The Washington herald., 1921-02-04
DAILY COURT CALENDAR.


rehearing of motion for Judgment.
Attorneys, Stohlman-Collins.
26 Standard Savings Bank vs.
Stone ct al. Motion to strike out
declaration. Attorneys, Richardson
Sullivan.
27 Weaver VS.. Pepto. Motion to
quash summons and dismiss COM
plaint and to vacate judgment At
torneys. Sullivan-Hudson.
2S Henry VS.. Hart. Motion to
quash writ OF certiorari
% Pyne VS.. Herr. Motion for
judgment. Attorneys, Rhoades -
Hudson.
80 U. S. ex rel Creary vs. Secre-
tary of War. Demurrer 20 answer.
Attorneys. Ansell and Bailey -
Laskey.
81 L. S ex el French VS.. Secretary
of War Demurrer to answer. At
! torneys, Ansell and BaiIey-Laskey.
CIRCUIT DIVISION No. =.
Motions.
Stewart VS.. Washington Rail-
way and Electric Company For
new trial. Attorneys Bright and
Stevens-Whiteford and Archer.
Spillma1, jr.. vs. Rice Auto Com
pany. For Judgment. Attorneys
Quinn-Balderston.
Chesley VS.. Lampson. For Judg-
ment. Attorneys Mackey-Lang.
Morris VS.. Rhees. For new trial.
Attorneys Bradley - Cooke and
Johnson.
Bregman VS.. kalotzis. To strike
out. Attorneys Stein-Thomaides
Henckels VS.. Scott. For judg-
ment under 73d rule. Attorneys
Henry and Bradley-Wilson, Huide-
kOper and Lesh.
Saunders vs.. Burdine. For tudg-
ment. Attorneys Beall-Brown.
Britton VS.. Hills. For judgment
under rule l9. Attorneys Allen and
FOrd-Chamberlain.
Hermann VS.. Wooster. To dis
miss appeal. Attorneys Rafferty,
Hudson.
10 Dickman VS.. Norton. For judg-
ment. Attorneys Downing-DeLaCy
IL Behrend VS.. Francis To amend
record. Attorneys Strasberger-Bell
and Marshall.
IL Guaranty Trust Company VS.
Bonat. To quash summons. to dis
miss complaint. to vacate Judgment
of Municipal Court. to strike out
plaintiffs affidavit. Attorneys Wam-
pier and Wood-Hudson.
13 American Indemnity Company
VS.. Parker ct al. To strike out fifth
plea of defendants, W. w. and G.
T. Parker. Attorneys Darr, White
ford and Darr-Barger.
IA Barton Refrigerator Company
VS.. Stearns. For judgment under
13d rule. Attorneys Kenyon and
Macfarland-Stein.
Is Ballard VS.. Cameron. For judg-
ment. Attorneys James-Hudson.
l6 Caywood VS.. Marks. To strike
out affidavit. Attorneys Caywood-
Marks.
II Chaloner VS.. WASHINGTON Post
Company. To extend time to plead.
Attorneys Colladay and Pettis -
Lambert and Yeatman.
is Johnson VS.. Dick. For judg-
ment. Attorneys Fleharty-Hudson
lS Snow VS.. Angerine. For judg-
ment. Attorneys McGlue-Hudson
20 Sari VS.. Bacas. To strike out
declaration. Attorneys Wood-Ot-
tenberg.
p Davis ct al VS.. Taylor ct al.
For judgment. Attorneys Gardiner
and Eason-Lambert and Yeatman.
% Gates VS.. Clark. For Judgment.
Attorneys MILAN and Smith-Hud-
son.
20 Weaver ct al. VS.. Archer ct al.
For judgment g cases). Attorneys
Sullivan-RiCe.
"a Weaver ct al. VS.. Adkins. For
Judgment e cases) Attorneys Sui
liVan-Rice.
EQUITY DIVISION No. 1.
Motions.
Humphrey VS.. Lindberg. Rule
as to Injunction. Attorneys. Prem
tiss-Laskey.
In re bankruptcy Moorhead and
Elmore. Rules
Bauer VS.. Bauer. Rule as to in
junction; to strike out Attorneys,
horehouse-Smith.
Berry VS.. Conn. Rule as to in
junction. Attorneys welch and Lane
-Wheatley.
Lanneau VS.. Kroeschell Broth
ers. To dismiss. Attorneys, Nc
Neill-Laskey-Schick.
John VS.. John. Rule as to con-
tempt. Attorneys, KinR-O'Brien.
Biggs Engineering Company VS..
Mathis Brothers, To amend bill.
Attorneys. Downing and Berry
White and Morey.
Petty VS.. Petty. To dismiss
Attorneys, HutchInson-McNeill.
9 Craig VS.. Craig. Rule as to ALI
mony pendente lite. Attorneys,
Block-Scott.
10 Fralick VS.. FraIIck, Rule as to
alimony pendente lite, Attorneys,
Burke-Carlin, Carlin and Hill.
II Chiswell VS.. Johnson. To de-
posit securities or fle bond; to pro-
duce and exhibit document. Attor-
neys, McNeill and McNeill--Gittings
and Cuttings.
12 Hazen vs.. American Security
and Trust Company. Rule as to