LUMBERMAN'S NAT BANK OF WILLIAMSPORT v. HUSTON(1897)
The most favorable view of this case for the plaintiff in error is to regard it as presenting the same question that was determined [167 U.S. 203, 204] in Bank v. Nebecker (just decided) 17 Sup. Ct. 766. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice WHITE concurs in the result.
J. J. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Conrad, for defendant in error.