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

No. 873. FRANK L. NEALL, AS TRUSTEE, PETITIONER, v. MARYLAND DREDGING & CONTRACTING COMPANY ET AL. February 20, 1911. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William S. Montgomery for petitioner. Mr. Frederick M. Brown for respondent.

No. 874. E. G. COFFIN ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. CHARLES R. FLINT. February 20, 1911. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. D. T. Watson, Mr. John M. Freeman and Mr. R. W. Sutton for petitioners. Mr. J. Frank Snyder and Mr. James H. Merrimon for respondent.

No. 877. THE EMPIRE TIMBER COMPANY, PETITIONER, V. THE WOODBINE TIMBER COMPANY. February 20, 1911. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Philip Walker for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.

CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT FROM DECEMBER 19, 1910, TO FEBRUARY 20, 1911.

No. 78. THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY, THROUGH A. RAYBOUDI MASSIGLIA, its Consul GENERAL AT NEW YORK, APPELLANT, v. GIROLAMO ASARO, ALIAS VINCENZO FUDERA. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District

Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 219 U. S.

of New York. January 11, 1911. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. Walter V. R. Berry, Mr. Benjamin S. Minor, Mr. Hugh B. Rowland and Mr. Gino C. Speranza for appellant. Mr. John J. Hamilton for appellee.

No. 863. HEIRS OF MARIA LUISA LOPEZ ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. RUBERT HERMANOS. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. January 18, 1911. Docketed and dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. Frederick S. Tyler for appellees. No one opposing.

No. 864. MARIA DEL ENCARNACIO PRADO, WIDOW OF SURO, APPELLANT, v. THE SUCCESSION OF ALONZO DEL RIO, ETC. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. January 18, 1911. Docketed and dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. Frederick S. Tyler for appellee. No one opposing.

No. 76. CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MRS. MYRA BURGESS AND W. N. BURGESS. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. January 26, 1911. Dismissed with costs per stipulation. Mr. Ernest E. Blake for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. C. Cruce for defendants in error.

No. 93. PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES. In error to the District Court of the United States for the

219 U. S. Cases 'Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. January 27, 1911. Dismissed, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. J. D. Campbell and Mr. James F. Campbell for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General for defendant in error.

No. 912. JUSTO PUENTE Y ARMSTERDAM ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. FELIX PUENTE ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. February 20, 1911. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for appellees. No one opposing.

No. 178. THE TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MRS. MARY A. STEVENSON ET AL. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. February 20, 1911. Dismissed per stipulation. Mr. John F. Dillon, Mr. Rush Taggart and Mr. W. L. Hall for plaintiff in error. Mr. Cone Johnson and Mr. James M. Edwards for defendants in error.

Where the action is based on counts upon a contract and also upon

quantum meruit and the evidence to sustain the latter is ruled
out, the action rests solely on the contract and the right to main-
tain it is determined as though brought solely on the contract.
West Side R. R. Co. v. Pittsburgh Construction Co., 92.

2. Debt; when maintainable.

Whether an action for debt is maintainable depends not upon who is

plaintiff, or how the obligation was incurred, but the action lies
wherever there is due a sum either certain or readily reduced to
certainty. (Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 542.) United
States v. Chamberlin, 250.

3. On bond of government contractor; prerequisites to bringing.
Although plaintiff may not have applied for copy of the bond and
filed an affidavit that the labor and materials had been supplied,
the defect was formal and not vital as the intervenors had com-
plied with the statute in that respect. Title Guar. & Trust Co. v.
Crane Co., 24.

4. On bond of government contractor; who entitled to maintain.
Objections to allowing claimants the benefit of the bond given by the
contractor under the act of 1894 as amended by the act of 1905,
either because they had a lien or because the service was too re-
mote, if carried to extremes, would defeat purpose of the act. Ib.
5. On bond of government contractor; effect of assignment of claims of
materialmen..

Assignments of claims of materialmen on a public work held in this
case not to have affected the remedy of enforcing the same against
the surety on the contractor's bond. Ib.

6. On bond of government contractor; right of claimants to docket fee.
In a suit to enforce claims of materialmen against surety on a con-
tractor's bond, each claimant is entitled to a docket fee of $10.00.
Although the claims are consolidated in a single suit the causes of
action are distinct. Ib.

VOL. CCXIX-38

(593)