Note. In the Matter of Barry. It by no means is an indisputable doctrine of public law, or of the law of this country, that the father of this infant can have here the same legal rights and dominion over it as if born within the country of his allegiance, for, if so, it might impart to him a power abhorrent to the civilization and Christianity of our age, giving him a dominion no less absolute than one over his chattels, animate or inanimate. I do not, however, go into this topic, nor regard it as having any important bearing upon the decision now made. I apprehend it has been sufficiently shown that neither in England, before our Revolution, nor in this State since, has judgment been rendered under a habeas corpus in regard to infants, on the acceptation that the right of the father to their custody was anything in the nature of property, or so fixed in law as to afford a controlling rule of decision to the court. In the use of the remedy afforded by means of this writ, the courts have regarded the father as that guardian first to be looked to, in case a change of custody should be deemed proper, and the infant was not of competent age to make its own choice of guardian; but it has been purely in the application of the remedy and for the protection and interest of the infant, and not in subordination to the legal right of the father, that such award is ever made. Nothing is clearer in international law than that a party prosecuting upon the clearest right under the laws of his country must still take his remedy in accordance with the law of the court he invokes, without regard to the law of his allegiance, and that his demand of this particular relief is no way aided by the consideration that it would be awarded him in England or Nova Scotia. I close this protracted discussion by saying that I deny the writ of habeas corpus prayed for, because, (1) If granted, and a return was made admitting the facts stated in the petition, I should discharge the infant, on the ground that this court cannot exercise the common law function of parens paand has no common law jurisdiction over the matter; triæ; (2) Because the court has not judicial cognizance in the matter by virtue of any statute of the United States; or, (3) If such jurisdiction is to be implied, that then the decision of the Court of Errors of New York supplies the rule of law, or furnishes the highest evidence of the common law rule, which is to be the rule of decision in the case; and, Note. In the Matter of Barry, (4) Because, by that rule, the father is not entitled, on the case made by this petitioner, to take this child out of the custody of its mother. Petition denied. Cases not Otherwise Reported. CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. AT OCTOBER TERM 1889, NOT OTHERWISE REPORTED, INCLUDING No. 1534. ALBRIGHT V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. January 6, 1890: Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Henry G. Atwater for appellee. No. 1517. ARMES V. KIMBERLY. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. November 25, 1889: Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Samuel Griffith for appellee. No. 222. BALDWIN v. HAYNES. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. March 19, 1890: Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the 10th rule. Mr. Frederick P. Fish for appellant. Mr. Esek Cowen for appellee. LAND. No. 38. BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY V. SUTHERError to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. January 29, 1890: Judgment reversed, costs in this court to be paid by plaintiff in error; and cause remanded with directions to remand to the state court. Mr. John K. Cowen and Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Mr. John H. Doyle and Mr. G. R. Walker for de fendant in error. No. 182. Cases not Otherwise Reported. BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY V. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. January 8, 1890: Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for appellant. Mr. John K. Cowen and Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for appellant. Mr. D. B. Lucas for appellee. ana. No. 178. BATCHELLER v. ADDEN. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of LouisiDecember 18, 1889: Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the 10th rule. Mr. S. P. Blanc, Mr. G. A. Breaux and Mr. M. F. Dickinson, Jr., for appellants. Mr. A. A. Ranney for appellees. No. 285. BASS v. MILMINE. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. May 5, 1890: Decree affirmed, with costs, by a divided court. Mr. R. S. Taylor for appellant. Mr. L. M. Ninde and Mr. T. E. Ellison for appellee. No. 80. BATE REFRIGERATING COMPANY 2. EASTMAN. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. January 20, 1890: Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Augustus H. Garland on behalf of counsel. Mr. E. N. Dickerson, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Mr. John R. Bennett for defendant in error. No. 1311. BIPPUS v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. April 29, 1890: Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. George II. Wickersham for appellant. Mr. John L. Cadwalader for appellant. Mr. Herbert B. Turner and Mr. Benjamin H. Bristow for appellee. No. 304. BIRDSEYE v. HEILNER. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New |