Green v. Chi., Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 530 (1907)
Case details
Citation
205 U.S. 530
Full caption
GREEN v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
Apr. 29, 1907
GREEN v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY
RAILWAY COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 435. Submitted April 8, 1907.—Decided April 29, 1907.
While in case of diverse citizenship the suit may be brought in the Circuit Court for the district of the residence of either party, there must be service within the district; and if the defendant is a non-resident corporation service can only be made upon it if it is doing business in that district in such a manner, and to such an extent, as to warrant the inference that it is present there through its agent. A railroad company which has no tracks within the district is not doing
business therein in the sense that liability for service is incurred because it hires an office and employs an agent for the merely incidental business of solicitation of freight and passenger traffic. 147 Fed. Rep. 767, affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Frank P. Prichard and Mr. John G. Johnson for plaintiff in error:
When a corporation, through its properly constituted agents, engages in business in a foreign jurisdiction, it may, irrespective of any consent, be found there for purposes of suit, and service upon its agents is service upon it, provided always that the agent is of such a representative character that service upon him may properly be considered service upon the corporation. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350; Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100.
The courts of England have reached the same conclusion and t^e doctrine thus established will probably be ultimately recognized as the true doctrine in all the courts, state as we as Federal.
As to what constitutes the doing of business by a foreign corporation, it is manifestly impossible for the courts to lay down any hard and fast rule. A single isolated transaction would not usually be sufficient, although the transaction might be of such magnitude, and involve so many acts, as to be an exception to such a rule. A series of transactions in the State long continued usually amounts to the carrying on of business, but here again the acts might be of such a character, as, for example, the mere solicitation by traveling salesmen as not to come within the rule. Each case must be judged by its own circumstances. There are, however, certain elements which, if one or more of them exist, are usually considered to indicate the carrying on of a business, as e. g.:
The establishment of a permanent office to which all persons having business with the corporation may come.
The employment of an agent located within the State who is advertised as a general agent of the corporation for such business as it transacts in the State.
The continuous making within the State of contracts binding on the corporation.
Examining the facts of the present case as disclosed by the evidence and in the light of the principles above referred to, it is submitted that the defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Court in which it was sued.
Mr. Francis Rawle for defendant in error.
Mr . Just ice Mood y delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error, a citizen of Pennsylvania, brought an action in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsy vania to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to ave been incurred in Colorado through the negligence of the e endant, against the defendant in error, a corporation
Opinion of the Court. 205 U. 8.
created by the laws of the State of Iowa, and, therefore, for jurisdictional purposes, a citizen of that State. The return upon the writ shows a service “on Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company, a corporation which is doing business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ... by giving a true and attested copy to Harry E. Heller, agent of said corporation.” The defendant appeared specially for the purpose of disputing jurisdiction. The Circuit Court held that the service was insufficient, because the defendant was not doing business within the district, and that decision is brought here by writ of error for review.
The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in this case was founded solely upon the fact that the parties were citizens of different States. In such a case the suit may be brought in the district of the residence of either. Act of March 3, 1875, chap. 137, § 1, as corrected by act of August 13, 1888, chap. 866, § 1 (25 Stat. 434). But to obtain jurisdiction there must be service, and the service was upon the corporation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Its validity depends upon whether the corporation was doing business in that district in such a manner and to such an extent as to warrant the inference that through its agents it was present there.
The eastern point of the defendant’s line of railroad was at Chicago, whence its tracks extended westward. The business for which it was incorporated was the carriage of freight and passengers, and the construction, maintenance and operation of a railroad for that purpose. As incidental and collateral to that business it was proper, and, according to the business methods generally pursued, probably essential, that freight an passenger traffic should be solicited in other parts of the country than those through which the defendant’s tracks ran. or the purpose of conducting this incidental business the e en ant employed Mr. Heller, hired an office for him in delphia, designated him as district freight and passeng agent, and in many ways advertised to the public t ese The business of the agent was to solicit and procure passeng p. 533and freight to be transported over the defendant’s line. For conducting this business several clerks and various travelling passenger and freight agents were employed, who reported to the agent and acted under his direction. He sold no tickets and received no payments for transportation of freight. When a prospective passenger desired a ticket, and applied to the agent for one, the agent took the applicant’s money and procured from one of the railroads running west from Philadelphia a ticket for Chicago and a prepaid order, which gave to the applicant, upon his arrival at Chicago, the right to receive from the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad a ticket over that road. Occasionally he sold to railroad employés, who already had tickets over intermediate lines, orders for reduced rates over the defendant’s lines. In some cases, for the convenience of shippers who had received bills of lading from the initial line for goods routed over the defendant’s lines, he gave in exchange therefor bills of lading over the defendant’s ine. In these bills of lading it was recited that they should not be in force until the freight had been actually received by the defendant.
The question here is whether service upon the agent was sufficient, and one element of its sufficiency is whether the facts s ow that the defendant corporation was doing business wit in the district. It is obvious that the defendant was omg there a considerable business of a certain kind, although
ere was no carriage of freight or passengers. In support of is contention that the defendant was doing business within ,, e ^^ct in such a sense that it was liable to service there, e plaintiff cites Denver &c. Railroad Co. v. Roller, 100 Fed.
an^ v. Chicago &c. Railroad, 115 N. Y. The facts in those cases were similar to those in the ese^ case. But in both cases the action was brought in ate courts, and the question was of the interpretation a state statute and the jurisdiction of the state courts. mo ° ,USlness sh°wn in this case was in substance nothing an that of solicitation. Without undertaking to p. 534formulate any general rule defining what transactions will constitute 11 doing business” in the sense that liability to service is incurred, we think that this is not enough to bring the defendant within the district so that process can be served upon it. This view accords with several decisions in the lower Federal courts. Maxwell v. Atchison &c. Railroad, 34 Fed. Rep. 286; Fairbank & Co. v. Cincinnati &c. Railroad, 54 Fed. Rep. 420; Union Associated Press v. Times Star Co., 84 Fed. Rep. 419; Earle v. Chesapeake &c. Railroad, 127 Fed. Rep. 235.
The judgment of the. Circuit Court is
Affirmed.
I
OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM FEBRUARY 27 TO APRIL 29, 1907.
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In th e Matt er of John Arm - strong Chanle r , Pet itione r . Submitted February 25, 1907. Decided March 4, 1907. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of prohibition denied. Mr. George W. Watt and Mr. James M. Dohan for petitioner. Mr. Joseph H. Choate, Jr., opposing.
Nos. 210 and 211. Isa ac W. Fowl er , Rece ive r , etc ., Appellan t , v . John C. Osgoo d . Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Argued February 27, 1907. Decided March 4, 1907. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Louisville Trust Company v. Knott, 195 U. S. 225, and cases therein cited; Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523, 525. Mr. Joseph C. Helm and Mr. N. T. Guernsey for appellant. Mr. Cass E. Herrington and Mr. David C. Beaman for appellee.
No. 461. John Romig et al ., Appella nts , v . Myrt le Gillett . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss submitted February 25,1907. Decided March 4, 1907. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, and cases cited in California Consolidated Mining Co. v. Manley, 203 U. S. 579. Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for appellants. Mr. Henry F. Woodard and Mr. A. A. Birney for appellee.
No. 478. Cho d Thomas , Pla int iff in Error , v . The Stat e of Kans as . In error to the Supreme Court of the
Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. 205 U. S.
State of Kansas. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted February 26, 1907. Decided March 4, 1907. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Mugler n . Kansas, 123 U. S. 623; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 662; Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 608, 609; Castillo n . McConnico, 168 U. S. 674; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447. Case below, 86 Pac. Rep. 499. Mr. Alfred M. Jackson for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. C. Coleman for defendant in error.
No. 221. 0. V. Laws on , Plaint iff in Error , v . The Stat e of Washingt on . In error to the Supreme Court of the StatQ of Washington. Argued for defendant in error March 1, 1907. Decided March 11, 1907. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 393; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695. Mr. F. B. Crosthwaite for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, Mr. J. S. Flannery, Mr. George H. Walker and Mr. Kenneth MacKintosh for defendant in error.
No. 224. Proc opia Garza De Viller eal et al ., Plain - tiff s in Error , v . The Sta te of Texas . In error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas. Submitted March 6, 1907. Decided March 11, 1907. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. O’Connor v. Texas, 202 U. S. 501; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 219; California Powder Works n . Davis, 151 U. S. 389; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 337. Mr. H. G. Dickinson for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Robert V. Davidson for defendant in error.
No. 234. Charles T. Cher ry , Receive r , etc ., Plain tif f in Err or , v . The Fidel ity an d Depo sit Comp any . In error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma. Argued March 13 and 14,1907. Decided March 18,1907. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs. Fidelity and Deposit Company n . Courtney, 186 U. S. 342; Guarantee Company v. Mechanics Company, 183 U. S. 402; case below, 85 Pac. Rep. 713, sub nom. Willoughby v. Fidelity and Deposit Company; Sweeney n . Lomme, 22 Wall. 208. Mr. R. M. Campbell, Mr. D. T. Flynn and Mr. C. B. Ames for plaintiff in error. Mr. Edgar H. Gans for defendant in error.
No. 242. Stev ens on Iron Mining Compan y , Pla int iff in Error , v . Elme r A. Kibbe . In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Argued March 14, 1907. Decided March 18, 1907. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs and interest. Minnesota Iron Company v. Kline, 199 U. S. 593; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 392; Kibbe v. Stevenson Iron Company, 136 Fed. Rep. 147; Kline v. Minnesota Iron Company, 93 Minnesota, 63; Schus v. Powers-Simpson Company, 85 Minnesota, 447. Mr. John G. Williams and Mr. Moses E. Clapp for plaintiff in error. Mr. Samuel A. Anderson for defendant in error.
No. 235. John Edwa rd Mc Cart y , Appella nt , v . The Unite d Stat es . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Submitted March 6, 1907. Decided April 8, 1907. Per Curiam. Disniissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Chase v. United States, 155 U. S. 489. Mr. H. V. Morehouse for appe lant. The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant-Attorney General Van Orsdel for appellee.
Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. 205 U. S.
No. 247. Mexic an Cen tra l Rail way Company , Limit ed , v. J. W. Eckma n , Gua rdia n , etc . On a certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Argued March 15 and 18, 1907. Decided April 8, 1907. Per Curiam. Question1 answered in the negative on the authority of Slater v. Mexican Central National Railroad Company, 194 U. S. 120. Mr. Ezra Ripley Thayer and Mr. Moorfield Storey for the railway company. Mr. George E. Wallace for Eckman.
No. 401. Will D. Gould et al ., Appella nts , v . Leo V. You ng wo rth , United Stat es Marsh al ; No . 415. War ren Gille len et al ., Appell ants , v . Leo V. You ng wo rth , Unite d Sta te s Mars hal ; and No. 432. Lee R. Myer s , Appel lan t , v. H. Z. Osbo rne , United Stat es Mar sh al . Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. Argued March 19 and 20,1907. Decided April 8, 1907. Per Curiam. Final orders reversed with costs, and causes remanded with directions to discharge petitioners, respectively, without prejudice to renewal of applications to remove, on the authority of Tinsley v. Treat &c., 205 U. S. 20. Mr. Will D. Gould for appellants in No. p. 539401 and Mr. Herbert J. Goudge for appellants in No. 415. The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant-Attorney General Sanford for appellee.
1
The question answered was: ‘‘ In an action brought in the United States Circuit Court in and for t e Western District of Texas by a citizen of that district against the Mexican Central Railway Company, a corporation duly created under the laws o the State of Massachusetts and doing business in and operating a steam railroad under continuous line in the State of Texas and the Republic o Mexico, to recover for injuries to the plaintiff, received while he was en gaged in defendant’s service, and whereby, through defective appliances furnished by said railroad company and the negligent operation of the sai railroad in the Republic of Mexico, the said plaintiff, at Ebano, exico, was injured and lost a leg, can the said court proceed to judgment an award such damages as upon proof may be assessed by a jury, no wi standing the provisions of the laws of the Republic of Mexico, prove o this trial and recited in the statement of this case, and which, ’ were the laws of Mexico applicable herein in force and effect at of the injuries complained of?”
No. 18, Original. Ex parte: In th e Matter of Fern an do Vazque z Mora les et al .; Pet iti oner s . Motion for leave to file submitted April 8, 1907. Decided April 15, 1907. Motion for leave to file petition for appeal granted, and appeal allowed on appellants filing bond in the penal sum of $1,000, conditioned according to law, to be approved by the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. Mr. Charles C. Lancaster and Mr. Herbert E. Smith for petitioners.
Nos. 502 and 503. Willi am Mc Coach , Coll ecto r , etc ., Peti tio ner , v . The Philad elp hia Tru st , Safe Depos it and Insu ran ce Comp any et al ., Exec uto rs , etc .; and No. 504. Will iam Mc Coach , Collec tor , etc ., Petitio ner , v . George W. Norr is et al ., Exec uto rs , etc . On writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Argued April 15 and 16,1907. Decided April 22,1907. Judgments affirmed with costs by a divided court, and causes remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. No. 505. The Unite d States , Petitione r , v . The Mario n Trus t Compan y , Trus tee , etc . On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court °f Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Argued April 15 and 16, 1907. Decided April 22, 1907. Judgment affirmed by a divided court, and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. The Attor^ey General, The Solicitor General and Mr. J. C.. McReynolds for the petitioners. Mr. H. Gordon McCouch for respondents in Nos. 502, 503 and 504. Mr. Morris M.
ownley and Mr. E. W. Bradford for respondent in No. 505.
No. 642. Willi am Spa ugh , Jr ., Appe llan t , v . H. L. Fitt s , She rif f , etc . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Argued for appellee and submitted for appellant April 23, 1907. Decided April 29, 1907. Per Curiam. Final order affirmed with costs. Valentina v. Mercer, 201 U. S. 131; Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 123; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 483; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101,105; Craemer v. Washington, 168 U. S. 124; Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782. Mr. Charles F. Wilson for appellant. Mr. Herbert S. Hadley and Mr. North T. Gentry for appellee.
No. 412. Whit e Star Minin g Company , Plai nti ff in Error , v . Nels 0. Hult berg et al .; No . 647. Claes W. Johns on , Plaintif f in Error , v . White Star Mining Com - pany of Illi no is et al .; and No. 648. Peter H. And ers on , Plaint iff in Erro r , v . White Star Minin g Comp any of Illino is et al . In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Motion to dismiss submitted April 22, 1907. Decided April 29, 1907. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180; San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 769; Delmas v. Insurance Company, 14 Wall. 661; Erie Railroad Company v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148; Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648. Case below, 220 Illinois, 578. Mr. Harris F. Williams, Mr. Frederick S. Winston, Mr. John Barton Payne and Mr. Silas H. Strawn in support of motion to dismiss. Mr. Charles H. Hamill and Mr. Carl R. Chindblom in opposition thereto.
Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari from February 27 to April 29, 1907.
No. 616. Willia m F. D. Taylor , Petit ioner , v . The Unit ed Stat es . March 4, 1907. Petition for a writ of cer p. 541tiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Lucius H. Beers and Mr. William G. Choate for petitioner.
No. 574. Robert S. Brigh t , Trus tee , Petit ione r , v . The Fif th Cong reg at ion al Church of Washingt on , D. C. March 4, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Heber J. May and Mr. 8. Herbert Giesy for petitioner. Mr. W. C. Sullivan for respondent.
No. 595. Alf red Kes sl er et al ., Pet iti oner s , v . The Ens ley Lan d Company et al . March 4, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. William A. Gunter and Mr. J. W. Baker for petitioners. Mr. John B. Knox for respondents.
No. 596. John Ste ph en s et al ., Peti tio ner s , v . A. E. Bras t et al . March 4, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. V. B. Archer for petitioners. Mr. R. E. Homor for respondents.
No. 600. St . Louis and San Franci sco Railr oad Com - pany , Pet ition er , v . John R. Mc Swean . March 4, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Theodore Mack and Mr. Thomas F. West for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 621. Will iam H. Wild er , Pet itione r , v . Atw el l J. Black ford . March 4, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari p. 542to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Charles H. Duell and Mr. C. E. Littlefield for petitioner. Mr. Philip Mauro for respondent.
No. 568. Cont ine nta l Pape r Bag Comp any , Pet itione r , v. Eas tern Paper Bag Comp any . March 11, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Mr. Albert H. Walker for petitioner. Mr. Samuel R. Betts and Mr. Francis T. Chambers for respondent.
No. 602. T. M. Angle , Petiti oner , v . The Unite d State s . March 11, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. George E. Hamilton for petitioner. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for respondent.
No. 624. Fred eric k W. Ward , Peti tion er , v . Joh n B. Hart , Trus te e , et al . March 11, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. V. B. Archer for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. • .
No. 632. Luig i Gand olf i et al ., Petitio ner s , v . Alf red o C. Siege rt , as surviving partner, etc. March 11, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Edmund Wetmore and Mr. John Brooks Leavitt for petitioners. Mr. Edward B. Whitney for respondent.
No. 620. Thom as J. Shea , Petiti oner , v . City of Mobi le . March 18, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Harry T. Smith and Mr. Gregory L. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Burwell B. Boone for respondent.
No. 627. Convent of St . Rose , Petit ione r , v . The Unite d States Sav ing s an d Loa n Comp any . March 18, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles W. Needham for petitioner. Mr. Corwin S. Shank for respondent.
No. 629. Louis W. Downe s , Petiti oner , v . The Tete r - Hean y Dev elo pm en t Company . March 18, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Philip Mauro and Mr. Reeve Lewis for petitioner. Mr. Henry E. Everding for respondent.
No. 640. Kentu cky Distil ler ies and Wareh ous e Com - pa ny , Petit ioner , v . J. I. Blan ton , Assi gnee , etc . March 18, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. William Marshall Bullitt, Mr. Alfred S. Austrian and Mr. Levy Mayer for petitioner. Mr. Helm Bruce for respondent.
No. 630. Morris Edels tein , Pet itione r , v . The United States . March 25, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth p. 544Circuit denied. Mr. William B. Matthews for petitioner. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for respondent.
No. 635. Sout hern Railw ay Company , Petiti one r , v . Hubb ard Brothe rs & Co. March 25, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. W. A. Henderson, Mr. Caruthers Ewing and Mr. Alfred P. Thom for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 636. W. Kel se y Kurtz , Peti tio ner , v . Arthu r K. Brow n , Surv ivin g Rec eiv er , etc . April 8, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Rudolph M. Schick for petitioner. Mr. Reynolds D. Brown, Mr. Malcolm Lloyd, Jr., and Mr. Charles H. Burr for respondent.
No. 646. Eliza beth J. Ward , Peti tio ner , v . Damp sk ibs - sels kab et Kjoeb enh av n . April 8, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Ap peals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Frank R. Savidge for petitioner. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. C. R. Hickox for
respondent.
No 663. Smok el ess Fuel Comp an y , Pet iti one r , v . Samue l H. Cott rell & Son . April 8, 1907. Petition for a writ oi certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appea s . or Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Alexander H. Sands for petitioner. Mr. Henry R. Pollard for respondents.
. No. 651. County of Pres idio , Tex ., Petitio ner , v . The Noel -Young Bon d an d Stoc k Comp any . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. T. J. Beall for petitioner. Mr. Millard Patterson for respondent.
No. 691. Stand ard Oil Compan y , Petitio ner , v . Edwar d Ande rso n . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Charles W. Fuller for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 603. The Clev ela nd -Clif fs Iron Company , Pet i-tioner , v. The East Itas ca Mining Comp any . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. William P. Belden and Mr. Horace Andrews for petitioner. Mr. J. L. Washburn for respondent.
No. 658. Sch oo l Distr ict No . 11, Dak ota County , Neb ., Petit ion er , v . Edwar d H. Chapman et al ., Admini st rat ors , etc . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Elbert H. Hubbard for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 659. Bay Pra irie Irrig ati on Comp an y , Petitio ner , v. Rich ar d Woo d et al . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for vol . cov—35 p. 546the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Hannis Taylor, Mr. A. L. Jackson and Mr. H. M. Garwood for petitioner. Mr. Richard Wood pro se.
No. 673. The Deut sch e Lev an te Linie , etc ., Pet itione r , v. J. Samuel Step hen so n et al .; No . 674. The Deu ts ch e Levant e Linie , et c ., Peti tio ner , v . Cons ta nt ine S. Gal - ano pu lo ; No. 675. The Deut sch e Leva nte Linie , etc ., Petitio ner , v . The Hil ls Brot her s Company ; No . 676. The Deuts che Leva nte Linie , etc ., Petitione r , v . The Na - tion al Board of Mari ne Underw riter s ; and No. 677. The Deut sch e Levant e Linie , etc ., Pet ition er , v . Willi am H. Har ris . April 15, 1907. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Harrington Putnam for petitioner. Mr. Lawrence Kneeland for respondents.
No. 689. Catha rine J. White , Execut rix , etc ., Pet i-tion er , v. The Penns ylvania Railr oad Comp any ; and No. 690. Cath arin e J. Whit e , Execut rix , etc ., Petitioner , v. The Stea m Ferr y Boa t Philad elp hia , etc . April 15, 1907. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. James J. Macklin and Mr. LaRoy S. Gove for petitioner. Mr. Henry Galbraith Ward for respondents.
No. 693. Robe rt T. Neill , Truste e , etc ., Petiti one r , v . The Union Nat ion al Ban k of Kans as City , Mo . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. p. 547Edwin C. Brandenburg for petitioner. Mr. Meriwether L. Crawford for respondent.
No. 694. Eucl id Park National Ban k of Clev ela nd , Ohio , et al ., Petit ione rs , v . Union Trus t and Depo sit Company , Trus te e . April 15, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles D. Merrick for petitioners. Mr. B. M. Ambler for respondent.
No. 679. Willia m Beatti e & Son , Pet iti oner , v . Unite d Shirt an d Collar Comp any et al . April 29, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. George A. Mosher and Mr. Frank S. Black for petitioner. Mr. Livingston Gifford and Mr. Hillary C. Messimer for respondents.
No. 705. Web st er Coal and Coke Compan y , Petitio ner , tf. A. J. Cass att et al ; and No. 706. Pen ns yl va ni a Coa l an d Coke Comp any , Petitio ner , v . A. J. Cas sa tt et al . April 29, 1907. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. John W. Griggs and Mr. George S. Graham for petitioners. Mr. John G. Johnson for respondents.
No. 708. New York Cent ral and Hud so n River Railroad Comp any , Petitio ner , v . Catherine Mc Grat h . April 29, 1907. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. J- H. McGowan for petitioner. Mr. Holmes Conrad for respondent.
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 205 U. S.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT FROM FEBRUARY 27 TO APRIL 29, 1907.
No. 628. Ed . Smith , Plaint iff in Erro r , v . The Stat e of Tennes see . In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. February 27, 1907. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Charles T. Cates, Jr., for the defendant in error. No one opposing.
No. 254. North Sho re Boo m and Drivi ng Comp any , Plain tif f in Error , v . Nicome n Boo m Compan y . In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. March 11, 1907. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. S. H. Piles for the plaintiff in error. Mr. S. H. Piles for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. W. Cotton for defendant in error.
No. 248. Andre w Patt ers on , Plain tif f in Err or , v . Isham Tay lor , Jail er , etc . In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. March 13, 1907. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. J. Douglas Wetmore and Mr. Isaac L. Purcell for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 354. Marg are t Saylo r , Appella nt , v . Joh n C. Frantz . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma. March 18, 1907. Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. Mr. S. H. Harris for appellant. Mr. Frank Dale and Mr. A. G. C. Bierer for appellee.
No. 268. Robe rt Manf ord , Pla int iff in Erro r , v . The Sta te of Minne so ta . In error to the Supreme Court of the p. 549205 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.
State of Minnesota. March 22, 1907. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Louis Marshall and Mr, Moritz Rosenthal for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 661. Abra ha m Ruef , Pla int iff in Error , v . Thom as F. O’Neil , Sher iff , etc . In error to the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. March 25, 1907. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. A. B. Browne for the plaintiff in error. Mr. A. B. Browne for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. Francis J. Heney for defendant in error.
No. 166. City of Chi cag o , Appel la nt , v . Chica go City Rail wa y Company . Appeal from the Circuit Court pf the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. April 8, 1907. Decree reversed with costs, on confession of error and consent of counsel, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law, on motion of Mr. John P. Wilson for the appellee. Mr. James Hamilton Lewis and Mr. Edgar Bronson Tolman for appellant. Mr. John P. Wilson and Mr. John J. Herrick for appellee.
No. 421. Luis Bravo et al ., etc ., Appe ll ant s , v . Emili o Gomez et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico. April 8, 1907. Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for the appellees. Mr. N. B. K. Pettingill for appellants. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for appellees.
No-. 73. Will iam S. Dex te r et al ., Trus tee s , etc ., Plai nti ff s in Erro r , v . Sale m D. Charl es et al ., as Board
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 205 U. S.
of Stre et Commiss ioners , etc . In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. April 8, 1907. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. A. R. Serven for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Thomas M. Babson fbr defendants in error.
No. 237. Bainbrid ge W. Burd ick , Appe llan t , v . Will iam Dill on et al . Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. April 8, 1907. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. Selden Bacon for appellant. Mr. H. V. Cunningham for appellees.
No. 678. The Texas and Pacif ic Railw ay Comp an y , Plaint iff in Error , v . Ben Small . In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. April 8, 1907. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. D. D. Duncan for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 100. The Unite d Stat es , Plain tif f in Erro r , v . The Torr ey Cedar Comp an y . In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. April 15, 1907. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Hoyt for the plaintiff in error. The Attorney General for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles Barber for defendant in error.
No. 1, Original. The Stat e of New Jer se y , Comp lainan t , v. The Sta te of Delaw ar e . April 15, 1907. Bill of complaint dismissed without costs and without prejudice, on motion of Mr. Robert H. McCarter for the complainant. Mr. Robert H. McCarter for complainant. Mr. Robert H. Richards and Mr. George H. Bates for defendant.
205 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.
No. 701. Ex parte: In th e Matt er of John Johnson , Appe llan t . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. April 17, 1907. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Mr. Alford W. Cooley in behalf of counsel. No one opposing.
No. 515. New Orle ans Great Nort her n Railroad Com - pany , Appe ll ant , v . The Missis sipp i Rail road Commi ss ion et al . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. April 22, 1907. Decree reversed at the cost of appellant on confession of error, and cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law, on motion of Mr. Marcellus Green for the appellant. Mr. Marcellus Green for appellant. Mr. R. V. Fletcher and Mr. C. H. Alexander for appellees.
No. 638. Mag gie Mye rs , Appe ll ant , v . Andr ew P. Wy - mor e , Late Sher iff , etc ., et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. April 22, 1907. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. James 8. Easby-Smith, Mr. W. E. Fowler and Mr. R. B. Ruff for appellant. Mr. Herbert 8. Hadley for appellees.
No. 290. Isaa c Berk son et al ., Appella nts , v . Samu el H. Marcus e , Test amen tar y Execut or , etc . Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. April 24, 1907. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Henry L. Lazarus for appellants. No appearance for appellees.
(no text on this page in the source reporter)
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 29, 1907.
PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS IN COMMEMORATION OF
J. HUBLEY ASHTON.
Hon. Henry M. Hoyt, Solicitor General: May it please the court, on behalf of the Bar Association of this District, and in the name of the Attorney General, I have the honor to present to the Court the resolutions adopted by the Bar Association in commemoration of the late Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, whose distinguished official and personal career at this bar is well known to the Court; and I beg to ask that the court will direct that an appropriate minute be made of those proceedings upon its record.
The Chief Justice: The Court recognizes that the long and eminent labors of Mr. Ashton, and particularly while connected with the Department of Justice, justify the Court in making this an exception to the general rule, and render it eminently proper that the request of the Bar Association be granted.
The resolutions, therefore, will be placed on the files of this Court.
The resolutions are as follows:
Wash ingto n , D. C. We hereby certify the following to be a true copy of the minute and resolutions adopted at a meeting of the Bar of the District of Columbia held on the twenty-ninth day of March, in the year 1907, in memory of the late J. Hubley Ashton.
A. B. Hagne r ,
Chairman.
Attest:
Perc ival M. Brow n ,
Secretary.
Minute and Res olut ions .
The Bar of the District of Columbia have met to give expression to their sorrow and to their sensibility of the loss occasioned to them and to the profession by the death of J. Hubley Ashton, and to pay a tribute to his eminent abilities and virtues.
Mr. Ashton was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States in December, 1864, and to this Bar in the month of October, 1869.
He was Assistant Attorney General of the United States from May, 1864, continuously, with the exception of a few months, until his resignation in April, 1869.
During that period he argued on behalf of the Government a great number of important causes, more than seventy in all, which originated in the events of the Civil War and in the execution of the laws and policy relating to reconstruction and which involved grave questions of constitutional and international law. Many of these cases as they are reported in volumes 2 to 8 of Wallace related to the law of prize, and his arguments therein greatly contributed to the establishment of the doctrines enunciated by the Court. He served under and was associated with Attorneys General Bates, Speed, Stanbery, Evarts and Hoar, and was several times appointed Acting Attorney General.
From the time he was admitted to this Bar to the day of his death his home was in Washington, and until recently he was actively engaged in the practice of his profession.
After he severed his connection with the Law Department, he was frequently employed by the Government in litigation involving great responsibility and in matters relating to international intercourse and obligation.
He seldom appeared in the local courts. His practice continued to be in the Supreme Court of the United States, and he was also the adviser of many corporations and had professional charge of important business interests.
Mr. Ashton’s long career made conspicuous his varied learning and professional knowledge of the fundamental principles p. 555of jurisprudence, his intellectual vigor, alertness and acumen, his power in legal controversy, and his capacity for persuasive and convincing argument and exposition. His briefs were made of exceptional value and usefulness by his habit of exhaustive research and preparation and his faculty for lucid statement and logical reasoning.
The conduct of his professional life, us was his conduct in all the relations of life, was in conformity with the highest and most ennobling standards of duty, of rectitude and of honor.
His character and the simplicity, refinement and kindliness of his nature secured and firmly held the confidence, the respect and the sincere friendship of the Bench and of the members of the Bar.
Therefore, be it—
Resolved, That we bear testimony to and hold in honor the rare attainments of our deceased brother, his fidelity to justice and to law, his great services to the profession and to the community, and the nobility and purity of the spirit in which he devoted his great abilities to the duties and labors of his profession.
Resolved, That the unalterable purpose evinced by Mr. Ashton from the beginning to the end of his laborious life to accept and fully meet the moral responsibilities and obligations that devolve upon the Bar, as well as upon the Bench, deserves our special recognition and a permanent record of our remembrance, in the desire that the influence of his example may be thereby preserved, strengthened and extended.
Resolved, That the president of the Bar Association be requested to present this memorial and these resolutions to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, with the request that they be entered on its minutes, and that a copy be communicated to the family of the deceased with the expression of the sincere svmpathy of the members of the Bar.