Chi., Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Com. Ass'n, 247 U.S. 490 (1918)
Case details
Citation
247 U.S. 490
Full caption
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. v. MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC AND COMMERCE ASSOCIATION.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 10, 1918
Majority
Clarke (Justice)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. v. MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC AND COMMERCE ASSOCIATION.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
No. 283. Argued May 1, 2, 1918.—Decided June 10, 1918.
Two railroad companies, between them owning all the stock and controlling completely the property and operations of a third company, which had legal title to terminal tracks, caused separate switching charges to be made in its name on traffic moved by them over those tracks, although for substantially the same service over terminals which each owned separately, neither made any charge in addition to its line-haul rates. A state commission, finding that the practice discriminated against shippers on the third company’s tracks, ordered that the separate charges be discontinued and that the tracks be operated as a part of the terminal properties of the other companies, in intrastate traffic. Held: (1) Upon examination of the findings and evidence, that the commission and the courts below were justified in holding the third company a mere agency or instrumentality of the other two; (2) that its technical corporate individuality and its technical ownership of the tracks in question did not entitle it to be treated as an independent carrier, and that the order did not deprive it or the other companies of property without compensation or due process of law; (3) that the order imposed no unlawful burden on interstate commerce.
134 Minnesota, 169, affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. James B. Sheean and Mr. 0. W. Dynes, with whom Mr. F. W. Root, Mr. William H. Norris and Mr. Edward M. Hyzer were on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Frank J. Morley, with whom Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, and p. 491Mr. Lyndon A. Smith were on the briefs, for defendant in error.
Mr . Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court.
We shall adopt the designation of the parties which is used in the record: the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company as the “Milwaukee Company;” the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company as the “Omaha Company;” the Minneapolis Eastern Railway Company as the “Eastern Company;” the Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association as the “Civic Association,” and the Railroad & Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota as the “Commission.”
This proceeding originated in a petition filed by the Civic Association with the Commission against the three railway corporations plaintiffs in error, in which it is alleged that the tracks of the Eastern Company are mere switching or terminal facilities, in the City of Minneapolis, of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, and that an unreasonable extra charge is made for the receipt and delivery of cars over them. The prayer is that the plaintiffs in error be required to treat the tracks of the Eastern Company as if they were a part of the terminal systems of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, and that they be required to publish and maintain fair and reasonable tariffs applicable to traffic moving over them.
A hearing upon this petition resulted in findings of fact by the Commission, among others: that the Eastern Company was then operating only one mile of main track and one mile and a half of yard track and sidings in the City of Minneapolis; that the Milwaukee and Omaha Companies each owned one-half of its capital stock and were in control of its operations; and that, assuming to be p. 492an independent railroad company, the Eastern Company had filed tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission and with the Minnesota Commission, pursuant to which it was charging and collecting, in addition to the line rate from point of origin, an extra charge of $1.50 per car for inbound loaded cars and ten cents per ton, with a minimum of $1.50 per car, for outbound loaded cars, moving over its tracks.
As conclusions of law the Commission found that the tracks of the Eastern Company were a part of the terminal property of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies; that it was the legal duty of these companies to deliver cars to and to receive them from industries on the tracks of the Eastern Company without charge other than that made for the line haul; and that the extra charge which the Eastern Company was making resulted in discrimination against inbound shippers of grain to industries located upon its tracks.
Upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law the Commission entered an order, requiring that the three companies cease charging $1.50 per car for inbound shipments over either the Milwaukee or Omaha lines which are delivered over the Eastern Company’s tracks to industries located upon them or to connecting carriers; that the Eastern Company cease from charging any sum for delivering carload shipments of freight moving from connecting carriers to the Milwaukee or Omaha companies, or moving from mills and elevators located on the Eastern Company’s tracks to the Milwaukee or Omaha companies; and that the Omaha and Milwaukee companies in the future shall operate the tracks of the Eastern Company as a part of the terminal property of each of them in the City of Minneapolis. The order is made applicable only to intrastate shipments of freight.
On appeal to a state district court the order of the Commission was affirmed and adopted as the order of the p. 493court, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirming this judgment is now before us for review.
The contention of the railway companies in this court is stated by them “to be reduced to the single proposition:” That the Supreme Court of Minnesota erred in affirming the judgment of the District Court in finding, as did the Commission, that “the tracks operated by the Eastern Company are important, convenient and necessary terminal facilities of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, and that these companies directly control and operate the Eastern Company;” and in adjudging, “that the Milwaukee and Omaha companies be required to operate the Eastern Company’s tracks as a part of their terminal property at Minneapolis, without making any extra charge for moving traffic over them.”
Review by this court is prayed for on the ground that to give effect to the judgment and order of the Minnesota court will deprive each of the three railroad companies of its property without compensation and without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and, earnestly insisting that the findings of fact upon which the judgment proceeds are without support in the evidence, the plaintiffs in error urge that it be determined from the entire record before us whether substantial evidence was introduced to sustain the denial of their claimed federal right. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560, 566; Jones National Bank v. Yates, 240 U. S. 541, 552.
Thus, the question presented for our decision is whether the Eastern Company, in form a corporate entity, separate and distinct from the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, is in reality an independent carrier, exercising an independent control over the railroad to which it holds the legal title and over the conduct of its business affairs, or whether it is a mere agency or instrumentality of the two corporations, which own all of its capital stock, p. 494through which they collect an extra charge from the public for rendering by indirection a service which as common carriers they are legally required to render without such charge under the conditions of operation which prevail at Minneapolis.
It is obvious that this is a mixed question of fact and of law, and from the findings of fact as made by the Commission and by the District Court, which differ only in unimportant details, and from evidence undisputed in the record, we derive the following statement, which we think embraces all that is essential to a decision of the case.
The Eastern Company is a Minnesota corporation, with an authorized capital stock of one million dollars, organized in 1878 for the declared purpose of building and operating a railroad from the City of Minneapolis to the City of St. Paul, with branches connecting with all railroads now built or hereafter to be built to or into said cities, and with branches to the mills and manufacturing establishments located therein.
The formal organization of the company was by a group of mill-owners, but before any right of way was acquired or construction work done the Milwaukee and Omaha companies came into exclusive control of the corporation and a board of directors satisfactory to them was elected, with the result that the only road which the company ever built or operated (omitting small fractions) was one mile of main track and one mile and a half of yard track and sidings in the City of Minneapolis. At the time of the trial the Eastern Company served several mills and warehouses and one elevator, it had no stations or freight depots, its only rolling stock was two engines, and the average number of its employees varied from twenty to thirty men. Its tracks are used for interchange by the Milwaukee and Omaha lines, but other companies use them for this purpose to such a limited extent, that the part of the Commission’s order relating to such use is p. 495CHICAGO. M. & ST. P. RY. v. MINN. CIVIC ASSN. 495
neglected in the evidence and arguments and in the decisions of the state courts.
Almost immediately after the organization of the Eastern Company, the three companies entered into a written contract, effective for over 39 years, until May 1, 1918, which is of much significance in determining the decisive fact in the case, as we have stated it.
This contract provides:
(1) That only 300 shares of the authorized 10,000 shares of capital stock of the Eastern Company shall be issued, and of these, 75 shares each must be issued to the Omaha and Milwaukee companies, 145 shares to a trustee for the Eastern Company, and the remaining 5 shares shall be issued as qualifying shares to directors. The 145 trust shares “ shall not be transferable except by the written consent of all (3) said parties hereto, and any transfer thereof without such consent shall be void and of no force or effect.”
(2) The Eastern Company shall execute in proper form 150 bonds of $1,000 each and a mortgage on all the property and franchises of the company to secure their payment. The Milwaukee and Omaha companies agree each to purchase, at 80% of their par value, one-half the amount of such of these bonds as it may be necessary to issue to pay for the right of way, construction and equipment of the railroad;
(3) That the Milwaukee and Omaha companies shall have “equal and the same rights in and to the said railway . . . in all respects; ” that they shall pay the same charge for switching their respective cars by said railway, and that no partiality or favor shall be shown to either;
(4) That the superintendent having charge of the operation of the railroad, shall be appointed “by the consent and mutual agreement of all the parties to these presents;”
(5) That the Eastern Company shall charge all parties one dollar for switching each loaded car, but a rebate of fifty per cent, of this charge shall be made to the Milwaukee and Omaha companies;
(6) If any other company having equal facilities with the Eastern Company for reaching mills in Minneapolis shall promptly and satisfactorily do the switching for the second and third parties (the Milwaukee and Omaha companies) then the Eastern Company with the written consent of the Omaha and Milwaukee companies, will do switching for such railroad companies over the said railroad of the Eastern Company on the same terms that switching is done for the said second and third parties (the Milwaukee and Omaha companies) over such other railroad but without rebate to any company.
It is quite true, as is argued, that some of the provisions of this contract have been departed from, and that others have been rendered unlawful and void by statutes enacted, and by decisions of courts rendered, since its date. But this does not lessen its evidential value in determining whether the interest of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies in the Eastern Company was that of mere stockholders in an independent public service corporation or whether they intended to and did exercise the power which they possessed as stockholders to immediately and directly control the property and the conduct of the business of the Eastern Company.
Whether because the Milwaukee and Omaha companies distrusted each other or for other cause, it is plain that this contract was designed to take away from the Board of Directors of the Eastern Company, the usual and lawful governing body of a corporation, the normal legal control of the company’s affairs in several most important respects. It deprived the Board of the power: to issue the capital stock of the company and to finance its affairs; to select a superintendent to operate the company’s two p. 497and one-half miles of track, by requiring that such selection be made only with the consent and mutual agreement of the three companies; to make mutual agreements for the interchange of business with any other company except with the mutual consent of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies; and it renders one-half (save five shares) of the stock which it permits to be issued, transferable only with the written consent of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies. Thus, the making of this contract was an obvious surrender by the Eastern Company of substantially all freedom of corporate action and an assumption of control over that company by the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, which converted it largely into a mere agency or instrumentality for doing their ^bidding.
That this preliminary program of control was carried forward to realization is abundantly shown by the record.
An accumulated surplus of $95,000 was distributed by the Eastern Company in the form of stock dividends in 1906, by dividing it equally between the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, and when the original seven per cent, loan of $150,000 was refunded into a four and one-half per cent, loan the new bonds were taken equally by the two companies. Thus the equal interest of the two owning companies and the financial dependence of the Eastern Company were maintained.
The management and control of all the operations of the Eastern Company has always been kept in charge of a “Managing Committee” of two members, one of whom for many years before the evidence was taken was the general manager of the' Omaha Company and the other the general superintendent of the Milwaukee Company. The Eastern Company did not pay either of these men any salary for their services.
The auditor of the Omaha Company has been the auditor of the Eastern Company, which paid no part of p. 498his salary, and the established practice has long been for the one bookkeeper of the Eastern Company to take his journal and ledger to the auditor of the Omaha Company monthly for verification.
Seven of the nine directors of the Eastern Company at the time the evidence was taken were officers either of the Milwaukee or Omaha company; the eighth, the attorney of the Eastern, had desk room in the Milwaukee Company’s legal department, of which he had recently been a member; and the ninth director, the president, was not an employee of either of the two owning companies.
With the facts thus summarized, it is difficult to conceive of a plan for the control of a jointly owned company and for the operation of a jointly owned track more complete than this one is and it is sheer sophistry to argue that, because it is technically a separate legal entity, the Eastern Company is an independent public carrier, free in the conduct of its business from the control of the two companies which own it and therefore free to impose separate carrying charges upon the public.
The record further shows that the Milwaukee and Omaha companies separately own many tracks in Minneapolis, on which large mills and elevators are located and that they render to such industries “ substantially the same service” as is required, in delivering and receiving cars to and from like industries on the Eastern Company’s track for which they make no charge whatever in addition to the line-haul rate. The general manager of the Omaha Company, who was one of the two members of the “Managing Committee” of the Eastern Company, testifies that the line-haul rate to Minneapolis on the Omaha fine “includes switching to any industry on its tracks” in that city regardless of the relative distance or expense of such delivery; that this rule prevails at all points on the Omaha line; that, generally p. 499speaking, this is the custom of all railroads, and that if the Eastern tracks were exclusively owned by the Omaha Company deliveries to and from industries located upon them would be made without any switching charge additional to the line-haul rate. The Milwaukee Company also delivers on tracks exclusively owned by it at Minneapolis, without charge additional to the line-haul rate.
The Eastern Company, assuming the character of an independent common carrier, pursuant to tariffs filed, collects the switching charge, which is objected to, of $1.50 per car on inbound loaded cars and a charge of ten cents per ton, with a minimum charge of $1.50 per car on outbound loaded cars, which move over its tracks, in addition to the line-haul rate. But the practice of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies, (with negligible exceptions) is to “absorb” this extra charge made against outbound cars, so that as both the Commission and the Court find, “from a practical standpoint shippers on inbound grain are the only persons who have to pay the charge” of the Eastern Company.
The Eastern Company does not issue bills of lading and does not make any collection from shippers, but charges its switching rate against the Omaha and Milwaukee companies, and it is paid by them from the line-haul rate on outbound traffic, and from the line-haul rate plus the switching charge, which they also collect, on inbound grain. Under such a system of doing business, the controversy in the case really relates only to the charge of the Eastern Company on inbound grain, for as to all other traffic the charge by the Eastern Company is simply a bookkeeping one which does not involve any extra switching charge to the shipper. Thus, the charge of the Eastern Company, when paid by the shipper in addition to the line-haul rate, is obviously a discrimination against industries located on the Eastern Company’s p. 500tracks when compared with those similarly situated on other industrial spur delivery tracks which are wholly owned by either company.
This discussion of the evidence in the case renders it very clear that the purpose of the Milwaukee and Omaha companies from the beginning was to construct and operate but one track to the group of industries to be served, instead of each building and maintaining its own track, and to construct and use that track in common so that each might have the benefit of it as fully as if it were the sole owner. To accomplish this end they resorted to the familiar device of incorporating the Eastern Company, and in order that their purpose might not be defeated in the future, by the design or business necessity of either company, the contract between them which we have discussed, was entered into to prevent the corporate organization of the Eastern Company and the control of its operations from being changed by either owning company without the consent of the other, and the evidence makes it very clear that all through its corporate life the Eastern organization has been consistently used as a mere agency of the two owning companies to accomplish their original purpose.
Much emphasis is laid upon statements made in various decisions of this court that ownership, alone, of capital stock in one corporation by another, does not create an identity of corporate interest between the two companies, or render the stockholding company the owner of the property of the other, or create the relation of principal and agent or representative between the two. Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 115 U. S. 587; Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 364, 391; United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 413; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney, 215 U. S. 98, 108; and United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 238 p. 501U. S. 516, 529, 530, and it is argued that since the order of the Commission requires that the tracks, the title to which is in the Eastern Company, be treated as the property of the stock owning companies, the effect of it, if enforced, will be to deprive the Eastern Company of its property without compensation and to render valueless its capital stock owned by the Milwaukee and Omaha companies.
While the statements of the law thus relied upon are satisfactory in the connection in which they were used, they have been plainly and repeatedly held not applicable where stock ownership has been resorted to, not for the purpose of participating in the affairs of a corporation in the normal and usual maimer, but for the purpose, as in this case, of controlling a subsidiary company so that it may be used as a mere agency or instrumentality of the owning company or companies. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 U. S. 257, 273, and United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 238 U. S. 516. In such a case the courts will not permit themselves to be blinded or deceived by mere forms or law but, regardless of fictions, will deal with the substance of the transaction involved as if the corporate agency did not exist and as the justice of the case may require.
Satisfied as we are by the evidence that the Eastern Company is a completely controlled‘agency of the two companies which own its capital stock, we agree with the Supreme Court of Minnesota that the fact that the legal title to what are obviously terminal or spur delivery tracks is in the Eastern Company should not be permitted to become the warrant for permitting a charge upon shippers greater than they would be required to-pay if that title were in the owning companies. The order of the Commission affirmed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, so far from being arbitrary, is plainly just, and clearly it does not deprive the plaintiffs in error of their p. 502property without compensation or without due process of law, by requiring, as it does, that for ratemaking purposes the Milwaukee and Omaha companies shall extend to shippers over their tracks the legal title to which is in the Eastern Company, equality of treatment with that which they give to shippers over their separately owned tracks, where similar service is rendered.
The claim that an unlawful burden is imposed upon interstate commerce by requiring that the one delivery track here involved shall be treated with respect to intrastate traffic precisely as many other similarly used and situated tracks have always been treated by the owning companies is too unsound to merit consideration.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is
Affirmed. p. 503247 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc.
DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM MAY 6, 1918, TO JUNE 10, 1918, NOT INCLUDING ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI.
No. 863. Luis Hulle r et al ., Plaintif fs in Error , v. State of New Mexico on the Relation of North - wes tern Colonizat ion & Impr ovem ent Comp any of Chihuahua . In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. Motion to dismiss submitted April 29, 1918. Decided May 6,1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Equitable Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308,311,314; Delmar Jockey Club v. Missouri, 210 U. S. 324; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599-600. (2) § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162. Mr. Walter D. Hawk, Mr. Samuel S. Holmes, Mr. A. B. Renehan, Mr. Charles A. Douglas and Mr. Jo V. Morgan for plaintiffs in error. Mr. James R. Garfield, Mr. D. J. Cable, Mr. Harry L. Patton and Mr. Francis C. Wilson for defendant in error.
No. 245. E. B. Howard , as Audi tor of the State of Oklahoma , et al ., Appe llants , v . Gips y Oil Com -
pany ;
No. 246. E. B. Howar d , as Audit or of the State of Oklahom a , et al ., Appellants , v . Indian Terr itory Illum inating Oil Company ;
No. 247. E. B. Howard , as Auditor of the State of Oklahom a , et al ., Appellants , v . Oklahoma Oil Company ; and
No. 248. E. B. Howard , as Auditor of the State of Oklahoma , et al ., Appe llants , v . Barnsda ll Oil Com -
Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 247 U. S.
pany . Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma. Argued March 26, 1918. Decided May 6, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgments affirmed with costs upon the authority of Choctaw & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522. Mr. R. E. Wood and Mr. S. P. Freeling, for appellants, submitted. Mr. James B. Diggs, Mr. Frederick de C. Faust, Mr. Charles F. Wilson, Mr. F. C. Proctor and Mr. D. E. Green for appellee in No. 245. Mr. John H. Burford, Mr. John H. Brennan, Mr. I. B. A. Robertson, Mr. Frank B. Burford and Mr. Burdette Blue for appellees in Nos. 246 and 248. No appearance for appellee in No. 247.
No. 813. Donald Step hens , Plaintif f in Error , v . United State s . In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 20, 1918. Decided June 3, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed upon the authority of Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366; Yanyar n . United States, 246 U. S. 649. Mr. Henry Budd for plaintiff in error. The Solicitor General for the United States.
No. 5. Atlantic , Gulf & Pacific Comp any , Appel - lant , v. United States ; and
No. 6. Unite d State s , Appellant , v . Atlantic , Gulf & Pacif ic Comp any . Appeals from the Court of Claims. Argued March 9, 10, 1916. Restored to docket for reargument November 13, 1916. Reargued January 23, 24, 1917. Decided June 3, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs by an equally divided court. p. 505(Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of these cases.) Mr. George A. King, Mr. William B. King and Mr. W. E. Harvey for Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Mr. P. M. Ashford for the United States.
No. ----- . Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of George 0. Kitzerow , Petit ioner . Submitted May 20, 1918. Decided June 3, 1918. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied. Mr. Frank T. Boesel for petitioner.
DECISIONS ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, FROM MAY 6,1918, TO JUNE 10,1918.
No. 957. W. Gordon Mc Cabe , Jr ., and William F. Gray , Petitioner s , v . Guaranty Trust Comp any of New York , as Substit uted Trus tee , etc ., et al . May 6,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. David Hunter Miller and Mr. Gordon Auchincloss for petitioners. Mr. Emanuel J. Myers and Mr.^ Gordon S. P. Kleeberg for respondents.
No. 924. Great Bear Spring Comp any , Petit ioner , v. Bear Lithia Spri ngs Company . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Edward S. Beach for petitioner. Mr. Fritz V. Briesen for respondent.
No. 925. Fulton Water Works Comp any , Peti - tioner , v. Bear Lithia Springs Comp any . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Edward S. Beach for petitioner. Mr. Fritz V. Briesen for respondent.
No. 938. James C. Chupc o et al ., Petitioner s , v . James A. Chapm an et al . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. Lewis C. Lawson and Mr. James C. Davis for petitioners. Mr. Harry H. Rogers for respondents.
No. 942. Isabella Garwood , Petition er , v . Jose ph Scheiber et al . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Frederick S. Tyler and Mr. Jeremiah F. Sullivan for petitioner. Mr. William B. Bosley for respondents.
No. 943. Gould Mines Comp any , Petit ioner , v . Bertha D. Baur , Admi nis trat rix , etc . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. John S. Miller, Mr. William C. Rigby and Mr. Benjamin F. Ninde for petitioner. Mr. Horace Kent Tenney and Mr. Roger Sherman for respondent.
No. 948. Fifth Nation al Bank of the City of New York , Petit ioner , v . John L. Lyttle , as Trust ee , etc . p. 507May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William C. Beecher and Mr. Richard Kelly for petitioner. Mr. Irving L. Ernst for respondent.
No. 951. Nation al Bank of Bakersf ield , Peti - tioner , v. William H. Moore , Jr ., as Trus tee , etc . May 6,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. William J. Hunsaker and Mr. E. W. Britt for petitioner. Mr. Lynn Helm for respondent.
No. 956. R. A. Graham , Petit ioner , v . J. D. Spreck - els & Brother s ’ Comp any . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Lindley M. Garrison and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for petitioner. Mr. P. F. Dunne for respondent.
No. 966. Vulcan Metals Company , Inc ., and Al - bert Freema n , Petit ioners , v . Simm ons Manuf actu r - ing Company . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Wilson B. Brice for petitioners. Mr. Clarke M. Rosencrantz and Mr. E. H. Sykes for respondent.
No. 972. Cherokee Oil & Gas Comp any , Peti tione r , v. Charl es L. Melton et al . May 6, 1918. Petition
Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 247 U. 8.
for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. C. B. Ames, Mr. Russell G. Lowe, Mr. W. P. Thompson and Mr. W. C. Franklin for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 974. W. J. Carrell , Petiti oner , v . United State s . May 6,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. William H. Atwell for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts for the United States.
No. 975. Jared Flagg , Peti tione r , v . Ells wort h E. Cook . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John M. Coleman for petitioner. “ Mr. Gilbert E. Roe for respondent.
No. 1000. Delaware , Lackawanna & West ern Railroa d Comp any , Peti tione r , v . Ignatz Petrowsk y , an Infant , etc . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. W. S. Jenney and Mr. Austin J. McMahon for petitioner. Mr. Baltrus S. Yankaus and Mr. Albert Massey for respondent.
No. 1002. Ex Parte: Cloyd H. Duncan , Petit ioner . May 6/1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the p. 509United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Cloyd H. Duncan pro se.
No. 1009. Chicago Bonding & Surety Company , Petit ioner , v . August a -Savan nah Navigatio n Com - pany . May 6, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Charles B. Stafford for petitioner. Mr. Harrison Musgrave amd Mr. William S. Oppenheim for respondent.
No. 988. Camp Bird , Limited , Peti tione r , v . Frank W. Howbe rt , as Collector of Internal Revenu e , etc . May 20, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Mr. William V. Hodges and Mr. George L. Nye for petitioner. No brief for respondent.
No. 976. William Schall , Jr ., et al ., Petit ioners , v. Frederick Camors et al ., Trust ees , etc . May 20, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. Ralph S. Rounds for petitioners. Mr. Monte M. Lemann for respondents.
No. 970. Julian H. Evrard , Claim ant , etc ., Peti - tioner , v. Eugene Higg ins . May 20, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court p. 510of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Charles Stewart Davison for petitioner. Mr. Selden Bacon for respondent.
No. 990. Chicago & Northwe ster n Railway Com - pany , Petition er , v . F. E. Curtice . May 20, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin denied. Mr. William G. Wheeler for petitioner. Mr. Joseph Martin for respondent.
No. 1007. Jose ph L. Lackn ey , Admi nis trat or , etc ., Petit ion er , v . John S. Mille r et al . May 20, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Charles H. Aldrich and Mr. Lawrence Maxwell for petitioner. Mr. George W. Manierre for respondents.
No. 1010. Minni e A. Rankin et al ., Petitioner s , v. Charles Frederick Graff et al . May 20, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. William J. Graham for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 985. Postal Tele graph -Cable Comp any , Peti - tione r , v. Warren -Godwin Lumber Comp any . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi granted. Mr. James N. Flowers for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 989. Harry Wronk ow Keatley , Peti tione r , v . Unite d States Trust Comp any et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. W. Bourke Cockran for petitioner. Mr. Edward W. Sheldon and Mr. Charles B. Fernald for respondents.
No. 1039. Union Pacifi c Coal Comp any , Peti - tione r , v. Mark A. Skinner . Collector of Internal Revenue , etc . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Mr. Henry W. Clark for petitioner. No brief for respondent.
No. 920. Ben J. Tillar , Petition er , v . Cole Motor Car Company . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. M. M. Crane for petitioner. Mr. Francis Marion Etheridge and Mr. Joseph Manson McCormick for respondent.
No. 973. Atlant ic Coast Line Railroad Comp any , Petit ion er , v . W. M. Steel e . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina denied. Mr. P. A. Willcox, Mr. F. D. McKenney and Mr. Henry E. Davis for petitioner. Mr. J. W. Ragsdale for respondent.
No. 986. Penns ylva nia Railro ad Company , Peti - tio ner , v. Minnie Rosenf eld . June 3, 1918. Petition p. 512for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph H. Hayes for petitioner. Mr. William J. Hughes for respondent.
i No. 991. B. S. Parker et al ., Petition ers , v . State of Arkans as ex rel . Mil ^s Thomp son . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas denied. Mr. Julian C. Wilson and Mr. Walter P. Armstrong for petitioners. Mr. Edward L. Westbrooke for respondent.
No. 1001. C. L. Wood , as Trustee , etc ., Petit ione r , v. Kirk Brothers et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Allan D. Cole for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1005. John A. Jess on et al ., Petit ioners , v . F. G. Noyes , as Receiver , etc . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. H. Metson for petitioners. Mr. Orion L. Rider for respondent.
No. 1006. R. C. Wood , Peti tione r , v . F. G. Noyes , as Receiver , etc . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. H. Metson for petitioner. Mr. Orion L. Rider for respondent.
OCTOBER TERM, 1917. - 513
247 U. 8. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.
No. 1013. Firs t National Bank of San Francis co et al ., Petitioner s , v . Detr oit Trust Comp any et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. 0. K. Cushing, Mr. Charles S. Cushing and Mr. Jackson H. Ralston for petitioners. Mr. W. Lair Thompson for respondents.
No. 1019. W. S. Raydure , Petit ioner , v . John W. Lindley et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Edward C. O'Rear for petitioner. Mr. A. R. Burnam, Jr., for respondents.
No. 1020. Thomas Tipton , Petit ioner , v . John W. Lindley et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Edward C. O'Rear for petitioner. Mr. A. R. Burnam, Jr., for respondents.
No. 1021. Equitab le Trust Company of New York , as Sole Trust ee , etc ., et al ., Petit ioners , v . Great Shoshone & Twi n Falls Water Power Company et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Oliver 0. Haga, Mr. James H. Richards and Mr. Henry H. Pierce for petitioners. Mr. T. A. Walters for respondents.
No. 1025. Sun Company , Petit ion er , v . D. W. Ryan Towboat Company et al , June 3, 1918. Petition for a p. 514writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John F. Lewis for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1027. D. W. Ryan Towboat Comp any , Inc ., Claim ant , etc ., Petit ion er , v . Bowers Southern Dredging Compa ny et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John Charles Harris for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1030. Corneli us O’Sullivan , Petit ioner , v . Unite d States . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. E. S. B. Sutton for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States.
No. 1031. Chicago House Wrecking Company , Petit ion er , v . West India Steams hip Comp any . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Henry B. Gayley for petitioner. Mr. Ralph James M. Bullowa and Mr. F. E. M. Bullowa for respondent.
No. 1034. Sun Company et al ., Petition ers , v . Vinton Petroleum Comp any . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court p. 515247 U.S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Alexander W. Smith and Mr. Victor Lamar Smith for petitioners. Mr. William D. Gordon and Mr. Arsene P. Pujo for respondent.
No. 1040. Ajax Rail Anchor Comp any , Petit ioner , v. The P. and M. Comp any . June 3,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas F. Sheridan, Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. Glen E. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Edward Rector for respondent. Mr. George S. Payson as amicus curiae.
No. 1041. Compagnie Generale Trans atla ntiq ue , Owner and Claimant , etc ., Petit ioner , v . A. J. and J. J. Mc Collum , Inc ., et al . June 3, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph P. Nolan for petitioner. Mr. Nelson Zabriskie for respondents.
No. 1042. Well s -Fargo & Company , Petit ioner , v . Oscar G. Taylor . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. Branch P. Kerfoot, Mr. E. 0. Sykes and Mr. Charles W. Stockton for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1061. Matthe w T. Chapman et al ., Peti ti oners , v. John A. Wintroat h . June 10, 1918. Petition for a p. 516‘516 OCTOBER TERM, 1917.
writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Mr. John L. Jackson, Mr. Albert H. Adams and Mr. A. V. Cushman for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1066. Souther n Pacif ic Company , Petition er , v. Industri al Accident Commis sio n of the State of Calif ornia et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California granted. Mr. William F. Herrin and Mr. Henley C. Booth for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1087. Charles A. Hitc hcoc k , Petit ion er , v . Alfred G. Scatter good et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. Horace L. Cheyney for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1095. International Paper Comp any , Peti - tioner , v. The Schooner 11 Graci e D. Chambers ,” her TACKLE, ETC., FLORENCE G. PAYNE, CLAIMANT. June 10, ♦1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. William C. Cannon for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1003. Butte & Superi or Coppe r Company , Limit ed , Petit ion er , v . Clark -Montan a Realty Com - pany et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of p. 517certior'ari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. H. Dickson, Mr. J. Bruce Kremer and Mr. William Scallon for petitioner. Mr. John P. Gray for respondents.
No. 514. Marcel Akali tis , Petition er , v . Phila - delphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Alvin Cushing Cass for petitioner. Mr. Pierre M. Brown for respondent.
No. 1008. Thomas Manufacturing Company , Pe - tit ioner , v. The Aeol ian Comp any . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Howard S. Smith for petitioner. Mr. James L. Norris for respondent.
No. 1026. Marga ret Corwi n Radclif fe Gooch , Petit ion er , v . Anni e Wayne Suhor et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Edward P. Buford, Mr. J. S. Flannery and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for petitioner. Mr. S. S. P. Patteson for respondents.
No. 1038. Wester n Union Telegraph Comp any , Petit ion er , v . Detroit , Toledo & Iront on Railroad p. 518Comp any . June 10,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan denied. Mr. John B. Corliss and Mr. Paul B. Moody for petitioner. Mr. Elliott G. Stevenson and Mr. William L. Carpenter for respondent.
No. 1033. American Tradin g Compa ny (Pacif ic Coast ), Petit ion er , v . North Alask a Salmon Com - pany . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel Knight for petitioner. Mr. Walter D. Mansfield for respondent.
No. 1049. E. Kirby -Smith , Petit ioner , v . John 0. Sheatz , Receiver , etc . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Fred H. Atwood and Mr. Henry J..Scott for petitioner. Mr. Owen J. Roberts for respondent.
No. 1050. Lee Mow Lin and Lee Bing , Petit ioners , v. Unit ed States . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Chester H. Krum for petitioners. The Solicitor General for the United States.
No. 1051. Southern Railw ay Company , Peti tione r , v. John C. Webb , Individually and for the use of Queen Insura nce Comp any and London & Lancashire p. 519Insurance Company . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John K.Graves for petitioner. Mr. Alex. C. King and Mr. A. M. Garber for respondent.
No. 1052. O. T. Peeples , Trustee , etc ., Petit ioner , v. Georgia Iron & Coal Company et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. 0. R. Hood and Mr. S. M. Chambliss for petitioner. Mr. Clifford L. Anderson and Mr. Alex. C. King for respondents.
No. 1059. Republ ic Rubber Company , Petiti oner , v. Cons olida ted Rubber Tire Compa ny et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. William H. Dyrenforth, Mr. George A. Chritton and Mr. Francis M. Phelps for petitioner. Mr. Charles W. Stapleton for respondents.
No. 1086. B. F. Goodrich Comp any , Peti tione r , v . Cons olida ted Rubber Tire Company et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Charles Neave and Mr. Samuel E. Hibben for petitioner. Mr. Charles W. Stapleton for respondents.
No. 1060. Ches ape ake & Ohio Railwa y Comp any of Indiana , Peti tione r , v . National Bank of Com - p. 520merce of Norfolk . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia denied. Mr. David H. Leake and Mr. Walter Leake for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1062. George T. Charlton and John L. Crone ,
Local Inspect ors , etc ., et al ., Petition ers , v . New York & Porto Rico Steam ship Company . June 10,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. The Solicitor General for petitioners. Mr. Roscoe H. Hupper for respondent.
No. 1064. Schram Glass Manuf actu rin g Comp any , ^Petit ioner , v . Homer Brooke Glas s Comp any . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. James Love Hopkins and Mr. George A. Chritton for petitioner. Mr. Charles Neave and Mr. William G. McKnight for respondent.
No. 1065. Frederick Krafft , Petit ion er , v . Unite d ■ States . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circhit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Walter Nelles for petitioner. No brief for the United States.
No. 1067. Dud Moore , Peti tione r , v . United States .
June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the p. 521United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. James C. Denton and Mr. Frank Lee for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Brown for the United States.
No. 1082. Alexan der Gladstone , ali as William Vines , Petit ioner , v . Unit ed State s . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Frederick S. Tyler and Mr. Benjamin L. McKinley for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States.
No. 1083. Dan A. Ward and W. A. Greenw ood , Petition ers , v . Thomas W. Morgan , Warden , etc . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Edwin A. Krauthoff for petitioners. No brief for the United States.
No. 1088. Coal & Coke Railway Company , Peti - tio ner , v. Oscar V. Ewi ng . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia denied. Mr. George E. Price and Mr. Buckner Clay for petitioner. Mr. Edward M. Surber for respondent.
No. 1090. Midland Linseed Products Company , Peti tione r , v . The Steam ship “Saturnus ,” her p. 522tackle , etc ., et al . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Herman S. Hertwig for petitioner. Mr. Chauncey I. Clark for respondents.
No. 1091. John W. Roberts , Petit ion er , v . Unite d States . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Frederick S. Tyler and Mr. Benjamin L. McKinley for petitioner. No brief for the United States.
No. 1094. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company , Petit ioner , v . Carmine Saccripante . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. Pierre M. Brown for petitioner. Mr. Samuel Seabury and Mr. W. M. Seabury for respondent.
No. 1096. Erie Railroad Comp any , Petit ion er , v . John Downs . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William C. Cannon for petitioner. Mr. Sydney A. Syme for respondent.
No. 1100. Unite d State s , Petit ioner , v . Georg e W. Heim . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. The Solicitor General for the United States. Mr. Matthew E. O’Brien for respondent.
247 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.
No. 1101. Logan Billin gs ley and Fred Bill ings - ley , Petitioner s , v . Unite d State s . June 10, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles A. Spirk for petitioners. No brief for the United States.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM MAY 6, 1918, TO JUNE 10, 1918.
No. 1022. Clinton H. Pierce , Angelo Creo , Charles Z. Zeilm an , and Charles Nelson , Plaintif fs in Error , v . Unite d States . In error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. May 6, 1918. Docketed and dismissed, on motion of The Solicitor General for the United States. No one opposing.
No. 175. Lucy 0. Ayres , Executr ix , etc ., Peti - tio ner , v. Benjami n F. Graham et al . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. May 20,1918. Dismissed for the want of prosecution. Mr. E. F. Thompson for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1054. William C. Sandberg , Plaintif f in Error , v. Unit ed State s ;
No. 1055. George E. Leuser , Plaintif f in Error , v. Unit ed States ;