tt  47i'>  146,  728  917  9^9

Harvey  ?.  Dewoody  (18  Ark.  252 1      '  451

v.  OIney  (42  111.  336)  '      if Jj

».  Bochester  (35  Barb.  177)  118?

»•  Eush  County  (32  Kan.  159)        511


lxxvi


TABLE   OF   CASES   CITED.
Page
Harward  v.  St.  Clair,  &c.  Levee  Co.
(61111.180)  122,906,1119

Harwood  v.  Lowell  (4  Cush.  310)       L253.
1288
v.  Marshall  (9  Md  83)         1024,  1074
v.  Marshall  (10  Md.  451)      1062,  1070
Hasbrouck  v.  Milwaukee  (13   Wis.
37)  122,130

r.  Milwaukee  (21  Wis.  217)  623,  648,

644
r.  Milwaukee  (25  Wis.  122)   118,1028
Hascard   v.  Somany   (Freem.  K.   B.
604)  679

Hasev  v.  White  Pigeon  Sugar  Co.  (1

Doug.  (Mich.)  190)  502

Haskell  r.  Burlington  (80  Iowa,  232)   999

v.  New  Bedford  (108  Mass   208)    170,

452,  1214,  1330

v.  New  Gloucester  (70  Me.  305)  1257,

1299

v.  Penn  Yan  (5  Lans.  43)     1282,  1311

Hassen  v.  Rochester  (05  N   Y.  510)      053

Hastings  v   Columbus  (42  O.  St.  685)  407

v.  Tliorne  (8  Neb   1G0)  1142

Hastings's  Case  (1  Mod.  21)  289

Haswell  v.  New  York  (81  N.  Y.  255)    312

Hatch  v.  Barr  (1  Ohio,  390)  524

v.  Buffalo  (38  N.  Y.  27G)       715,  1120

v.  Mann  (15  Wend.  44)  316

v.  Pendergast  (15  Md.  251)  459

Hathaway   v.  Cineinnatus  (02  N.  Y.
434)  1143

v.  New  Baltimore  (48  Mich.  251)     99
Haughey  v.  Hart  (02  Iowa,  9G)  1312

Hausmeister  v.  Porter  (21  Fed.  R.
