank W. Christian for petitioner. Mr. Daniel Trigg, Mr. Robert L. Harrison and Mr. William Byrd for respondent.

No. 578. VICTOR H. WILDER ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. THE UNITED STATES. February 25, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Maynard F. Stiles for petitioners. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for respondent.

CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT FROM JANUARY 7 TO FEBRUARY 25, 1907.

No. 154. YEE YUEN, APPELLANT, v. THE UNITED STATES. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. January 10, 1907. Dismissed, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Oliver Dibble for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee.

No. 327. PHOENIX WATER COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. January 23,

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

1907. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Charles F. Ainsworth, Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. Harry Hubbard for appellant. Mr. Roy S. Goodrich and Mr. Walter Bennett for appellees.

No. 52. GEORGE W. CROSSMAN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. GEORGE R. BIDWELL. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. February 4, 1907. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Hoyt in behalf of counsel for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. Wickham Smith for plaintiffs in error. The Attorney General for defendant in error.

No. 353. ADRIAN C. HONORÉ, EXECUTOR, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM C. WILSON, AS ACTING COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. In error to the Surrogates' Court of New York County, State of New York. February 4, 1907. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. Charles K. Carpenter for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Emmet R. Olcott for defendant in error.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1.

ACCIDENT.

See LANDLORD AND TENANT.

ACTIONS.

By the United States and a State against each other.

Although a State may be sued by the United States without its consent,
public policy forbids that the United States may without its consent
be sued by a State. Kansas v. United States, 331.

ALIENS, Rev. Stat. § 2172; Alien Immigration Act of March 3, 1903 (see
Aliens, 2): Zartarian v. Billings, 170.

BANKRUPTCY, Rev. Stat. § 5057 (see Bankruptcy, 1): Hammond v. Whitt-
redge, 538. Act of 1898, § 57 (see Bankruptcy): J. B. Orcutt Co. v.
Green, 96.

CLERKS OF COURT, Rev. Stat. § 828, pars. 8, 10, 11, 12 (see Clerks of Court):
United States v. Keatley, 562.

COMMERCE, Interstate Commerce Act (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Louisville
& Nashville R. R. v. Smith, 551.

COMMISSIONERS OF UNITED STATES, Rev. Stat. §§ 823, 828, 847, 1986,

2027 (see United States Commissioners): Allen v. United States, 581.
COURT OF CLAIMS, Rev. Stat. § 1059, and Act of March 3, 1887, c. 359,
cl. 2, § 1 (see United States Commissioners, 3): Allen v. United States,
581.

CRIMES AGAINST ELECTIVE FRANCHISE AND CIVIL RIGHTS, Rev. Stat.,
title 70, ch. 7 (see United States Commissioners, 1): Allen v. United
States, 581.

CUSTOMS DUTIES, Customs Administrative Act, § 20 (see Customs Duties,
1): United States v. G. Falk & Brothers, 143. Tariff Act of 1890, § 50;
Tariff Act of 1897, § 33 (see Customs Duties, 2): Ib.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, Acts of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, 282, and
January 24, 1905 (see Jurisdiction, C 3): United States Fidelity Co. v.
Kenyon, 349.

INDIANS, Act of August 15, 1894 (see Courts, 12): McKay v. Kalyton, 458.
Act of July 1, 1902 (see Indians, 4): Wallace v. Adams, 415.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Act of February 4, 1887 (see Jurisdiction, A 3;
Practice and Procedure, 2): Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton
Oil Co., 426.

JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 670 (see Courts, 8): American R. R. Co. v. Castro,
453. Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9): Louis-
ville & Nashville R. R. v. Smith, 551; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene
Cotton Oil Co., 426; Newman v. Gates, 89; Western Turf Assn. v. Green-
berg, 359; Osborne v. Clark, 565; McKay v. Kalyton, 458; Hammond
v. Whittredge, 538. Act of March 3, 1875, § 1 (see Jurisdiction, C 5):
Smithers v. Smith, 632. Act of March 3, 1875, § 1, as amended by
Act of August 13, 1888 (see Jurisdiction, A 10): Ib. Act of March 3,
1891, § 5 (see Jurisdiction, A 13): Wecker v. National Enameling Co.,
176. Act of April 12, 1900, § 34 (see Courts, 8): American R. R. Co.
v. Castro, 453.

MONTANA ENABLING ACT of February 22, 1889, § 17 (see Public Lands,
3): Haire v. Rice, 291.

NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5143 (see National Banks, 3): Jerome v.
Cogswell, 1.

NAVY, Act of March 3, 1889 (see Army and Navy): United States v. Hite,
343.

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, Act of July 2, 1864 (see Public Lands, 2):
Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 190.

PORTO RICO, Act of April 12, 1900 (see Jurisdiction, A 11): American R. R.
Co. v. Castro, 453.

PUBLIC LANDS, Act of May 10, 1872, §§ 3, 12, 16 (see Mines and Mining, 4):
East Cent. E. M. Co. v. Central Eureka Co., 266. Rev. Stat., par. 2320
(see Mines and Mining, 5): Ib.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, Acts of March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888 (see
Condemnation, 3): Mason City R. R. Co. v. Boynton, 570.

RIVER AND HARBOR ACT of 1899 (see Constitutional Law, 13): Union Bridge
Co. v. United States, 364.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Jurisdiction of admiralty courts.

Admiralty courts, being free to work out their own system and to finish
the adjustment of maritime rights, have jurisdiction of an action for
contribution for damages paid to third parties as the result of a collision
for which both vessels were in fault. The claim is of admiralty origin.
Erie R. R. Co. v. Erie Transportation Co., 220.

2. Division of damages--Separable claims-Bar of former recovery.
The right of division of damages to vessels when both are in fault and
the contingent claim to partial indemnity for payment of damage to
cargo are separable, and the decree of division in the original suit,