
    NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. PHŒNIX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. NIAGARA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. GENERAL FIRE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. STERLING FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error. AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, Defendant in Error.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 21, 1925.)
    Nos. 4353-4362.
    In Error, to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida.
    Daniel MacDougald, of Atlanta, Ga., and W. E. Kay, Thos. B. Adams, and Reuben Ragland, all of Jacksonville, Fla. (Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, of Atlanta, Ga., Kay, Adams & Rag-land, of Jacksonville, Fla., and Underwood, Pomeroy & Haas, of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
    Robert R. Milam and George C. Bedell, both of Jacksonville, Fla. (Arthur Y. Milam, B. R. Milam, and G. W. Milam, all of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for defendant in error.
    Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
   BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

It was stipulated ,by counsel that the above eases should abide the result of the writ of error in Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company (No. 4352) 4 F.(2d) 835, this day decided and affirmed. Accordingly the judgments herein are affirmed.  