Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923)
Case details
Citation
262 U.S. 700
Full caption
RINDGE COMPANY ET AL. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 11, 1923
RINDGE COMPANY ET AL. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 237. Argued April 26, 1923.—Decided June 11, 1923.
1
Whether a use for which private property is taken is public or piivate is a judicial question the determination of which is influenced by local conditions; and this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions, and regard with great respect the judgments of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses. P. 705.
2
It is not essential that the entire community, or even a considerable portion, should directly enjoy an improvement in order to constitute a public use. P. 706.
3
A taking of land for a highway extension is a taking for a public use, even though the extension lie wholly within the tract of a single landowner, and terminate at his boundaries and connect with no public road save at its beginning, if it be susceptible of present use not only by those gaining access from the highway but by persons living on or adjacent to the tract with access by private ways, and of future use by those living beyond its terminus, through future road construction. P. 706.
4
A highway may be legally laid out extending to a state or county line even though there be at the time no connecting highway in 1 After these judgments of affirmance petitions to have the cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of California were denied by that court.
the adjoining State or county, in reasonable anticipation of future connections and future public use. P. 707. 5. Public use of a road is not limited to its use as a mere business necessity or ordinary convenience, but includes its use as a scenic highway, for the public enjoyment, recreation and health. P. 707. 6. The necessity for appropriating private property for a public use is a legislative question which may be determined by a municipality to which the legislature has delegated the power; and the Fourteenth Amendment does not entitle the owner to a hearing before the determination is made. P. 708. 53 Cal. App. 166, affirmed.
Er r o r to judgments of the District Court of Appeal of California which affirmed judgments condemning private lands as county highways.
Mr. Edward Stafford and Mr. Nathan Newby, with whom Mr. W. H. Anderson, Mr. J. A. Anderson and Mr. Grant Jackson were on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Paul Vallee, with whom Mr. A. J. Hill was on the brief, for defendant in error.
Mr . Ju s t ic e Sa n f o r d delivered the opinion of the Court.
This record includes two cases which were tried together in the state courts and have been heard together here.
The writs of error are brought to review judgments of the District Court of Appeal affirming judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, condemning lands of the plaintiffs in error for use by the County as public highways; which they insist have deprived them of their property without due process of law and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1
The two fundamental questions involved are whether the uses for which these lands have been taken are public uses authorized by law; and whether the taking was necessary to such uses.
Section 1241 of the California Code of Civil Procedure includes “ highways ” among the “ public uses ” for which the right of eminent domain may be exercised. Section 1241, as amended in 1913, provides that before property can be taken it must appear that the use to which it is to be applied is one authorized by law and that the taking is necessary to such use; provided, inter alia, that when the legislative body of a county has, by resolution adopted by vote of two-thirds of its members, found and determined that the public interest and necessity require the construction by the county of any proposed public improvement located within its limits and that designated property is necessary therefor, such resolution shall be “ conclusive evidence ” of the public necessity for such improvement, that such property is necessary therefor, and that such improvement is located in the manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Stats. 1913, p. 549.
The plaintiffs in error are the owners of a large tract of land lying on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, known as the Malibu Ranch, extending in an easterly and westerly direction about twenty-two miles and varying in width from one-half mile to one and one-half miles. It lies at the base of a high and rugged mountain range which parallels the shore at a distance of from three to four miles, its northern line extending along the slope and foothills of this mountain range, and is traversed by many ridges and intervening canyons leading from the mountains toward the shore. It lies about ten miles west of Santa Monica, one of the principal cities of Los Angeles County, situated on the coast to the southwest of the City of Los Angeles, and is mainly in Los Angeles County, but extends p. 703about a mile and a half into Ventura County, the adjoining county on the west. It is traversed lengthwise by a private road of the ranch owners which was formerly used by farmers and settlers living north of the ranch on the - slope of the mountains and west of the ranch in Ventura County, but which has been for several years closed by the ranch owners to the public.2
In 1916 and 1917 the Board of Supervisors, the legislative body of Los Angeles County, without notice to the ranch owners, adopted, by the required vote, two resolutions declaring that the public interest and necessity required the construction of the two highways now in controversy “ for public highway purposes ” and that it was necessary for such “ public uses ” that the lands included therein be acquired by the county; and directing that condemnation proceedings be instituted for such purposes. One of these proposed highways, which is known in the record as the “ main road,” commences at the eastern boundary of the ranch, where it connects with and forms a continuation of a much traveled public county highway running along the shore of the ocean from Santa Monica, and extends lengthwise through the ranch in a westerly direction to the Ventura County line, where it terminates within the boundaries of the ranch. The other is a branch from this main road, extending to the northern boundary of the ranch, where it terminates. There are no connecting public roads either at the western termination of the main road or the northern termination of the branch road.
These condemnation proceedings were thereupon instituted in the Superior Court of the County. They were
2 There has been much litigation between the ranch owners and the county and federal authorities as to the public use of roads and ways across this ranch, in which, prior to these proceedings, the ranch owners have been successful.^ In this litigation are United States v. Rindge (D. C.), 208 Fed. 611, and People v. Rindge, 174 Cal, 743. p. 704vigorously resisted by the ranch owners, who denied the County’s right of condemnation. Certain special defenses which they interposed, alleging that the main road would furnish no way of necessity or convenience for public use or travel, were stricken out by the court. Upon a preliminary trial as to the right of condemnation, the trial judge, after the resolutions of the Board had been introduced in evidence by the County, ruled that while they were not conclusive evidence of the matters specified in the proviso to § 1241 of the Code, they were prima -facie evidence thereof. And the ranch owners then, without objection or limitation, introduced a large mass of evidence in support of all of their defenses, including the matters which had been alleged in the special defenses that had been stricken out; and a large mass of rebuttal evidence was then introduced by the County: the testimony on both sides relating to all the matters which had been or now are in issue in the cases.
The trial judge reviewed the evidence, and, manifestly without reference to any presumption arising under his ruling as to the prima facie evidence furnished by the resolutions, decided all the questions submitted in favor of the County: and made specific findings that the public interest and necessity required the acquisition of these public highways; that the use to which they were to be applied was authorized by law; that they would afford accommodation to the traveling public; and that they were located as required. Thereafter, the amount of landowners’ compensation and damages having been determined by a jury—as to which no question is made—judgments condemning these lands for public highways were entered.
On appeals taken by the ranch owners the District Court of Appeal held that the taking of the property for these highways was for a public use; that the proviso to § 1241 of the Code was not obnoxious to any provision of p. 705the State or Federal Constitutions, and under it the resolutions were conclusive evidence of the matters specified; that in any event the ranch owners had not been prejudiced by the rulings of the trial court as to the effect of this proviso as they had been permitted to introduce full and complete evidence on these subjects; and that they had not been prejudiced by the striking out of their special defenses not only because the resolutions were conclusive evidence that the taking was necessary, but also because every material issue tendered by these special defenses was otherwise raised by the pleadings and they had been permitted to offer evidence touching every matter contained therein; and it thereupon sustained the findings of the trial court and affirmed the judgments of condemnation. Los Angeles County v. Rindge Co., 53 Cal. App. 166.
The ranch owners urge here, in substance: That the use for which their property was taken was not a public use authorized by law, and their special defenses raising this question as to the main road were erroneously stricken out; that their property was taken without any public necessity, and, the proviso to § 1241 of the Code purporting to make the resolutions conclusive evidence thereof being in violation of the state constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment and constituting neither conclusive nor prima facie evidence, the burden of disproving this public necessity was erroneously cast upon them; and that in consequence the judgments of condemnation deprived them of their property in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1. Authorized public use. The nature of a use, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question. However, the determination of this question is influenced by local conditions; and this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in
51826°—23------45 p. 706view the diversity of such conditions and regard with great respect the judgments of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses in any State. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158, 160; Hairston v. Danville Railway, 208 U. S. 598, 606, 607. That a taking of property for a highway is a taking for public use has been universally recognized, from time immemorial. The California Code specifically declares “ highways ” to be “ public uses ” for which the right of eminent domain may be exercised. Here, the Board of Supervisors, familiar with local conditions, has declared these highways to be for public uses; and the local and appellate state courts have likewise held them to be for public uses authorized by law.
The ranch owners concede that a genuine highway, in fact adapted as a way of convenience or necessity for public use and travel, is a public use. Their real contention is that these particular roads, while called highways, are “ highways ” in name merely, that is, that they are shams under the name of public improvements, which cannot, in fact, furnish ways of convenience or necessity to the traveling public. This argument is based upon the fact that they extend through the ranch alone, the main road terminating within its boundaries, and connect with no other public roads at their western and northern ends. These roads will, however, be open to the general public to such extent as it can and may use them. The people to the eastward in Santa Monica, Los Angeles and other cities will have access to them and to the people living-on the ranch through the connecting road from Santa Monica. The people living on the ranch will have egress over them. The people living north of the terminus of the crossroad, who now have no adequate outlet, will have access to it through private roads and ways and may then travel over these two roads to Los Angeles and other cities for marketing produce and other purposes; and the p. 707people in these cities will have reciprocal access to them for purposes of trade and otherwise. It is not essential that the entire community, nor even any considerable portion, should directly enjoy or participate in any improvement in order to constitute a public use. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, supra, p. 161. In like manner, if Ventura County should hereafter extend the main road to the western end of the ranch the people living beyond it, who now have no practical outlet, would be furnished a similar means of egress, with reciprocal ingress to them by the people living in the cities to the east. A highway can be legally laid out terminating at a state line even though there be no connecting highway in the adjoining State and no definite official action has been taken to establish such connecting highway; otherwise great embarrassment and difficulty would be experienced in establishing highways across state lines. Rice v. Rindge, 53 N. H. 530, 531. So, as to county highways. Public road systems, it is manifest, must frequently be constructed in instalments, especially where adjoining counties are involved. In determining whether the taking of property is necessary for public use not only the present demands of the public, but those which may be fairly anticipated in the future, may be considered. Central Pacific Railway v. Feldman, 152 Cal. 303, 309.
But aside from these considerations, these roads, especially the main road, through its connection with the public road coming along the shore from Santa Monica, will afford a highway, for persons desiring to travel along the shore to the county line, with a view of the ocean on the one side, and of the mountain range on the other, constituting, as stated by the trial judge, a scenic highway of great beauty. Public uses are not limited, in the modern view, to matters of mere business necessity and ordinary convenience, but may extend to matters of public health, recreation and enjoyment. Thus, the p. 708condemnation of lands for public parks is now universally recognized as a taking for public use. Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 297. A road need not be for a purpose of business to create a public exigency; air, exercise and recreation are important to the general health and welfare; pleasure travel may be accommodated as well as business travel; and highways may be condemned to places of pleasing natural scenery. Higginson v. Nahant, 11 Allen (Mass.) 530, 536. The Riverside Drive in New York is as essentially a highway for public use as Broadway; the Speedway in this city, as Pennsylvania Avenue. And manifestly, in these days of general public travel in motor cars for health and recreation, such a highway as this, extending for more than twenty miles along the shores of the Pacific at the base of a range of mountains, must be regarded as a public use.
For these reasons we conclude that these highways will, as found by the trial judge, afford accommodation to the traveling public, and that the taking of land for them is a taking for a public use authorized by the laws of California.
The ranch owners were not prejudiced by the action of the trial court in striking out their special defenses in this behalf, since, under the general issues, they were entitled, as held by the District Court of Appeal, and were in fact permitted, to introduce all their evidence bearing upon this question.
2. Public necessity for the taking. We necessarily accept, as a matter of state law, the holding of the District Court of Appeal that the proviso to § 1241 of the Code made the resolutions of the Board of Supervisors conclusive evidence as to the necessity of taking these particular highways and the other matters therein specified. So construed it was held by that court not to be objectionable to any provision of the State or Federal Constitutions. By this we are controlled so far as the provisions p. 709of the state constitution are concerned. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, supra, p. loo; Georgia Railway v. Decatur, ante, 432. And so construed this statute is not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, either because it fails to provide for a hearing by the landowners before such resolution is adopted, or otherwise. The necessity for appropriating private property for public use is not a judicial question. This power resides in the legislature, and may either be exercised by the legislature or delegated by it to public officers. “ Where the intended use is public, the necessity and expediency of the taking may be determined by such agency and in such mode as the State may designate. They are legislative questions, no matter who may be charged with their decision, and a hearing thereon is not essential to due process in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U. S. 57, 58. “ That the necessity and expediency of taking property for public use is a legislative and not a judicial question is not open to discussion. . . . Neither is it any longer open to question in this Court that the legislature may confer upon a municipality the authority to determine such necessity for itself. . . . The question is purely political, does not require a hearing, and is not the subject of judicial inquiry.” Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, ante, 668. And, clearly, the fact that the resolutions are made conclusive evidence by the statute only when adopted by a two-thirds vote, and as applied to an improvement lying within the county, does not constitute an unjust or unreasonable classification.
And since the resolutions were conclusive evidence as to the necessity for the taking of these public highways, the ranch owners were not prejudiced by the ruling of the trial judge which treated them as prima facie evidence merely and allowed them full opportunity to introduce their evidence upon the subject. A litigant can
Syllabus. 262 U. S.
be heard to question the validity of a statute only when and in so far as it is applied to his disadvantage. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, 289.
We therefore conclude that the property of the ranch owners has been taken for highways constituting a public use authorized by law, and upon a public necessity for the taking duly established, and that they have not been deprived of their property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgments of the District Court of Appeal are accordingly
Affirmed.
Mr . Ju s t ic e Su t h e r l a n d took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MILHEIM ET AL. v. MOFFAT TUNNEL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ET AL.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
No. 791. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted February 20, 1923.—Decided June 11, 1923.
1
A federal question which requires analysis and exposition for its decision is not frivolous and withstands a motion to dismiss the writ of error. P. 716.
2
But a motion to affirm should be granted if the questions on which decision depends are so wanting in substance as not to need further argument. Rule 6, § 5. P. 717.
3
Determination of the judicial question whether a use is public or private is influenced by local conditions; and this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions and regard with great respect the judgments of the courts and the declaration of the legislature of a State as to what should be deemed a public use in the State. P. 717.
4
The construction and maintenance of a tunnel for railroad, telegraph and telephone lines, for the transmission of electric power, and the transportation of water and automobiles and other vehicles 1 The Governor, in his message to the special session of the legislature which passed this act, in stating the two matters for which he had called the session, said: “ Conditions have arisen which threaten the complete abandonment of a transportation line upon which several counties of the State depend, and your immediate action authorizing the issuance of bonds for the construction of a tunnel through the mountain range is necessary if the Moffat railroad is to be saved to the people of this State.”
710 Counsel for Parties.
(Colo. Laws, Ex. Sess., 1922, c. 2, p. 88), held a public use warranting the exercise of the state power of .taxation, through assessments levied on the private lands benefited by the improvement, to aid in defraying its cost. Pp. 717, 720.
5. A tunnel constructed and maintained by a State with the design of leasing it, at a' just rental based on the cost, to a railroad corporation, for operation in the service of the public as part of its line, and of thus promoting the efficiency of the railroad as an important common carrier and of preventing its abandonment, is a public improvement for public purposes. P. 718.
6. If a proposed improvement is one which a State has authority to make and pay for by assessments on property benefited, the legislature may determine by the statute imposing the tax what lands may be, and are in fact, benefited; and its determination is conclusive and cannot be assailed under the Fourteenth Amendment unless it is a flagrant abuse and so arbitrary as to amount to a mere confiscation of particular property. P. 721.
7. Where a Commission, authorized to appraise the benefits to be assessed on lands to meet the cost of a public tunnel improvement, adopted a tentative ad valorem basis, subject to modification and correction before confirmation, held, that landowners who did not see fit to avail themselves of their opportunity to object and be heard, could not attack the appraisals as arbitrary in a suit for an injunction. P. 722.
72 Colo. 268, affirmed.
Er r o r to a decree of the Supreme Court of Colorado, affirming a decree of the State District Court, which dismissed the complaint, after full hearing, in a suit brought by landowners to enjoin proceedings taken for the assessment of their property to defray costs of a public tunnel improvement.
Mr. Edwin H. Park for Milheim et al., plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Barnwell S. Stuart for White et ah, plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Norton Montgomery for defendants in error. Mr. Erskine Myer and Mr. David P. Howard were also on the briefs.
Mr . Ju s t ic e Sa n f o r d delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendants in error move to dismiss the writ of error or affirm the judgment.
This is a suit challenging the constitutionality of an act of the State of Colorado creating a tunnel improvement district (Sess. Laws, Ex. Sess., 1922, c. 2, p. 88), and the proceedings thereunder.
This act, which is known as the Moffat Tunnel Act, declares that to provide an avenue of communication by a transportation tunnel through the Continental Divide at or near James Peak will reduce the barrier to commercial intercourse between the eastern and western portions of the State, facilitate communication in all seasons, and promote the health, comfort, safety, convenience and welfare of the people of the State, and will be of especial benefit to the property in certain designated boundaries within which such tunnel is to be located. To that end it creates “ The Moffat Tunnel Improvement District,” a body corporate, comprising all of the territory thus designated, and being all or portions of nine counties east and west of the Divide, extending between and including the City and County of Denver on the east and Routt County in the northwestern corner of the State, a total distance of about two hundred and fifty miles. The District is to be managed by a Board, called the 11 Moffat- Tunnel Commission,” which is required to construct such a tunnel through the Divide, with its equipment and approaches, at about 9200 feet above sea level, in such manner that it may be used for standard gauge railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, the transmission of power, and the transportation of water, automobiles and other vehicles.
The Commission is authorized to issue District bonds to the amount of $6,720,000 to pay for the cost of the tunnel, expenses, and interest on the bonds during its construction; to maintain the tunnel; and to contract p. 713with persons and corporations for its use for the specified purposes, without monopoly by any use, person or corporation, until its capacity has been reached, at annual rentals apportioned to the respective values of the separate uses, and constituting a fair and just proportion of the total amount required to pay interest on the bonds, provide for their retirement and maintain the tunnel; prior users to be reimbursed by subsequent users in an equitable proportion of the amount previously paid for retirement of the bonds and interest.
The Commission is authorized to levy special assessments upon all real estate within the District—except governmental property which is exempted—for the purpose provided in the act, such special assessments to be made in proportion to the benefits to each piece of real estate accruing by reason of the improvements and in accordance with the rules of apportionment adopted by the Commission. It may at any time appraise the benefits which will result to such several parcels of real estate from the organization of the District and the construction of the tunnel, and, after such appraisal of benefits, levy special assessments, to the extent of such benefits upon all such real estate; and may for such purposes adopt rules providing, inter alia, for notice and hearing to all owners affected thereby. And if the revenues from the tunnel are not sufficient to pay interest due on the bonds in any year, provide for their retirement, pay expenses and maintain the tunnel, in order to prevent the occurrence of a deficit, the Commission is required to levy special assessments sufficient in amount, annually if necessary, upon all such real estate, in the manner provided.
It is expressly declared that the special benefits accruing to the assessable real estate within the District are in excess of the cost of the improvements and of the assessments provided for against such real estate.
In each year in which an assessment is made the Commission is required to appoint a time and place at which it will hear objections to the assessments, giving prior notice thereof by publication in two issues a week apart in a newspaper of general circulation published in each county. Any real estate owner claiming that his property has been assessed too highly, erroneously or illegally, may before such hearing file written objections to such assessment. At the hearing the Commission shall hear such evidence as may be offered concerning the correctness or legality of such assessments, and may modify or amend the same. Any property owner may appeal from the finding of the Commission as to such assessments to the district court of the county; but the court shall not disturb the findings of the Commission unless manifestly disproportionate to the assessments imposed upon other property in the District. The findings of the Commission if not appealed from, or the findings of the district court in case of an appeal, shall be final and conclusive evidence that such assessments have been made in proportion to the benefits conferred upon each tract of real estate by reason of the improvements, and constitute a lien thereon until paid.
The Commission, having been duly organized under the act, fixed the definite location of the tunnel, adopted preliminary plans for its construction in such manner as to provide for the various specified uses, estimated its cost, and resolved to issue District bonds in the authorized amount to pay for its construction. After making an investigation and examination of the real estate in the District, and taking the testimony of a great many witnesses from all parts of the District, engaged in various kinds of business, it determined the aggregate value of the real estate within the District subject to assessment to be $298,544,996—mainly in accordance with the assessed valuations for taxes—and further determined, p. 715subject to correction and confirmation after hearing the property owners affected, that the value of each parcel of such real estate would by reason of the organization of the District and the construction of the tunnel be increased at least to the extent of fifteen per cent. And it thereupon appraised the benefits to the several parcels of such real estate at such percentage of their value, as the basis of special assessments to be thereafter made under the provisions of the act. It also fixed a time and place at which it would hear objections filed by any property owner to the appraisal of benefits thus made, upon evidence and argument, before confirmation thereof, and gave public notice of such hearing by publication in the manner specified in the act. This notice recited the proceedings which the Commission had taken, including the appraisal of benefits which it had made as the basis for special assessments, and stated that any appraisal of benefits found upon such hearing to be incorrect or inequitable, would be modified or amended, and that, after making all proper corrections, the appraisals would be confirmed.
Thereupon, before the date set for such hearing, two of the plaintiffs in error, owning lands within the District, without filing with the Commission any objections to the appraisal of benefits, filed their complaint in a District Court of the State, in behalf of themselves and all similar landowners, against the Improvement District and the Tunnel Commission; alleging, inter alia, that the tunnel was not intended as a public highway for the use of the general public, but for the benefit of the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad, commonly known as the Moffat Road; that the benefits to their real estate and the other real estate in the District had been arbitrarily appraised and that no special benefits would accrue to their property or other property similarly situated; that the act and the proceedings taken and threatened by the Commission
Opinion of the Court. 262 U. S
thereunder violated various provisions of the state constitution and would deprive them of their property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and praying that the defendants be enjoined from proceeding with the enforcement of the act and that all the proceedings of the Commission be declared null and void. The defendants in their answers denied these allegations. The other plaintiffs in error, also owning lands within the District, who likewise had filed no objections with the Commission, subsequently intervened as plaintiffs in the action.
The case was heard by the District Court upon the pleadings and proof. The issues, both of fact and law, including those relating to the appraisal of benefits, were found for the defendants; and the complaint was accordingly dismissed.
Upon writ of error taken, the Supreme Court of Colorado sustained the District Court in all respects and affirmed its judgment. 72 Colo. 268.
The landowners urge here, as grounds of error, in substance, that the act and the proceedings taken and permitted thereunder violate the Fourteenth Amendment in that: (a) the purpose of the act is not public in the sense warranting the exercise of the power of taxation, but is essentially private; (b) the act authorizes the imposition of the entire taxes upon the lands within the District, without regard to their relation to the tunnel or the benefit to be derived from it, and, there being no special benefits to such lands justifying such taxation, such classification is entirely arbitrary; and (c) the Commission has arbitrarily and unreasonably adopted an ad valorem basis for the appraisal and apportionment of benefits to the several parcels of land within the District, without reference to the actual benefits to each.
The federal question presented, being one which requires analysis and exposition for its decision, is not friv-
✓
olous; and the motion to dismiss the writ of error is accordingly denied. Louisville Railroad v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 39.
The motion to affirm the judgment should, however, be granted if the questions on which the decision depends are found to be so wanting in substance as not to need further argument. Rule 6, § 5; Hodges v. Snyder, 261 LT. S. 600, and cases therein cited.
1. Public Purpose. The nature of a use, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question. However, the determination of this question is influenced by local conditions; and this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions and regard with great respect the judgments of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses in any State. Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, ante, 700, and cases therein cited. And like respect should be accorded to the declarations of the legislative body of the State. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 160. Here the legislature, familiar with the local conditions, has declared that the construction of the tunnel will benefit the people of the State; and both the local court of the State and its Supreme Court have held its construction to be for a public purpose.
It is urged by the landowners that the tunnel, considered as an isolated transportation unit, will serve no useful public purpose. This is obvious, but not to the point. It is intended to furnish an avenue or highway which shall be leased to public transportation agencies. A structure intended for such use is unquestionably a public improvement for a public use. Thus subway tunnels constructed by municipalities for lease to street railway and rapid transit lines for use as common carriers are public improvements for public purposes, for which the power of taxation may be exercised. Sun Printing Co. v. City of New York, 152 N. Y. 257, 265; Prince v. p. 718Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 361; Browne n . Turner, 176 Mass. 9, 12; Larsen v. San Francisco, 182 Cal. 1, 9. And see, by analogy, as to ship canals, Cook v. Port of Portland, 20 Oreg. 580.
They, however, contend that the tunnel must be deemed for a private, rather than for a public purpose, because it is located so as to be practically a part of the line of the Moffat Road, and is intended for its use, the real object of the act being, as expressed by the Governor, to save this railroad to the people of the State.1 There is virtually no denial of this; and evidently this was the motive which led to the passage of the act and is the primary purpose for which the tunnel is to be constructed. This, however, is not a private purpose. The use of the tunnel by the Moffat Road- will be for a beneficial public purpose. This railroad runs from Denver, on the east of the Continental Divide, to Routt County in the northwestern corner of the State, a distance of 255 miles. It crosses the Divide by a circuitous route above this tunnel, with steep grades and heavy curves. In the winter seasons this portion of its line is almost impassable. Its operations result in heavy losses, and it is now in an embarrassed financial condition and unable to build the tunnel. Without the use of the tunnel, the railroad must, it seems, be abandoned; and this avenue of communication between different portions of the State will be lost. The use of the tunnel will reduce the elevation, grades and curvature of the railroad, shorten its line about p. 71923 miles, and save it large amounts annually. Evidently the preservation of this railroad, a common carrier' of persons and property, as a means of communication between the eastern and northwestern portions of the State, is a matter of great public importance; and a tunnel enabling it to provide quicker and cheaper transportation during all seasons of the year will greatly promote the public welfare.
Even if this act specifically directed that the tunnel be leased to the Moffat Road for railroad purposes (a just rental based on the cost of constructing and maintaining the tunnel being provided), as the tunnel would be operated by the railroad as a public highway for the carriage of passengers and freight, it w'ould be a public improvement for a public use. The test of the public character of an improvement is the use to which it is to be put, not the person by whom it is to be operated. See Mt. Vemon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U. S. 30, 32. A subway tunnel constructed by a city under an act authorizing its construction for the specific purpose of being leased to a designated rapid transit company, is a lawful public improvement for a public use. Browne v. Turner, supra, pp. 12, 13. As a railroad is a highway for public use, although owned by a private corporation, a State may impose or authorize a tax in aid of its construction and in furtherance of such public use. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 695-696; Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 676, 678; Wisconsin Railroad v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 297; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U. S. 279, 292, 293. “Whether the use of a railroad is a public or a private one depends in no measure upon the question who constructed it or who owns it. . . . No matter who is the agent, the function performed is that of the State. Though the ownership is private the use is public. . . . If there be any purpose for which taxation would p. 720seem to be legitimate it is the making and maintenance of highways. They have always been governmental affairs, and it has ever been recognized as one of the most important duties of the State to provide and care for them. . . . When, therefore, it is settled that a railroad is a highway for public uses, there can be no substantial reason why the power of the State to tax may not be exerted in its behalf.” Olcott v. Supervisors, supra, pp. 695, 696. “ Though the corporation was private, its work was public, as much so as if it were to be constructed by the State.” Pine Grove v. Talcott, supra, p. 676. The use of a spur track is none the less public because it is located to reach a private industry whose proprietors contribute to the cost. Hairston v. Danville Railway, 208 U. S. 598, 608. So here, although this tunnel be designed for lease to the Moffat Road, it will be a highway for public uses, as much so as if it were operated by the State, and a public improvement for public purposes.
Furthermore, while the saving of the Moffat Road to the people of the State seems to have been the prime motive which induced the passage of the act, it specifically provides for the use of the tunnel by any and all railroads and other public utilities, to the extent of its capacity, each paying an annual rental apportioned to the respective values of the separate uses, and constituting a fair and just proportion of the total amount required to pay interest on the bonds, provide for their retirement and maintain the tunnel. And the evidence strongly indicates that the tunnel may and will be used, to like advantage, by the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, extending from Denver to Salt Lake City, with a great shortening and improvement of its line. It will also serve as a means of transporting water from the Fraser River on the west of the Divide to the City of Denver, for telegraph and telephone lines and the transmission of power; and for the transportation of automobiles and vehicles, p. 721which are now unable to cross the Divide during several months of the year. These are all public purposes of much importance.
We conclude that the purpose for which the tunnel is to be constructed is not private, but public, and such as warrants the exercise by the State of the power of taxation.
2. Classification as to special benefits. It is contended that no special benefits of a direct and immediate character will accrue from the tunnel to the lands lying within the District, as distinguished from the other lands in the State, and that hence the classification made by the act in providing for the assessments solely upon the lands within the District, is entirely unreasonable and arbitrary. It is well settled, however, that if a proposed improvement is one which the State has authority to make and pay for by assessments on property benefited,' the legislature in the exercise of the taxing power has authority to determine by the statute imposing the tax, what lands may be and are in fact benefited by the improvement; and if it does so, its determination is conclusive upon the owners and the courts and cannot be assailed under the Fourteenth Amendment unless it is wholly unwarranted and a flagrant abuse, and by reason of its arbitrary character is mere confiscation of the particular property. Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 356; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, supra, p. 174; Wagner v. Baltimore, 239 U. S. 207, 218, 220; Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254, 262, 265; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 182, 190.
The legislature not only provided for the assessment of the lands within the District, but specifically declared that the tunnel would be of especial benefit to such lands and that the special benefits accruing to them are in excess of the cost of the tunnel and of the assessments provided for against them.
51826°—23-----46
The District consists of the City and County of Denver on the east; a strip of land from six to eight miles in width extending through four counties on both sides of the Moffat Road to the crest of the Divide; and three entire counties and a portion of another county, which are traversed and reached by the Moffat Road and extend to the northwestern corner of the State. In short, the District includes the lands contiguous to the Moffat Road. The lands lying in the strip extending from Denver to the Divide are mainly agricultural lands; those lying to the west of the Divide, while largely devoted to stock raising, have valuable timber, and the two counties lying farthest to the northwest have valuable coal deposits. The testimony in the trial court fairly indicates that the lands within this District, on both sides of the Divide, including those owned by the plaintiffs in error, will, generally speaking, by reason of their proximity to tfie Moffat Road and the increased facilities of transportation across the Divide by which the western counties may be able to market their products to the east and the eastern counties obtain an outlet to the northwest, receive special benefits from the operation of the tunnel, of a reasonably direct and immediate character, resulting in increased value of the lands, in excess of those received by other lands in the State, and that the legislative classification is, on the whole, substantially just and reasonable.
The legislature declared that there will be such special benefits. The trial court, familiar with local conditions, after hearing evidence on this question, found that there would be such special benefits and sustained the legislative classification; and the Supreme Court of the State has affirmed its action. To the extent that there may be inequalities in the benefits received by the several parcels of land within the District, they are to be apportioned by the Commission in the manner provided by the act, with a right of appeal to the local courts for the correction of errors in such apportionments.
And certainly, under all the circumstances, and regarding the District as a whole, the evidence does not justify us in setting aside the conclusion reached by the trial court upon the weight of the evidence, or in characterizing the action of the legislature in creating this separate District upon which the assessments should be made, as arbitrary, capricious or confiscatory. The legislative determination and classification must, accordingly, be upheld.
3. Appraisal of benefits. It is contended that the Commission arbitrarily adopted an ad valorem basis of appraisal for the apportionment of benefits to the several parcels of land within the District, without reference to the actual benefits to each. This argument erroneously assumes that the Commission had finally adopted such an ad valorem basis for its appraisal. This is not the case. It had merely adopted a tentative ad valorem basis, subject to modification and corrections, before final confirmation, after the hearing of objections filed by landowners; of which public notice was given. These landowners did not seek to have the Commission modify or correct this tentative basis of apportionment or file any objections to the appraisal of benefits to their properties. Presumably if the tentative appraisal was made on an erroneous basis it would have been modified upon a proper showing. Having failed to object to the tentative ad valorem basis adopted by the Commission or to appear before it for the purpose of obtaining modifications or corrections as to their lands before the final adoption of such basis, they have here no sufficient ground of complaint. Where a city charter gives property owners an opportunity to be heard before a board respecting the justice and validity of local assessments for proposed public improvements and empowers the board to determine such complaints before the assessments are made, parties who do not avail themselves of such opportunity cannot be heard to com- p. 724IVA OCTOBER TERM, 1922.
Order. 262 U.S.
plain of such assessments as unconstitutional. Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U. S. 7, 11.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado was plainly right; and as the questions presented do not require further argument, the alternative motion of the defendants in error is granted, and the judgment is
Affirmed.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS.
UNITED STATES, INTERVENER.
No. 18, Original. Order entered June 11, 1923.
Order providing for release of certain lands from the receivership
herein, upon stated conditions.
On consideration of the motion of the LTnited States for a release from the existing receivership of the following described lands lying on the north side of the medial line of Red River, that is to say:
(1) Lot 4 of Section 34 in Township 4 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3385, Comanche, 1910, to Day Tah-Too-Ah-Ni-Pah;
(2) Lot 1 of Section 33 in Township 4 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3303, Kiowa, 1910, to Ray Do-Yah;
(3) Lot 6 of Section 5 in Township 5 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3293, Kiowa, 1910, to Maggie Turtle Mountain Reid; and
(4) Lot 5 of Section 5 and Lot 3 of Section 8 in Township 5 South of Range 14 West embraced in Allotment No. 3413, Comanche, 1910, to Robert To-Quothy,
It is ordered as to each of these tracts that the same, including so much of the bed of Red River as lies in front thereof and north of the medial line of the river, be released from the receivership, and the possession be sur- p. 725724 Order.
rendered by the receiver, upon fulfillment as to such tract of the following conditions, and not otherwise :
(a) The execution and presentation to the receiver of satisfactory agreements, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, establishing the side lines, from the surveyed upland on the north bank to such medial line, between such tract and the adjoining tracts on either side; and
(b) The payment to the receiver of such sum or balance as may at the time be owing to the receiver on account of oil wells (whether productive or otherwise) drilled or completed on such tract and within such side lines under the supervision or administration of the receiver,—such sum or balance to include all expenditures and advancements of the receiver, whether for materials, labor, receivership expenses or otherwise, in respect of such wells.
(no text on this page in the source reporter)
DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM APRIL 10, 1923,
TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 11, 1923, NOT INCLUDING ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI.
No. 805. Le h ig h & Hu d s o n Riv e r Ra il w a y Co m pa n y v. Fl o r e n c e M. Ot t e r s t e d t , o n b e h a l f o f h e r s e l f a n d m in o r c h il d r e n . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Third Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. April 16, 1923. Petition for a rehearing herein granted. Mr. John J. Beattie for petitioner. Mr. E. Clarence Aiken for respondent. [See 261 U. S. 619; also post, 747.]
No. 634. St e f a n o Sa n g u in e t t i v . Un it e d St a t e s . Appeal from the Court of Claims. Motion submitted April 9, 1923. Decided April 16, 1923. Motion to reinstate this case on the docket granted. Mr. Benjamin Carter for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States. [See 261 U. S. 626.]
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In t h e m a t t e r o f Ad o l ph Pa l e a is , pe t it io n e r . April 16, 1923. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied, without prejudice to an application to the District Court. Mr. Barnett E. Kopelman and Mr. Joseph G. M. Browne for petitioner.
No. 367. Vic t o r Ra y m o n d Ha m m a e r v . Un it e d St a t e s . Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. Submitted April 9, 1923. Decided April 16, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Zucht v. King, 260 U. S. 174. Mr. Will R. King and Mr. Paul Dormitzer for
Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 262 U. S.
plaintiff in error. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Crim and Mr. Clifford H. Byrnes for the United States.
No. 370. Ch a r l e s I. St a g e r v . Un it e d St a t e s . Appeal from the Court of Claims. Submitted April 9, 1923. Decided April 16, 1923. Per Curiam. Affirmed upon the authority of Nicholas v. United States, 257 U. S. 71. Mr. Edwin R. Wakefield for appellant. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Lovett for the United States.
No. 366. J. A. Ca m pb e l l v . St a t e o f No r t h Ca r o - l in a . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. Submitted April 10, 1923. Decided April 16, 1923. Per Curiam. Affirmed upon the authority of Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U. S. 403. Mr. Theodore P. Davidson and Mr. Louis M. Bourne for plaintiff in error. Mr. James S. Manning and Mr. Frank Nash for defendant in error.
No. 522. Ja y Bu r n s Ba k in g Co m pa n y e t a l . v. Sa m u e l R. Mc Ke l v ie , a s Go v e r n o r o f t h e St a t e o f Ne b r a s k a , e t a l . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. April 16, 1923. Per Curiam. Motion to substitute the new governor, Charles W. Bryan, for the ex-governor, Samuel R. McKelvie, and to substitute the new secretary of the department of agriculture, Grant Shumway, for the ex-secretary, Leo B. Stuhr, is granted on the ground that such substitution is authorized by § 8546, Comp. Stats. Neb. 1922, as construed and applied by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. Mr. Matthew A. Hall and Mr. Carrol S. Montgomery for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendants in error. [See 261 U. S. 608.]
No. 978. Ma g n u m Im po r t Co m pa n y , In c . v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y ;
No. 979. Ma x L. Co h n , t r a d in g a s Ma c l e n Im po r t Co m pa n y , v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y ;
No. 980. Ar t h u r Ba u m e t a l ., t r a d in g a s Be a u t e x Co m pa n y , v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y ;
No. 981. Ma g n u m Im po r t Co m pa n y , In c . v . Ho u b ig - a n t , In c .; and
No. 982. Iv o r y No v e l t ie s Tr a d in g Co m pa n y , In c . v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y . Argued on return to rule to show cause April 16, 17, 1923. Order entered April 17, 1923. On consideration of the petitions for suspending orders herein, and of the argument of counsel thereupon had, it is now here ordered by this Court that the said petitions be, and the name are hereby, denied. Mr. Charles H. Tuttle, with whom Mr. Isaac Reiss and Mr. William J. Hughes were on the briefs, for petitioners. Mr. Asher Blum, with whom Mr. Hugo Mock was on the briefs, for Coty. Mr. George S. Hornblower, with whom Mr. Lindley M. Garrison and Mr. Raoul E. Desvernine were on the brief, for Houbigant, Inc. [See ante, 159, post, 738.]
No. •—, Original. Ex parte: In t h e Ma t t e r o f Ta u - b e l -Sc o t t -Kit z m il l e r Co m pa n y , Pe t it io n e r . April 30, 1923. The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition herein is denied. Mr. Frank J. Hogan for petitioner.
No. 288. Jo e Bo n n e r v . J. C. Mid d l e b r o o k s , Sh e r if f o f Jo n e s Co u n t y , Ge o r g ia . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. Argued April 25, 1923. Decided April 30, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed with costs for want of jurisdic-
Decisions Pei' Curiam, Etc. 262 U. 8.
tion upon the authority of Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. Mr. John Randolph Cooper, with whom Mr. W. 0. Cooper, Jr., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. George M. Napier and Mr. Seward M. Smith, for appellee, submitted.
No. 880. Ch a r l e s Gl e n Co l l in s v . Vic t o r Lo is e l , Un it e d St a t e s Ma r s h a l f o r t h e Ea s t e r n Dis t r ic t o f Lo u is ia n a . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Argued May 4,1923. Decided May 4, 1923. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs, and mandate ordered to issue forthwith. Mr. J. Zach Spearing for appellant. Mr. Robert H. Marr appeared for appellee. [See ante, 426.]
No. 665. La u r a Ly o n v . Ch a r l e s B. Lo h m il l e r , a s Su pe r in t e n d e n t a n d Dis b u r s in g Ag e n t , e t c .^ Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted April 30,1923. Decided May 7,1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314; Consolidated Turnpike Co. n . Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. n . Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, 24. (2) Anchor Oil Co. v. Gray, 256 U. S. 519, 522; Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U. S. 319. Mr. Charles J. Kappler and Mr. Hiram Chase for appellant. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Riter and Mr. H. L. Underwood for appellee.
No. 96. Ta g g a r t s Pa pe r Co m pa n y v . St a t e o f Ne w Yo r k . Error to the Court of Claims of the State of New York. Argued April 26, 27, 1923. Decided May 7, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of New York Central R. R. Co. v. New York, 186 U. S. 269, 273; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 331; Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263. Mr. Adelbert Moot and Mrs. Helen Z. M. Rodgers, with whom Mr. William L. Marcy was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Irving I. Goldsmith, with whom Mr. Carl Sherman and Mr. Claude T. Dawes were on the brief, for defendant in error.
No. 556. Wil l ia m C. Ol a n d e r v . T. P. Ho l l o w e l l . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 7, 1923. Decided May 21, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. n . Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. Mr. Robert Healy for plaintiff in error. Mr. Maxwell A. O’Brien, Mr. B. J. Flick and Mr. Ben J. Gibson for defendant in error.
No. 409. Un io n St o c k Ya r d s Co m pa n y o f Om a h a , Lt d . v . Ma y h a l l & Ne ib l e , a c o pa r t n e r s h ip, e t a l ., e t c . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. Motion to dismiss submitted May 7, 1923. Decided May 21,1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6,1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton,
Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 262 U. 8.
252 U. S. 1, 5-6. Mr. Norris Brown and Mr. Irving F. Baxter for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. A. McLaughlin, Mr. Francis A. Brogan, Mr. Alfred G. Ellick, Mr. Anon Raymond, Mr. Bruce Scott and Mr. Byron Clark for defendants in error. [See post, 757.]
No. 629. A. N. Le e c r a f t v . Te x a s Co m pa n y . Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted April 30, 1923. Decided May 21, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 311; Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publishing Co., 237 U. 8. 618, 621; (2) Southern Ry. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400; American Smelting Co. v. Colorado, 204 U. 8. 103. Mr. George F. Short and Mr. C. W. King for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. B. Ames for defendant in error.
No. 919. Fir s t Na t io n a l Ba n k in St . Lo u is v . St a t e o f Mis s o u r i a t t h e in f o r m a t io n o f Je s s e W. Ba r r e t t , At t o r n e y Ge n e r a l . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Argued May 7, 1923. Order entered May 21, 1923. It is ordered that this cause be restored to the docket for reargument, at the next term, on the issue whether the State had authority to institute and maintain a proceeding to question compliance by a national bank with its charter. Mr. Frank H. Sullivan, with whom Mr. James C. Jones, Mr. Wm. J. Hughes and Mr. Lon O. Hocker were on the briefs, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Merrill E. Otis and Mr. Harold R. Small, with whom Mr. Jesse W. Barrett, Mr. Wm. T. Jones, Mr. Marion C. Early, Mr. Sam Jeffries and Mr. Edward J. Foristel were on the briefs, for defendant in error.
262 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc.
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In t h e m a t t e r o f He n r y Wo o d h o u s e , e t c ., pe t it io n e r . June 4, 1923. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus herein denied. Mr. Henry Woodhouse pro se.
No. 552. Gu a r a n t y Tit l e & Tr u s t Co r po r a t io n , Re - c e iv e r , e t c . v . Un it e d St a t e s . Appeal from the Court of Claims. Motion submitted May 21, 1923. Order entered June 4, 1923. Motion of Norfolk Hampton Roads Company for leave to intervene as a party appellee in this case granted. The appellant to give bond in the amount of $3,000, bond to run in the name of the United States for the benefit of the Norfolk Hampton Roads Company to secure the payment of costs of the appeal as well as interest on $33,000, constituting that part of the judgment recovered by the Norfolk Hampton Roads Company, payment of which has been withheld in consequence of the appeal. Mr. H. H. Rumble for Norfolk Hampton Roads Company. Mr. R. B. Tunstall, Mr. Edward R. F. Wells and Mr. Wm. Leigh Williams for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 574. Lio n Bo n d in g & Su r e t y Co m pa n y v . A. H. Ka r a t z ; and
No. 467. De pa r t m e n t o f Tr a d e & Co m m e r c e o f t h e St a t e o f Ne b r a s k a e t a l . v . A. J. He r t z e t a l ., a s Re - c e iv e r s o f Lio n Bo n d in g & Su r e t y Co m pa n y . Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion submitted May 21, 1923. Decided June 4, 1923. Motion to modify decree denied. Mr. Bruce W. Sanborn, Mr. William G. Graves, Mr. Samuel G. Ordway and Mr. William R. Kue^ner, for respondents, in support of the motion. Mr. Halleck F. Rose, Mr. 0. S. Spillman, Mr. John F. Stout, Mr. Arthur R. Wells, Mr. Paul L. Mar-
Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 262 U. S.
tin and Mr. Amos Thomas, for petitioners, in opposition to the motion. [See ante, pp. 77, 640.]
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In t h e m a t t e r o f Je s s e C. Ru m s e y , pe t it io n e r . June 4,1923. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus herein denied. Mr. Jesse C. Rumsey pro se.
No. 876. Ja m e s C. Da v is , a s Ag e n t , e t c . v . W. M. Sc r o g g in s . Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 7, 1923. Decided June 4, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 3 of the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, 727. Mr. Ras Young and Mr. George Thompson for plaintiff in error. Mr. Cone Johnson, Mr. James IT. Edwards and Mr. Fred V. Hughes for defendant in error.
No. —, Original. Un it e d St a t e s v . St a t e o f Ok l a - h o m a . June 11, 1923. Motion for leave to file bill of complaint- herein denied. The Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat for the United States.
No. —. W. J. Bl a ir v . F. Ro r e r ’s Ad m in is t r a t o r e t a l . June 11, 1923. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of error herein to th? Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia denied. Mr. Aubrey E. Strode for plaintiff in error.
No. 274. Wil l ia m Ra n d a l l e t a l . v . Bo a r d o f Co m - m is s io n e r s o f Tippe c a n o e Co u n t y , In d ia n a . Error to p. 735the Supreme Court of Indiana. Motion submitted June 4, 1923. Decided June 11, 1923. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of error to the Appellate Court of the State of Indiana denied. Mr. Otto Gresham for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Clyde H. Jones and Mr. D. P. Flanagan for defendant in error. [See 261 U. S. 252.]
No. 498. Ja m e s K. Co c h r a n a n d Ha r r is Ko b e y v . Co u l t o n M. Be c k e r . Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion submitted June 4, 1923. Decided June 11, 1923. Motion to rescind judgment and for stay of mandate herein denied. Mr. Harris Kobey pro se. Mr. Oliver J. Miller for defendant in error. [See 261 U. S. 607.]
No. 640. Un it e d St a t e s e x r e l , Ca t o n i Tis i, a l ia s Lis t a Co r t in a , v . Ro b e r t E. To d , Co m m is s io n e r o f Im - m ig r a t io n a t t h e Po r t o f Ne w Yo r k . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Motion submitted June 4, 1923. Decided June 11, 1923.w Motion to reinstate this case on the docket granted. Mr. Isaac Shorr and Mr. Walter Nelles for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee. [See 261 U. S. 626.]
No. 87. Mc La n e Til t o n v . Fe l ix M. Dr e n n e n , a s Re c e iv e r , e t c . Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Stipulation submitted June 4, 1923. Order entered June 11, 1923. On consideration of the stipulation to reinstate this cause on the docket and reverse on confession of error, it is now here ordered that said cause be reinstated on the docket; and that the decree be reversed upon such confession of error. Mr. Forney Johnston for appellant. Mr. H. L. Stevens and Mr. Joseph E. Johnson for appellee. [See 261 U. S. 624.]
Certiorari Granted. 262 U. 8.
No. 656. Eig h t h Av e n u e Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y v . Jo b E. He d g e s , a s Re c e iv e r o f t h e Ne w Yo r k Ra il w a y s Co m pa n y ; and
No. 657. Nin t h Av e n u e Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y v . Jo b E. He d g e s , a s Re c e iv e r o f t h e Ne w Yo r k Ra il w a y s Co m - pa n y . Appeals from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted June 4, 1923. Decided June 11, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 568; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439, 444; Begg v. City of New York, ante, 196. Mr. Michel Kirkland and Mr. Morgan J. O’Brien for appellants. Mr. Walter Howe and Mr. Bronson Winthrop for appellee.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED, FROM APRIL 10, 1923, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 11, 1923.
No. 924. Th o m a s Ha m m e r s c h mid t e t a l . v . Un it e d St a t e s . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. Joseph W. Sharts for petitioners. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Crim and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 935. Ha r r y H. We is s , Co l l e c t o r o f In t e r n a l Re v e n u e , v . Lo u is St e a r n . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. John C. Hayes for petitioner. Mr. Charles P. Hine for respondent.
262 U. 8. Certiorari Granted.
- No. 936. Ha r r y H. We is s , Co l l e c t o r o f In t e r n a l Re v e n g e , v . Jo h n G. Wh it e . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. John C. Hayes for petitioner. Mr. John G. White, Mr. A. V. Cannon and Mr. W. H. Annat for respondent.
No. 953. At c h is o n , To pe k a & Sa n t a Fe Ra il w a y Co m pa n y v . 0. J. Nic h o l s . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Edgar W. Camp, Mr. Robert 0. Brennan, Air. Gardiner Lathrop and Mr. Paul Burks for petitioner. Mr. Lyndol L. Young for respondent.
No. 984. Ra il r o a d Co m m is s io n o f t h e St a t e o f Ca l if o r n ia v . So u t h e r n Pa c if ic Co m pa n y e t a l ;
No. 985. Ra il r o a d Co m m is s io n o f t h e St a t e o f Ca l if o r n ia v . At c h is o n , To pe k a & Sa n t a Fe Ra il w a y Co m pa n y ; and
No. 986. Ra il r o a d Co m m is s io n o f t h e St a t e o f Ca l if o r n ia v . Lo s An g e l e s & Sa l t La k e Ra il r o a d Co m - pa n y . April 23, 1923. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California granted. Mr. Hugh Gordon for petitioner. Mr. C. W. Durbrow, Mr. E. W. Camp, Mr. A. S. Halsted and Mr. Charles H. Bates for respondents.
No. 998. Ja c o b Go l d m a n , Re c e iv e r , v . Fr a n k M. Mc - Ke y , Tr u s t e e . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Air. Lewis F. Jacobson for petitioner. Mr. Frederick D. Silber and Mr. Clarence J. Silber for respondent.
51826°—23-----47
Certiorari Granted. 262 U. S.
No. 1003. Th o m a s Ag n e l l o e t a l . v . Un it e d St a t e s . April 30,1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals’ for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. George Gordon Battle for petitioners. Mr. Solicitor General Beck for the United States.
No. 974. Wil l ia m H. Ed w a r d s , Fo r m e r l y Co l l e c t o r o f In t e r n a l Re v e n u e , e t c . v . Jo s e ph Je r m a in Sl o c u m e t a l . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Solicitor General Beck for petitioner. Mr. Robert Thorne for respondents.
No. 978. Ma g n u m Im po r t Co m pa n y , In c . v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y ;
No. 979. Ma x L. Co h n , Tr a d in g a s Ma c l e n Im po r t Co m pa n y , v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y ;
No. 980. Ar t h u r Ba u m e t a l ., Tr a d in g a s Be a u t e x Co m pa n y , v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y ;
No. 981. Ma g n u m Im po r t Co m pa n y , In c . v . Ho u b ig - a n t , In c ., and
No. 982. Iv o r y No v e l t ie s Tr a d in g Co m pa n y , In c . v . Fr a n c o is Jo s e ph d e Spo t u r n o Co t y . May 7, 1923. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Charles H. Tuttle and Mr. William J. Hughes for petitioners. Mr. Hugo Mock, Mr. Asher Blum and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for respondents in Nos. 978, 979, 980 and 982. Mr. Lindley M. Garrison, Mr. George S. Hornblower, Mr. Raoul E. Desvernine and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for respondent in No. 981. [See ante, 159, 729.]
No. 994. Un it e d St a t e s v . Gu l f Re f in in g Co m pa n y . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the p. 739262 U- S. Certiorari Granted.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Mr. Solicitor General Beck for the United States. Mr. R. L. Batts and Mr. Frank M. Szoacker for respondent.
No. 915. Yo u n g Me n ’s Ch r is t ia n As s o c ia t io n o f Co l u m b u s , Oh io , e t a l . v . Or a Da v is e t a l . May 21, 1923. Petition for rehearing granted ; and petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio granted. Mr. Frank Davis, Jr., Mr. Henry A. Williams, Mr. Guy W. Mallon and Mr. James I. Boulger for petitioners. Mr. Arthur I. Vorys for respondents. [See post, 745.]
No. 1041. Louis B. Ma c k e n z ie v . A. En g e l h a r d & So n s Co m pa n y . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. William Marshall Bullitt for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1052. A. En g e l h a r d & So n s Co m pa n y v. Lo u is B. Ma c k e n z ie . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. R. A. McDowell for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1012. We s t e r n Un io n Te l e g r a ph Co m pa n y v . J. A. Cz iz e k . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Francis Raymond Stark and Mr. Beverly L. Hodghead for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Certiorari Granted. 262 U. S.
No. 1004. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Ag e n t , e t c . v . R. L. Co r n - w e l l . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana granted. Mr. I. Parker Veazey, Jr., and Mr. A. A. McLaughlin for petitioner. Mr. Edwin L. Norris and Mr. George E. Hurd for respondent.
No. 1008. Ch u n g Fo o k v . Ed w a r d Wh it e , a s Co m - m is s io n e r o f Im m ig r a t io n , e t c . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Air. George W. Hott for petitioner. Air. Solicitor General Beck, Air. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger and Air. Charles H. Weston for respondent.
No. 1018. Er ie Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y v . Ma r t in Kir k - e n d a l l . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial District, of the State of Ohio, granted. Air. Edward A. Eoote for petitioner. Air. E. P. Chamberlin for respondent.
No. 1031. Gr e a t No r t h e r n Ra il w a y Co m pa n y v . Ga l b r e a t h Ca t t l e Co m pa n y e t a l . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana granted. Air. I. Parker Veazey, Jr., and Mr. F. G. Dorety for petitioner. Air. E. E. Enterline and Mr. Samuel Herrick for respondents.
No. 1035. Mis s o u r i Pa c if ic Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y v . R. L. Ha n n a . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas granted. Mr. Edward J. White and Mr. Thomas B. Pryor for petitioner. No appearance for respondent, p. 741262 U. S. Certiorari Granted.
No. 1039. Cl a r e n c e D. Ke l l e r e t a l ., e t c . v . Ad a ms - Ca m pb e l l Co m pa n y , In c ., e t a l . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Charles E. Townsend for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1054. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Ag e n t , e t c . v . J. M. Cu r - r ie . June 11,1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina granted. Mr. Thomas IT. Davis and Mr. Douglas McKay for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1059. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Ag e n t , e t c . v . Jo h n O’Ha r a . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska granted. Mr. A. A. McLaughlin, Air. N. H. Loomis and Air. C. A. Alagau for petitioner. Mr. Benjamin S. Baker for respondent.
No. 1082. He r m a n G. Ge r d e s , a s Tr u s t e e in Ba n k - r u pt c y o f Ab r a h a m Lu s t g a r t e n , Ba n k r u pt , v . Ab r a - h a m Lu s t g a r t e n . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Moses Cohen for petitioner. Mr. Lawrence J. Bershad for respondent.
No. 1110. Pe o pl e o f t h e St a t e o f Ne w Yo r k v . Lo u is Je r s a w it , a s Tr u s t e e in Ba n k r u pt c y o f Aj a x Dr e s s Co m pa n y , In c . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Robert P. Beyer and Mr. C. T. Dawes for petitioner. Mr. Harry B. Singer for respondent.
No. 1113. Th o m a s A. De l a n e y v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Mr. Michael M. Doyle and Mr. Lawrence M. Fine for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI DENIED, FROM APRIL 10, 1923, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 11, 1923.
No. 883. Go s h o Co m pa n y , In c . v . So u t h e r n Pa c if ic Co m pa n y . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. R. W. Flournoy for petitioner. Mr. C. F. R. Ogilby and Mr. William F. Herrin for respondent.
No. 890. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Dir e c t o r Ge n e r a l o f Ra il - r o a d s , Ag e n t , v . Mic h a e l J. Ha n l o n . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania denied. Mr. Thomas Patterson for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 893. Vu l c a n it e Ro o f in g Co m pa n y , In c . v . Co m - m o n w e a l t h St e a m s h ip Co m pa n y , Lt d . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Oscar R. Houston, Mr. D. Roger Englar and Mr. Henry H. Little for petitioner. Mr. John M. Woolsey and Mr. Edward R. Baird, Jr., for respondent.
No. 894. Br o w n -Cr u m m e r Co m pa n y v . W. M. Ric e Co n s t r u c t io n Co m pa n y . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the p. 743Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Oscar O’Neill Touchstone for petitioner. Mr. Francis M. Etheridge, Mr. Joseph M. McCormick and Mr. Snowden M. Leftwich for respondent.
No. 905. Pu g e t So u n d Po w e r & Lig h t Co m pa n y v . Cit y o f Se a t t l e e t a l . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. James B. Howe for petitioner. Mr. Walter B. Beals and Mr. Robert H. Evans for respondents.
No. 908. M. Mc Gir k ’s So n s Co m pa n y v. Pe n n s y l - v a n ia Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y e t a l . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John Vance Hewitt for petitioner. Mr. Chauncey I. Clark for respondents.
No. 909. Ha r l e y -Da v id s o n Mo t o r Co m pa n y e t a l . v . Ec l ips e Ma c h in e Co m pa n y e t a l . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Melville Church, Mr. William S. Hodges and Mr. Edwin B. H. Tower, Jr., for petitioners. Mr. Charles L. Sturtevant and Mr. Archibald Cox for respondents.
No. 913. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Dir e c t o r Ge n e r a l o f Ra il - r o a d s , e t c . v. Ro b e r t B. Ca l d w e l l . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Mr. Homer Hall, Mr. A. A. McLaughlin and Mr. N. S. Brown for petitioner. Mr. John G. Parkinson for respondent.
No. 914. Or l a n d o Le e Cl e v e l a n d v . Ro b e r t Ma t - t in g l y , Ju d g e , e t c . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. T. Morris Wampler for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 929. Ce n t r a l Un io n Tr u s t Co m pa n y o f Ne w Yo r k v . Wil l ia m H. Ed w a r d s , a s Co l l e c t o r , e t c . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Qourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John M. Perry and Mr. Arthur H. Van Brunt for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
No. 965. Du n c a n Be a t o n v . Du l u t h , Win n ipe g & Pa c if ic Ra il w a y Co m pa n y . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota denied. Mr. Frederick M. Miner for petitioner. Mr. W. D. Bailey, Mr. Oscar Mitchell and Mr. A. C. Gillette for respondent.
No. 969. Cu n o II. Ru d o l ph e t a l ., Co m m is s io n e r s , e t c . v. Ch a r l e s E. Hu n t e t a l . April 16, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. F. H. Stephens, Mr. R. L. Williams and Mr. George P. Barse for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 873. T. J. Be l l v . Un it e d St a t e s . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Jed C. Adams p. 745and Mr. W. B. Harrell for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 896. Ja m e s C. Da v is , a s Ag e n t , e t c . v . Ch a r l e s IIa r e f o r d . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. A. W. Smith, Mr. Vincent AI. Miles, Mr. Thomas B. Pryor and Mr. A. A. McLaughlin, for plaintiff in error, in support of the petition. Mr. Robert A. Rowe, for defendant in error, in opposition to the petition.
No. 915. Yo u n g Me n ’s Ch r is t ia n As s o c ia t io n o f Co - l u m b u s , Oh io , e t a l . v . Or a Da v is e t a l . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio denied. Air. Frank Davis, Jr., Mr. Henry A. Williams, Mr. Guy W. Mallon and Air. James I. Boulger for petitioners. Mr. Arthur I. Vorys for respondents. [See ante, 739.]
No. 920. Ne w Yo r k Lif e In s u r a n c e Co m pa n y v . Ma - r io n C. Sl o c o m b . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Air. Louis II. Cooke for petitioner. Air. Arthur E. Griffin for respondent.
No. 921. Ne w Yo r k Lif e In s u r a n c e Co m pa n y v . Gr a c e G. Ru t h e r f o r d . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Air. Louis H. Cooke for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Certiorari Denied. 262 U.S.
No. 930. Lb Ve r k a M. Mc Nu l t y , b y C. N. Mc Nu l t y , HER NEXT FRIEND, V. At CHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA Fe Ra il w a y Co m pa n y . April 23,1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Henry E. Lutz for petitioner. Mr. Erank A. Kemp, Jr., and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop for respondent.
No. 937. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ge o r g e H. Cl a pp; No. 938. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ra l ph W. Ha r - b is o n ;
No. 939. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ma r y L. He n r y , Ex e c u t r ix , Et c .;
No. 940. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ge o r g e H. Ca l - v e r t ;
No. 941. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ha r r y S. Ca l - v e r t ;
No . 942. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ge o r g e H. Th e is s , Su r v iv in g Ex e c u t o r , e t c .;
No . 943. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . D. F. Co l l in g - w o o d ;
No. 944. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . E. W. Gw in n e r ; No. 945. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . R. B. Mo n t g o m - e r y ;
No. 946. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . Ge o r g e N. Gl a s s ; and
No. 947. Ro b e r t W. Hu n t e t a l . v . W. A. Ha r b is o n . April 23, 1923. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania denied. Mr. Horace G. Stone and Mr. Louis G. Richardson for petitioners. Mr. David A. Reed and Mr. George H. Calvert for respondents.
No. 949. Wa l k e r Gr a in Co m pa n y , Ba n k r u pt s , e t a l . v. Gr e g g Gr a in Co m pa n y e t a l . April 23, 1923. p. 747Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Bernard Titche for petitioners. Mr. Mark McMahon for respondents.
No. 971. Je a n e t t e L. Ma c Ke l v ie v . Mu t u a l Be n e f it Lif e In s u r a n c e Co m pa n y o f Ne w a r k , Ne w Je r s e y . April 23, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William Wallace, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Charles E. Hughes, Jr., for respondent.
No. 995. Ga l v e s t o n Ca u s e w a y Co n s t r u c t io n Co m - pa n y e t a l . v. Ga l v e s t o n , Ha r r is b u r g & Sa n An t o n io Ra il w a y Co m pa n y e t a l . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Per Curiam, April 30, 1923, amended June 4, 1923. The petition for certiorari in this case is denied. Mr. Presley K. Ewing, Mr. Wilmer 8. Hunt and Mr. Joseph A. McCullough for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 899. Ch a r l e s E. Al b u r y v . Be n j a m in E. Dy s o n , Un it e d St a t e s Ma r s h a l , e t c . April 30, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. 8. J. Barco and Mr. Harry Hawkins for petitioner. No brie[ filed for respondent.
No. 805. Le h ig h & Hu d s o n Riv e r Ra il w a y Co m pa n y v. Fl o r e n c e M. Ot t e r s t e d t , o n b e h a l f o f h e r s e l f a n d m in o r c h il d r e n . April 30, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Third Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. John J. Beattie for petitioner. Mr. E. Clarence Aiken for respondent. [See ante, 727.]
Certiorari Denied. 262 U. 8.
No. 922. Ik e Win d s o r v . Un it e d St a t e s . April 30, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. William Gordon for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
No. 959. Un it e d St a t e s Fid e l it y & Gu a r a n t y Co m - pa n y v. Ro b e r t S. Bl a k e , a Min o r , e t c .; and
No. 960. Un it e d St a t e s Fid e l it y & Gu a r a n t y Co m - pa n y v. Gr a c e Tw ig g s Bl a k e . April 30, 1923. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Maurice Mc-Micken and Mr. Joseph A. McCullough, for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 972. Ne w Yo r k , Ph il a d e l ph ia & No r f o l k Te l e - g r a ph Co m pa n y v . Jo h n I. Do l a n , Co l l e c t o r o f Ta x e s , e t c . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. April 30, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. William C. Fitts, Mr. Horace Greeley Eastburn and Mr. Overton Harris, for plaintiff in error, in support of the petition. Mr. Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., for defendant in error.
No. 975. I. T. S. Ru b b e r Co m pa n y v . Un it e d St a t e s Ru b b e r Co m pa n y . April 30, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Charles A. Brown for petitioner. Mr. Livingston Gifford and Mr. Charles S. Jones for respondent.
No. 990. Em a n u e l Bo o k b in d e r v. Un it e d St a t e s . April 30, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. p. 749262 IT. 8. Certiorari Denied.
Mr. A. Mitchell Palmer and Mr. Frank Davis, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 954. Fo u r -in -o n e Co a l Co m pa n y v . El i H. Br o w n . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Emile Steinfeld and Mr. D. A. Sachs, Jr., for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 961. To n y Pa n z ic h e t a l . v . Un it e d St a t e s . May 7,1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Frank P. Doherty for petitioners. No brief filed for the United States.
No. 968. C. W. Jo h n s o n , Tr u s t e e in Ba n k r u pt c y , e t c . v. Gr a in g e r & Co m pa n y . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. D. A. Sachs, Jr., and Mr. Emile Steinfeld for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 983. Mo e II. Ba r o n e t a l . v . Un it e d St a t e s . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Edmund H. Moore for petitioners. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 989. A. Ba l d in i v . Un it e d St a t e s . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mrs, Annette
Certiorari Denied. 262 U.S.
Abbot Adams for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 1002. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Dir e c t o r Ge n e r a l o f Ra il - r o a d s , e t c . v. El l e n A. Lo n g , Ad m in is t r a t r ix , e t c . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. Charles C. Paulding and Mr. Leroy B. Williams for petitioner. Mr. George H. Bond and Mr. A. Lee Olmsted for respondent.
No. 1009. Ge o r g e R. Br o a d w e l l v . Bo a r d o f Co u n t y Co m mis s io n e r s o f Br y a n Co u n t y , Ok l a h o m a . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. George P. Glaze for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1011. Sa m u e l Kr iv it e t a l . v . Un it e d St a t e s . May 7, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Louis Marshall for petitioners. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 1023. Ra y Le v in s o n v . Wil l ia m A. Gr e e n e , Tr u s t e e , e t c .; and
No. 1024. Ma n h a t t a n In v e s t m e n t Co m pa n y v . Wil - l ia m A. Gr e e n e , Tr u s t e e , e t c . May 7, 1923. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied. Mr. Walter B. Allen and Mr. Robert Ash for petitioners. Mr. Joseph W. Cox for respondent.
262 U. 8. Certiorari Denied.
No. 973. Cit y o f Lo s An g e l e s e t a l . v . Mo n o Po w e r Co m pa n y e t a l . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. B. Mathews for petitioners. Mr. Charles F. Potter for respondents.
No. 977. Fr e d e r ic k M. Dy e r e t a l . v . Co m m o n - w e a l t h o f Ma s s a c h u s e t t s . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts denied. Mr. Boyd B. Jones and Mr. Philip N. Jones for petitioners. Mr. Jay R. Benton and Mr. Henry C. Attwill for respondent.
No. 988. Th o s m il Ho l d in g Co r po r a t io n v . In t e r - s t a t e Co a l & Do c k Co m pa n y . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury for petitioner. Mr. F. K. Pendleton for respondent.
No. 1001. Mo r r is S. Ra c h m il v . Un it e d St a t e s . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. S. C. Sugarman for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
No. 1006. Im po r t e r s St e a m s h ip Co m pa n y , c l a im - a n t , e t c ., e t a l . v. Ho u s t o n Ma r in e En g in e e r in g Wo r k s e t a l . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. James B. Stubbs for petitioners. Mr. H. C. Hughes, Mr. Lewis R. Bryan and Mr. Sewell Myer for respondents.
No. 1010. Pe r k in s Gl u e Co m pa n y v . St a n d a r d Fu r - n it u r e Co m pa n y . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas Ewing and Mr. Gorham Crosby for petitioner. Mr. James A. Watson for respondent.
Nos. 1019 and 1020. Cl a u d e A. P. Tu r n e r v . Fl a t Sl a b Pa t e n t s Co m pa n y . May 21, 1923. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Frank A. Whiteley for petitioner. Mr. Amasa C. Paul and Mr. Edward Rector for respondent.
No. 1026. Gu s t a v e Po r g e s , o n Be h a l f o f Him s e l f a n d Ot h e r s , e t c . v . Ja m e s R. Sh e f f ie l d , Tr u s t e e , e t c .; and
No. 1027. Ba r o n Ed m o n d Ja m e s d e Ro t h s c h il d e t a l . v. Ja m e s R. Sh e f f ie l d , Tr u s t e e , e t c . May 21, 1923. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. A. B. Kerr, Mr. Henry G. Gray, Mr. Sol M. Stroock and Mr. George Zabriskie for petitioners. Mr. Alfred A. Cook and Mr. Harold Nathan for respondent.
No. 1028. Fr ie d l a n d e r Br o t h e r s , e t c ., e t a l . v . Cit y o f Mo u l t r ie e t a l . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia denied. Mr. I. J. Hojmayer and Mr. James R. Pottle for petitioners.' No appearance for respondents.
No. 1032. Et h e l Ja m e s v . Ja m e s C. Da v is , a s Ag e n t , e t c . May 21, 1923, Petition for a writ of certiorari to p. 753the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama denied. Mr. W. A. Denson for petitioner. Mr. S. R. Prince for respondent.
No. 1048. Bu r n s Br o s . v . St e a m Tu g In t e r s t a t e No . 1, He r En g in e s , e t c ., e t a l . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Mark Ash and Mr. Edward Ash for petitioner. Mr. George V. A. McCloskey for respondents.
No. 916. J. P. Hu g h e s v. Un it e d St a t e s Bo r a x Co m - pa n y . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and motion to waive Rule 37, denied. Mr. Albert E. Sherman for petitioner. Mr. James F. Peck and Mr. Woodson P. Houghton for respondent.
No. 1037. Gr a h a m , Ch is h o l m & Co m pa n y e t a l . v . Jo h n Fir t h . May 21, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied, because of failure to file the petition within the time prescribed by the statute. Mr. Ralph Wolf for petitioners. Mr. Bernard S. Barron for respondent.
No. 887. Br o m w e l l Br u s h & Wir e Go o d s Co m pa n y v. St a t e Bo a r d o f Ch a r it ie s & Co r r e c t io n s o f Ke n - t u c k y . Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. Harvey Myers, for plaintiff in error, in support of the petition. Mr. Thomas B. Mc-Gregor for defendant in error.
51826°—23---- 48
Certiorari Denied. 262 U.S.
No. 964. Al b e r t Eic k e l , Ba n k r u pt , v . A. Ro b in s o n , Tr u s t e e o f t h e Es t a t e o f Al b e r t Eic k e l , Ba n k r u pt . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas IF. Gregory for petitioner. Mr. George E. Shelley for respondent.
No. 1005. J. L. La n c a s t e r e t a l ., Re c e iv e r s , e t c . v . Be n E. Fit c h . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas denied. Mr. F. H. Prendergast for petitioners. Mr. Walter C. Clephane and Mr. J. Wilmer Latimer for respondent.
No. 1033. Lil l e y Bu il d in g & Lo a n Co m pa n y v . Ne w - t o n M. Mil l e r , a s Co l l e c t o r , e t c . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. John F. Wilson, Mr. Province M. Pogue and Mr. Oscar W. Newman for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck for respondent.
No. 1034. Ja c q u e s Ro u s s o v . Fir s t Na t io n a l Ba n k in De t r o it e t a l . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Joshua R. H. Potts for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1038. G. S. Sw a n s o n e t a l . v . Ja c k Sa r j a . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota denied. Mr. George Francis Williams, Mr. Henry C. Clark, Mr. G. S. Swanson and Mr. H. A. Swanson for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
262 U. S, Certiorari Denied.
No. 1040. Un it e d St a t e s v . Giu s e ppe Ga n c i. June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Crim and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States. Mr. M. Michael Edelstein for respondent.
No. 1043. Fa r m e r s Lo a n & Tr u s t Co m pa n y o f Ne w Yo r k v . Wil c o x Co u n t y , Ge o r g ia . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John R. F. Smith for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1046. Lo n d o n & La n c a s h ir e In d e m n it y Co m - pa n y o f Am e r ic a v . Bo a r d o f Co u n t y Co m m is s io n e r s o f Co l u m b ia n a Co u n t y , Oh io , e t a l .; and
No. 1047. Ae t n a Ca s u a l t y & Su r e t y Co m pa n y v . Bo a r d o f Co u n t y Co m m is s io n e r s o f Co l u m b ia n a Co u n t y , Oh io , e t a l . June 4, 1923. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio denied. Mr. Bert W. Gearhart and Mr. George T. Farrell for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1053. Go l d w y n Pic t u r e s Co r po r a t io n e t a l . v . Ho w e l l s Sa l e s Co m pa n y e t a l . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Charles E. Kelley and Mr. William J. Hughes for petitioners. Mr. Charles H. Tuttle for respondents.
No. 1056. Gr a c e Pe m b e r t o n v . Mo r r is Fe r t il iz e r Co m pa n y . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir-
Certiorari Denied. 262U.S.
cuit denied. Mr. A. H. King, Mr. George C. Bedell and Mr. Roswell King for petitioner, Mr. Peter 0. Knight, Mr. C. Fred Thompson and Mr. A. G. Turner for respondent.
No. 1062. Mo r s e Dr y Do c k & Re pa ir Co m pa n y v . Jo h n Da n ie l s o n , a n In f a n t , e t c . ;
No. 1063. Mo r s e Dr y Do c k & Re pa ir Co m pa n y v . Eil e n S. Wa r r e n , Ad m in is t r a t r ix , e t c .; and
No. 1064. Mo r s e Dr y Do c k & Re pa ir Co m pa n y v . Wil l ia m J. Co n n e l l y . June 4,1923. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. Charles J- McDermott for petitioner. Mr. Harold R. Medina for respondents.
No. 1065. Be n j a m in F. Zu c k e r v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel S. Koenig and Mr. Elijah N. Zoline for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker WiUebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 1071. Ed w a r d Fo x e t a l . v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Charles B. Stafford for petitioners. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mrs. Mabel Walker WiUebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 1075. Ru d o l ph Sc h l ie f e r v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Frank A. Harrigan for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
No. 1076. Ne w Yo r k Ce n t r a l Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y v . Fl o r e n c e M. Cu d d e b a c k , a s Ad m in is t r a t r ix , e t c . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. Daniel M. Beach for petitioner. Mr. Arthur E. Sutherland for respondent.
No. 1077. St . Lo u is So u t h w e s t e r n Ra il w a y Co m - pa n y o f Te x a s v . Jo h n Ho s e y . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas denied. Mr. J. Q. Mahaffey for petitioner. Mr. S. P. Jones for respondent.
No. 1045. T. R. Be n n e t t , Su pe r in t e n d e n t o f Ba n k s f o r t h e St a t e o f Ge o r g ia , v . Jo h n E. Sc h w a r z e t a l . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia denied for lack of a final decree. Mr. George M. Napier and Mr. Paul E. Seabrook for petitioner. Mr. H. Wiley Johnson for respondents.
No. 1060. Wil l is A. Mu r r a y v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 4, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied, and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case granted as to costs incurred. Mr. George S. Shinn and Mr. Harry S. Barger for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
No. 409. Un io n St o c k Ya r d s Co m pa n y o f Om a h a , Lt d . v . Ma y h a l l & Ne ib l e . a c o pa r t n e r s h ip, e t a l . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. Motion submitted June 4, 1923. Decided June 11, 1923. Motion to reinstate petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. Norris Brown and Mr. Irving F. Baxter for p. 758plaintiff in error. Mr. A. A. McLaughlin, Mr. Francis A. Brogan, Mr. Alfred G. Ellick, Mr. Anon Raymond, Mr. Bruce Scott and Mr. Byron Clark for defendants in error. [See ante, 731; and 260 U. S. 742.]
No. 967. A. J. Hil l e g a s s e t a l . v . Be r t h a Ro h m , Ad - m in is t r a t r ix , e t c . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania denied. Mr. A. J. Hillegass and Mr. Jo V. Morgan for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1066. Sim o n A. Mil l e r v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph H. Stewart for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
No. 1067. Na t io n a l Su r e t y Co m pa n y v . Ed w a r d H. Ch il d s , Tr u s t e e in Ba n k r u pt c y o f J. Me n is t Co m - pa n y , In c . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Air. William J. Griffin, Mr. George Pfeil and Mr. Frank AI. White for petitioner. Mr. Aloses Cohen for respondent.
No. 1069. Wil l ia m B. Mo s e s v . La l im e & Pa r t r id g e , In c ., e t a l . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Frederic P. Warfield for petitioner. Air. Marcus B. May for respondents.
No. 1078. Su n r is e Pic t u r e s Co r po r a t io n v . Is a a c Sil v e r ma n . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of p. 759certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied-. Mr. J. Joseph Lilly for petitioner. Mr. Joseph B. Kaufman for respondent.
No. 1079. Fe d e r a l Tr a d e Co m m is s io n v . Me n n e n Co m pa n y . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Mr. W. H. Fuller and Mr. Adrien F. Busick for petitioner. Mr. Gilbert H. Montague for respondent.
Nos. 1085 to 1089. Un it e d St a t e s , Ow n e r , e t c . v . Mo r r is E. He n d e r s o n e t a l ., Tr a d in g a s Ph o e n ix Pa in t & Va r n is h Co m pa n y . June 11, 1923. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Alfred A. Wheat and Mr. F. R. Conway for the United States. Mr. Otto Wolff, Jr., for respondents.
No. 1093. Sa n d u s k y Ce m e n t Co m pa n y v . A. R. Ha m - il t o n & Co m pa n y . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Alton C. Dustin and Mr. C. M. Horn for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1094. Ma r y E. Mc Ca m pb e l l v . Ne w Yo r k Lif e In s u r a n c e Co m pa n y . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Hal Browne and Mr. Henry P. Burney for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 1098. Lo c o mo t iv e St o k e r Co m pa n y v . El v in Me c h a n ic a l St o k e r Co m pa n y . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Ap-
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 262 U. S.
peals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, Mr. Louis K. Gillson and Mr. Paul Synnestvedt for petitioner. Mr. J. Snowden Bell, Mr. Drury W. Cooper and Mr. Frederick P. Whittaker for respondent.
No. 1101. Jo s e Ta y a ’s So n s Co m pa n y , Cl a im a n t o f t h e St e a m s h ip As u a r c a , e t c . v . Je a n B. M. Du c h e e t a l . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John M. Woolsey and Mr. Robert S. Erskine for petitioner. Mr. D. Roger Englar and Mr. T. Catesby Jones for respondents.
No. 1105. Un it e d St a t e s e x r e l . Jo s e ph Fe l d , b y NEXT FRIEND, SAMUEL Fe LD, V. ROBERT L. BULLARD, MAJOR Ge n e r a l , Un it e d St a t e s Ar m y . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. B. B. Pettus and Mr. E. F. Colladay for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General Beck for respondent.
No. 1112. Me r l B. In k s v . Un it e d St a t e s . June 11, 1923. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Charles P. R. McCaulay for petitioner. No brief filed for the United States.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM APRIL 10, 1923, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 11, 1923.
No. 456. Eu g e n e Sc h a e f e r e t a l ., Tr u s t e e s , e t c . v . Th o m a s W. Mil l e r , a s Al ie n Pr o pe r t y Cu s t o d ia n o f t h e Un it e d St a t e s .' Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. April 16, 1923. Dis- p. 761262 U. 8. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court,
missed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellants. Mr. Swagar Sherley for appellants. The Attorney General for appellee.
No. 384. So u t h e r n Be l l Te l e ph o n e & Te l e g r a ph Co m pa n y v . Ra il r o a d Co m m is s io n o f Ge o r g ia e t a l . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. April 18, 1923. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. Sanders McDaniel for appellant. Mr. J. Prince Webster for appellees.
No. 293. Ra t o n Wa t e r Wo r k s Co m pa n y v . Cit y o f Ra t o n . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Mexico. April 23, 1923. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. Abram J. Rose for appellant. No appearance for appellee. [See 261 U. S. 627.]
No. 226. Fr e d W. Sc h u t z e t a l . v . Ju s t u s S. Wa r d e l l , U. S. Co l l e c t o r , e t c . Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. April 30, 1923. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Delger Trowbridge, Mr. Charles P. Consaul, and Mr. Charles C. Heitman for plaintiffs in error. The Attorney General for defendant in error.
No. 957, Mis s o u r i Pa c if ic Ra il r o a d Co m pa n y v . Mr s . Lu l u Mo r g a n . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, State of Louisiana. April 30, 1923. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for petitioner. Mr. Henry Bernstein and Mr. Patrick H. Loughran for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 262 U. S.
No. 375. Ha r r y Pa l m e r v . St a t e o f In d ia n a . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana. May 2, 1923. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Henry Adamson for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 1050. El iz a b e t h W. Pl a t t e t a l . v . Da v id R. Fr a n c is e t a l . Error to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. May 3, 1923. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. George H. Lamar for defendants in error.
No. 1114. J. W. Ru s s e l l v . Ja m e s E. Se a r g e a n t , Tr u s - t e e in Ba n k r u pt c y , e t c . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. June 4, 1923. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. J. W. Cox for defendant in error.
No. 835. Jo s e ph Ph ipps e t a l . v . Ch ic a g o , Ro c k Is l a n d & Pa c if ic Ra il w a y Co m pa n y . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. June 4,1923. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. John G. Parkinson for petitioners. Mr. W. F. Dickinson, Mr. John E. Dolman and Mr. M. L. Bell for respondent.
No. 1091. Ja m e s C. Da v is , Dir e c t o r Ge n e r a l o f Ra il - r o a d s , e t c . v. Mic h a e l J. Ha n l o n . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. June 4, 1923. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas Patterson for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
Su m m a r y St a t e m e n t o f Bu s in e s s o f Th e Su pr e m e Co u r t o f t h e
Un it e d St a t e s f o r Oc t o b e r Te r m , 1922.
Original Docket.
Cases pending at beginning of term.................................................. 20 New cases docketed during term........................................................ 9 Cases finally disposed of...................................................................... 5 Cases not finally disposed of........................................................... 24
Appellate Docket.
Cases pending at beginning of term.................................................. 417 New cases docketed during term........................................................ 711 Cases finally disposed of...................................................................... 760 Cases not finally disposed of.................................................................. 368
The number of pending cases, original and appellate, was thus reduced by 45.
Interlocutory decisions, and adverse decisions upon applications for leave to file, as in mandamus, prohibition, etc., are not here included.