United States v. Butterworth-Judson Corp., 269 U.S. 504 (1926)
Case details
Citation
269 U.S. 504
Full caption
UNITED STATES v. BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON CORPORATION.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
Jan. 11, 1926
Majority
Butler (Justice)
Majority
Stone (Justice)
UNITED STATES v. BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON
CORPORATION.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 503. Argued November 23, 1925.—Decided January 11, 1926.
Where the answer of an insolvent corporation, in a suit brought by a simple contract creditor for the conservation and disposition of its property for the benefit of its creditors, admitted the allegations of the bill and consented to a decree appointing receivers, held that this amounted to the handing over of all the property and business to be administered as a trust fund to pay debts, and was in substance a voluntary assignment within the meaning of Rev. Stats. § 3466, entitling the United States to priority in payment of its claims. P. 513. 9 Fed. (2d) 1018, reversed.
Certiora ri to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming an order of the District Court which dismissed a petition in intervention filed by the United States, seeking preferred payment of its claim, in a suit to administer and dispose of the assets of a corporation, through receivers, for the settlement of its debts. See also Price n . United States, ante, p. 492.
Mr. William Marshall Bullitt, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell was on the brief, for the United States.
On the allegations of the bill, the Butterworth-Judson Company was insolvent in the bankruptcy sense, to-wit: the aggregate of all its property was wholly insufficient to pay its debts. That is admitted as true on the motion to dismiss, and establishes the fact of insolvency in the bankruptcy sense required by § 3466, Rev. Stats. United States v. Oklahoma, 261 U. S. 253.
The “ consent receivership ” was a “ voluntary assignment.” What Congress had in mind was to secure a p. 505priority of payment when an insolvent debtor’s property was subject to involuntary seizure under the bankruptcy laws, or when the debtor voluntarily assigned it to another. The term “voluntary assignment” denotes,not only the instrument by which property is conveyed, but also the act of transfer; and in these different senses, i. e., means and results, it is variously applied in law. Burrill on Assignments, 6th Ed. § 1. There are many cases where transactions have been held to be general assignments without the execution of a formal instrument. In re Green, 106 Fed. 313; Moody v. Clinton Wire Cloth Co., 246 Fed. 653; In re Hersey, 171 Fed. 998; In re Salmon & Salmon, 143 Fed. 395; Gill v. Farmers Bank, 189 Mo. App. 401.
The Company’s action was voluntary, in every possible sense of the word. No receiver could have been appointed at the instance of a simple contract creditor. Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., 150 U. S. 371. All that the company had to do, to secure a dismissal of the bill and prevent the receivership, was to move to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. Id; American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co., 260 U. S. 360. Instead of resisting the effort to transfer all of its property to receivers for application and distribution to the claims of creditors, the Company voluntarily waived its right to object, affirmatively consented to the receivership, and thereby voluntarily enabled the receivers to be appointed, without which acquiescence no court could or would have appointed them. The appointment of the receivers divested the Company from the possession and control of all its property.
The modem “ consent receivership ” is the plan by which bank creditors and a failing corporation usually cooperate to accomplish the following results, which could not be accomplished except by such cooperation and the voluntary consent of the debtor: (1) Avoidance of p. 506bankruptcy proceedings. (2) Securing the benefit of an equity receivership under which there can be the broadest and most flexible operation of the business as a going concern, absolutely free from harassment or annoyance from creditors seeking to collect their debts. (3) A protective bankruptcy proceeding (frequently).
It is a commonplace of corporate practice that an equity receivership, combined with a protective bankruptcy, enables a reorganization committee to delay indefinitely non-assenting creditors, to operate the property as a going concern, and to take their own time about the reorganization. This can only be done, however, when there is complete agreement between certain creditors and the insolvent debtor. All this goes to show that the “ consent receivership ” is a “ voluntary assignment ” and also an “ act of bankruptcy ” which it is attempted to camouflage, in order to prevent winding up in bankruptcy. The Government is the one creditor who suffers by this arrangement, as it gets neither (1) its priority for taxes in the bankruptcy proceedings nor (2) its priority under § 3466.
Under the original Bankruptcy Act of 1898, a general assignment was an “ act of bankruptcy,” even if the debtor was solvent. Therefore, if a “ consent receivership ” had been held equivalent to a general assignment, such “ consent receivership ” would have been an act of bankruptcy, though the debtor were perfectly solvent, but only temporarily embarrassed; and solvent concerns could have been thrown into bankruptcy and wound up. Such a construction of the Bankruptcy Act would have stopped all “consent receiverships,” and the courts frequently held that as the Bankruptcy Act was passed for the benefit of debtors, and was in derogation of the common law, it should be strictly construed and that “consent receiverships ” were not equivalent to a general assignment, and hence not acts of bankruptcy.
On the other hand, the priority statute was based on public policy, was declaratory of the common law, and was passed for the benefit of the United States. It should be liberally construed. United States v. State Bank of North Carolina, 6 Pet. 29. Under § 3466 it is necessary, not only that there should be a 11 voluntary assignment,” i. e., a 11 consent receivership,” but there must be also insolvency in the bankruptcy sense. The courts should give a liberal construction to the phrase “voluntary assignment,” so as to hold that a “ consent receivership ” is the equivalent to a “voluntary assignment.” The Circuit Courts of Appeals of the First, Fifth and Ninth Circuits hold that a “ consent receivership ” is the equivalent of a “ voluntary assignment;” and the Fifth and Ninth Circuits hold that it also constitutes an “act of bankruptcy.” Davis v. Pullen, 277 Fed. 650; Davis v. Miller-Link Lumber Co., 296 Fed. 649; Bramwell v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 299 Fed. 705; United States v. Oklahoma, 261 U. S. 253; United States v. Parker, 120 U. S. 89; Equitable Trust Co. v. Conn. Brass & Mfg. Co., 290 Fed. 712; Davis v. Michigan Trust Co., 2 Fed. (2d) 194.
The “ consent receivership ” was an “ act of bankruptcy” committed by the Company, and hence Rev. Stats. § 3466 became operative and the Government was entitled to a priority of payment. As there was no national bankruptcy act in existence during the years 1790-1799, the repeated use of the phrase “ act of bankruptcy ” or “ act of legal bankruptcy ” in these priority statutes, referred, not to acts of bankruptcy under the English law (Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291; 1 Kent Com. 343, note 1,) but to acts of bankruptcy under the then existing state statutes, or under any future bankruptcy laws that might be passed by Congress. Davis v. Michigan Trust Co., 2 Fed. (2d) 194. Under the original Bankruptcy Act of 1898, there was no provision by which the appointment of a receiver for a debtor could be considered an “act p. 508of bankruptcy.” To remedy that situation, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Act in 1903 (32 Stat. 797) by adding to § 3a (4) a provision defining it as an act of bankruptcy where a person, “ being insolvent, applied for a Receiver or Trustee for his property, or because of insolvency, a Receiver or Trustee has been put in charge of his property under the laws of a State, of a territory, or of the United States.”
The operation of § 3466 is certainly defeated, if a debtor, insolvent in the bankruptcy sense, can, by agreement with a creditor, have the creditor file a suit for a receiver, with an allegation of a lesser kind of insolvency, obtain the appointment of a receiver by consent and then successfully claim that no act of bankruptcy has been committed—when the only reason for the receivership was that the debtor was actually insolvent in the bankruptcy sense. The question presented is whether the Government’s priority under § 3466 can be defeated by an agreement, between a creditor and a debtor, to call the debtor’s financial condition one thing when the receiver is appointed, whereas, in point of fact, the debtor’s condition is something very different; and if that different condition had been truthfully alleged, it would have been an act of bankruptcy and § 3466 would have come into play. The later authorities hold that if a receiver is appointed upon the ground that the debtor is simply unable to pay his debts- in the ordinary course of business, when it later develops that the debtor was in fact then insolvent in the bankruptcy sense, such appointment constitutes an “ act of bankruptcy.” Hilb v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 235 Fed. 384; Re Sedalia Farmers Produce Co., 268 Fed. 898; Davis v. Michigan Trust Co., 2 Fed. (2d) 194. The theory of those cases is that if it subsequently develops that, at the time of the application for a receiver, the debtor was insolvent in the bankruptcy sense, then it was insolvency, whether recognized at the time or not, p. 509which brought about the receivership. The Bankruptcy Act provides that an “ act of bankruptcy ” by any person shall consist of his having, 11 being insolvent, applied for a receiver or trustee for his property.” Although the Company did not, in one sense, apply for a receiver, yet, in substance, that is exactly what it did. The Court would never have appointed the receivers, if the debtor had objected on the ground that the creditor had an adequate remedy at law. It was only by their affirmative co-operation that the court appointed a receiver.
Mr. H. G. Pickering, with whom Messrs. Eldon Bisbee, Henry Root Stern and Bertram F. Shipman were on the brief, for respondents.
The insolvency of a debtor which gives rise to priority in favor of debts due to the United States under § 3466 Rev. Stats, is limited to insolvency manifested in one of the modes specified in the statute. United States v. Bank of North Carolina, 6 Pet. 29; United States v. Canal Bank, 3 Story 79; United States v. Oklahoma, 261 U. S. 253; United States v. Hooe, 3 Cr. 73; Prince v. Bartlett, 8 Cr. 431; Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396; Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386; Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291; Beaston v. Farmers Bank, 12 Pet. 102; United States v. McLellan, 3 Sumner 3466; Gallagher v. Davis, 2 Yeates 548; Watkins v. Otis, 2 Pick. 88; Commonwealth v, Phoenix Bank, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 129.
As applied to the case at bar the modes in which insolvency must be manifested are all comprehended in the term 11 act of bankruptcy,” as defined in the Bankruptcy Act. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., supra; Conard v. Nicoll, supra; Beaston v. Farmers Bank, supra; United States v. Clark, 1 Paine 629; United States v. King, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,536; United States v. McLellan, supra; United States v. Hooe, supra; United States v. Howland', 4 Wheat. 108; Field v. United States, 9 Pet. 182; In re Empire p. 510Metallic Bedstead Co., 98 Fed. 981; Vaccaro v. Security Bank of Memphis, 103 Fed. 436; In re Crum, 214 Fed. 207; In re Ambrose Matthews & Co., 229 Fed. 309; United States v. Oklahoma, supra.
In order to give rise to priority under § 3466 in the case at bar, the act of bankruptcy must be such as to divest the debtor of title to its property. United States v. Hooe, supra; Conard v. Alantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386; Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291; Beaston v. Farmers Bank, supra; United States v. Oklahoma, supra; Commonwealth v. Phoenix Bank, supra.
The respondent has not committed an act of bankruptcy and has not been divested of title to its property. Vaccaro v. Security Bank of Memphis, supra; In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., supra; Beaston v. Farmers Bank, supra; Quincy, M. & P. R. Co. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82; Great Western Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561; Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen, 261 U. S. 491; In re Edw. Ellsworth Co., 173 Fed. 699; In re Morosco Holding Co., 296 Fed. 516; In re Conn. Brass Corp., 257 Fed. 445; Moss Nat. Bank v. Arend, 146 Fed. 351; Missouri Valley Cattle Loan Co. v. Alexander, 276 Fed. 266; In re Wm. S. Butler & Co., 207 Fed. 705; In re Gold Run Mining Co., 200 Fed. 162; In re Billy's Ice Cream Co., 295 Fed. 502; United States v. Oklahoma, supra; In re Valentine Bohl Co., 224 Fed. 685; In re Spalding, 139 Fed. 244; Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 608; Davis v. Brown, 94 U. S. 428; Badger Co. v. Arnold, 282 Fed. 115; Zugalla v. Int. Merc. Agency, 142 Fed. 927; Maplecroft Mills v. Childs, 226 Fed. 415; Anderson v. Myers, 296 Fed. 101; In re Golden Malt Cream Co., 164 Fed. 326; Exploration Co. v. Pacific Co., 177 Fed. 825; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Strain, 264 U. S. 570; In re Harper & Bros., 100 Fed. 266; Davis v. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235; In re Gilbert, 112 Fed. 951; In re Zeltner Brewing Co., 117 Fed. 799;-In re Burrell, 123 Fed. 414; Commonwealth N. Phoenix Bank, supra.
504 , Opinion of the Court.
The authoritative construction of the statute and the declared legislative policy with respect to Government priority preclude any extension of § 3466 by construction as contended for by the Government. Grasellis Chern. Co. v. Aetna Explosives Co., 252 Fed. 456; Re Metropolitan Ry. Receivership, 208 U. S. 90; Davis v. Pringle, 268 U. S. 315; United States v. McLellan, supra; Conard v.Atl. Ins. Co., supra; United States v. Bank of North Carolina, supra; Watkins n . Otis, 2 Pick. 88.
The cases in the Circuit Courts of Appeals relied upon * by the Government are erroneously decided and do not vitiate the conclusions here reached. Equitable Trust Co. v. Conn. Brass Corp., 290 Fed. 712; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson Shipyards Corp., 6 Fed. (2d) 194; Davis v. Pullen, 277 Fed. 650; United States n . Oklahoma, supra; U. S. F. de G. Co. v. Strain, supra; In re Wm. S. Butler & Co., supra; Badger & Co. v. Arnold, 282 Fed. 115; Davis v. Miller Link Lumber Co., 296 Fed. 649; Moody-Horman-Boelahuew N. Clinton Co., 246 Fed. 653; Bramwell v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 299 Fed. 705; Beaston v. Farmers Bank, supra.
Under the provisions of § 3466 Rev. Stats, debts due the United States are not entitled to priority in consent receiverships.
Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.
April 22, 1922, respondent, a New York corporation, was insolvent within the meaning of R. S. § 3466, and as defined by the Bankruptcy Act. Its debts amounted to approximately $3,000,000, and included $1,154,450 due to the United States. The value of its assets was not in excess of $1,500,000. On that day, the Hay Foundry and Iron Works, a simple contract creditor, on behalf of itself and other creditors, brought suit against the respondent in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Among the facts alleged are these: Respondent
Opinion of the Court. . 269 U. S.
owed plaintiff $7,988.43 for labor and materials furnished, and was without money to pay its debts then due. The value of its property, if properly and prudently realized on, would be more than enough to pay its obligations. Some of its creditors were threatening to bring suits on their claims; and resulting forced sales of the property would cause great loss to the creditors. Plaintiff believed that the property could be preserved for equitable distribution among those entitled thereto only upon the granting of equitable relief including the appointment of receivers, and that, unless the court would deal with the property as a trust fund for the payment of creditors, it would be sacrificed to the great loss of creditors. More would be realized from a sale if the business was being carried on. The prayer was for the appointment of receivers, and that when found to be just and proper the properties be sold and the proceeds distributed among those entitled thereto. By its answer filed on the same day, respondent admitted all the allegations of the complaint, and, with its consent, the court thereupon made an order appointing receivers. The order recited that it was necessary for the protection of the respective rights and equities of creditors that the property and business be administered through receivers, and gave to them the exclusive possession, custody and control; they were authorized to continue the business until the further order of the court, to make disbursements necessary to preserve the property, and to pay debts entitled to priority.
September 1, 1922, the United States filed proof of the debt due from respondent and claimed priority under § 3466, and later filed its intervening petition, setting forth the facts above stated, and prayed to be adjudged entitled to priority. Respondent moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the motion. Its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is here on certiorari under § 240, Judicial Code.
The question is whether § 3466 applies. That section and § 3467, in pari materia, are quoted in Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, ante, p. 483. The intervening petition shows that respondent was insolvent when the creditor’s suit was begun, and the question of priority is to be determined on that basis, notwithstanding the complaint alleged and the answer admitted that respondent was solvent. Respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of the complaint and its consent to the court’s order constituted a necessary step in the proceedings for the appointment of receivers. Re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 U. S. 90, 109, 110; Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen, 261 U. S. 491, 500. So, with the consent and cooperation of the insolvent debtor, the possession and control of all its property were handed over to be administered by the court through the receivers for the benefit of those whom the court found entitled to it. Porter n . Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 479. To induce the action taken by the court, the complaint represented that, if respondent’s property was not dealt with as a trust fund for the payment of creditors, they would suffer great loss. It is established that, when a court of equity takes into its possession the assets of an insolvent corporation, it will administer them on the theory that in equity they belong to the creditors and shareholders rather than to the corporation itself. See Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., 150 U. S. 371, 383; Graha/m, v. Railroad Com* pany, 102 U. S. 148, 161. Here, the fund being less than the debts, the creditors are entitled to have all of it distributed among them according to their rights and priorities.
Taken in connection with its insolvency, now conceded, respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of the complaint and its consent to the decree appointing receivers amounted to the handing over of all its property and busi-
80048°—26------- 33
ness to the receivers to be administered, under the direction of the court, as a trust fund to pay respondent’s debts. In substance, the things done by respondent amounted to a voluntary assignment of all its property within the meaning of § 3466. The United States is entitled to priority. Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, supra, affirming 299 Fed. 705; Davis n . Pullen, 277 Fed. 650; Davis v. Miller-Link Lumber Co., 296 Fed. 649. Cf. Equitable Trust Co. v. Connecticut Brass & Mfg. Corp., 290 Fed. 712; Davis n . Michigan Trust Co., 2 Fed. (2d) 194.
Decree reversed.
METCALF & EDDY v. MITCHELL, ADMINISTRATRIX.
MITCHELL, ADMINISTRATRIX, v. METCALF & EDDY.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Nos. 183 and 376. Submitted November 30, 1925.—Decided January 11, 1926.
1; Upon a writ of error to the District Court based on a constitutional question, the jurisdiction of this Court is not limited to that question but extends ^o the whole case. P. 518.
2. A consulting engineer engaged as such by a State or local subdivision for work not permanent or continuous in character on public water supply and sewage disposal projects, whose duties are prescribed by his contract, and who takes no oath of office and is free to accept other, concurrent employment, is neither an officer nor an employee within the meaning of § 201 (a) of the War Revenue Act of 1917, exempting from income tax the compensation or fees of officers and employees under any State ’ or local subdivision thereof. P. 519.
3. The constitutional limitation forbidding the federal Government and the State to tax each other’s agencies must receive a practical p. 515514 Argument for Metcalf and Eddy.
construction permitting each government to function with the minimum of interference from the other. P. 523. 4. One who is not an officer or employee of a State does not establish exemption from federal income tax merely by showing that his income was received as compensation for service rendered under a contract with the State, when it does not appear that the tax impairs in any substantial manner his ability to discharge his obligations to the State or the ability of the State or its subdivisions to procure the services of private individuals to aid them in their undertakings. P. 524. 299 Fed. 812, affirmed.
Error to review a judgment of the District Court in a suit brought against a former Collector to recover money paid under protest as income tax. The judgment allowed some of the items claimed and rejected others. Both sides sued out writs of error. That of the Collector (No. 376) was not pressed at the argument in this Court and was dismissed.
Messrs. Philip Nichols and Joseph A. Boyer were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error in No. 183 and defendants in error in No. 376.
The State immunity extends to all appropriate instrumentalities which the States may select, without distinction between permanent and regular officers and employees on the one hand and other human instrumentalities on the other. It is not limited to such instrumentalities as may be arbitrarily selected by Congress. United States v. Baltimore &c. R. R., 17 Wall. 322; Freedman v. Sigel, 10 Blatchf. 327; Bettman v. Warwick, 108 Fed. 46. It rests upon the same foundation and is quite as broad and important as the reciprocal limitation in favor of the United States. Texas n . White, 7 Wall. 700; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251. The exemption exists regardless of statute. Biscoe v. Tax Commissioner, 236 Mass. 201.
Beginning with McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, it has been consistently held that a State could not tax
Argument for Metcalf and Eddy. 269 U. S.
the instrumentalities of the United States, whatever their character. Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 573; Farmers’ &c. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516; Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U. S. 180; Federal Land Bank v. Crosland, 261 U. S. 374. A tax on persons passing through a State cannot be imposed on officers of the United States in the performance of their duties, Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 40; and a tax on persons engaged in sending telegraph messages which makes no exemption in favor of official messages of the United States is unconstitutional. Williams v. Talladega, 226 U. S. 404. A State cannot tax the franchise of a transcontinental railroad company chartered by Congress, California v. Central Pacific R. R., 127 U. S. 1; nor lands in possession of an Indian tribe, New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665; nor the income derived from such lands by a lessee, Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501. Both the United States and the States are free to select such instrumentalities as they see fit. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437; Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738.
In addition to officers and employees, independent contractors have been definitely recognized as such appropriate instrumentalities. Osborn v. United States Bank, supra; Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; Choctaw & Gulf R. R. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292; Indian &c. Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522; Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460; Williams v. Talladega, 226 U. S. 404.
It is thus clear that, whether the plaintiffs were officers, employees, or independent contractors, they were in any event not disqualified from acting as instrumentalities of government by reason of the methods adopted by the various States and municipalities in acquiring p. 517514 Argument for Metcalf and Eddy.
their services, whether by election, appointment, or contract. The essential fact here is that their services were acquired by a method and in a capacity satisfactory to the sovereignty which acquired them. The cases which limit the power of the States to tax federal instrumentalities draw no distinction between income from personal services on the one hand and income from property or from the use of capital on the other. The present case does not, however, require a decision that income from any source other than from personal services to a State or political subdivision is exempt from federal taxation. A tax on compensation for personal service is in substance and effect a tax on gross receipts. It may be that here the distinction lies. United States Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321. There is no sound basis for any distinction between income from personal services resulting from an official appointment and income from personal services resulting from a contractual employment, and still less basis for a distinction between “ regular and permanent” officers and employees, and those whose services are acquired, whether by appointment or by contract, to perform a specific task. The compensation of such instrumentalities is inseparably connected with the instrumentalities.
The plaintiffs may be held to be free from taxation on the items of income involved here without a decision that the statute is unconstitutional. Upon a not unreasonable construction the plaintiffs were “ employees ” of States and political subdivisions of States. Even if the plaintiffs were not 11 officers ” or 11 employees,” but were other appropriate instrumentalities used in the exercise of strictly governmental functions, the statute may be treated as inapplicable to them.
The income of the plaintiffs does not cease to be exempt because the United States has seen fit to tax it to them jointly.
Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. Robert P. Reeder, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for Mitchell, former Collector.
Mr. Lewis M. Isaacs, submitted a brief as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr . Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court.
Metcalf & Eddy, the plaintiffs below, were consulting engineers who, either individually or as co-partners, were professionally employed to advise states or subdivisions of states with reference to proposed water supply and sewage disposal systems. During 1917 the fees received by them for these services were paid over to the firm and became a part of its gross income. Upon this portion of their net income they paid, under protest, the tax assessed on the net income of co-partnerships under the War Revenue Act of 1917 (Act of October 3, 1917, c. 63, § 209, 40 Stat. 300, 307). They then brought suit in the United States District Court for Massachusetts to recover the tax paid on the items in question, on the ground that they were expressly exempted from the tax by the Act itself, and on the further ground that Congress had no power under the Constitution to tax the income in question.
The District Court found that two of the items were within the statutory exemption; that the remaining eighteen were not exempt from taxation, either by the provisions of the statute or under the Constitution, and entered judgment accordingly. 299 Fed. 812.
The former Collector sued out the writ of error in No. 376 as to the two items on which a recovery was allowed. In No. 183 the writ of error is prosecuted by the plaintiffs below as to the remaining items. Jud. Code, § 238, before amendment of 1925.
As the case comes directly from the District Court to this Court on a constitutional question, the jurisdiction p. 519of this Court is not limited to that question alone, but extends to the whole case. Homer v. United States, No. 2, 143 U. S. 570; Greene v. Louisville, etc., R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 499.
All of the items of income were received by the taxpayers as compensation for their services as consulting engineers under contracts with states or municipalities, or water or sewage districts created by state statute. In each case the service was rendered in connection with a particular project for water supply or sewage disposal, and the compensation was paid in some instances on an annual basis, in others on a monthly or daily basis, and in still others on the basis of a gross sum for the whole service.
The War Revenue Act provided for the assessment of a tax on net income; but § 201(a) (40 Stat, at 303) contains a provision for exemption from the tax as follows:
“ This title shall apply to all trades or businesses of whatever description, whether continuously carried on or not, except—
“(a) In the case of officers and employees under the United States, or any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or any local subdivision thereof, the compensation or fees received by them as such officers or employees . . The court found that the two items of income involved in No. 376 were received by one of the plaintiffs in error as compensation for his services as the incumbent of an office created by statute; in one case as chief engineer of the -Kennebec Water District, a political subdivision of the State of Maine, and in the other as a member of the Board of Engineers of the North Shore Sanitary District, a political subdivision of the State of Illinois. The Collector does not press his writ of error in this case, and we therefore dismiss the writ.
We think it clear that neither of the plaintiffs in error occupied any official position in any of the undertakings p. 520to which their writ of error in No. 183 relates. They took no oath of office; they were free to accept any other concurrent employment; none of their engagements was for work of a permanent or continuous character; some were of brief duration and some from year to year, others for the duration of the particular work undertaken. Their duties were prescribed by their contracts and it does not appear to what extent, if at all, they were defined or prescribed by statute. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs in error have failed to sustain the burden cast upon them of establishing that they were officers of a state or a subdivision of a state within the exception of § 201(a).
An office is a public station conferred by the appointment of government. The term embraces the idea of tenure, duration, emolument and duties fixed by law. Where an office is created, the law usually fixes its incidents, including its term, its duties and its compensation. United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5. The term “ officer ” is one inseparably connected with an office; but there was no office of sewage or water supply expert or sanitary engineer, to which either of the plaintiffs was appointed. The contracts with them, although entered into by authority of law and prescribing their duties, could not operate to create an office or give to plaintiffs the status of officers. Hall v. Wisconsin, supra; Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310. There were lacking in each instance the essential elements of a public station, permanent in character, created by law, whose incidents and duties were prescribed by law. See United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 102, 103; United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 511, 512; Adams v. Murphy, 165 Fed. 304.
Nor do the facts stated in the bill of exceptions establish that the plaintiffs were 11 employees ” within the meaning of the statute. So far as appears, they were in the position of independent contractors. The record does p. 521514, Opinion of the Court.
not reveal to what extent, if at all, their services were subject to the direction or control of the public boards or officers engaging them. In each instance the performance of their contract involved the use of judgment and discretion on their part and they were required to use their best professional skill to bring about the desired result. This permitted to them liberty of action which excludes the idea of that control or right of control by the employer which characterizes the relation of employer and employee and differentiates the employee or servant from the independent contractor. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bond, 240 U. S. 449, 456; Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215, 227; and see Casement v. Brown, 148 U. S. 615; Singer Mjg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U. S. 518, 523.
We pass to the more difficult question whether Congress had the constitutional power to impose the tax in question, and this must be answered by ascertaining whether its effect is such as to bring it within the purview of those decisions holding that the very nature of our constitutional system of dual sovereign governments is such as impliedly to prohibit the federal government from taxing the instrumentalities of a state government, and in a similar manner to limit the power of the states to tax the instrumentalities of the federal government. See, as to federal taxation on state instrumentalities, Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 322; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 585, 586; Ambrosini v. United States, 187 U. S. 1; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107; see cases holding that the Sixteenth Amendment did not extend the taxing power to any new class of subjects, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1; Peck & Co. n . Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 172; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189; Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 259. And, as to state taxation on federal instrumentalities, see McCulloch v. p. 522Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Dobbins N. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435; The Banks v. The Mayor, 7. Wall. 16; Weston v. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 467; Farmers Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516; Choctaw & Gulf R. R. n . Harrison, 235 U. S. 292; Indian Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522; Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501.
Just what instrumentalities of either a state or the federal government are exempt from taxation by the other cannot be stated in terms of universal application. But this Court has repeatedly held that those agencies through which either government immediately and directly exercises its sovereign powers, are immune from the taxing power of the other. Thus the employment of officers who are agents to administer its laws (Collector v. Day; Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, supra), its obligations sold to raise public funds (Weston v. The City Council of Charleston, supra; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., supra), its investments of public funds in the securities of private corporations, for public purposes (United States v. Railroad Co., supra), surety bonds exacted by it in the exercise of its police power (Ambrosini v. United States, supra), are all so intimately connected with the necessary functions of government, as to fall within the established exemption; and when the instrumentality is of that character, the immunity extends not only to the instrumentality itself but to income derived from it (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.; Gillespie v. Oklahoma, supra,) and forbids an occupation tax imposed on its use. Choctaw & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Harrison, supra; and see Dobbins N. Commissioners of Erie County, supra.
When, however, the question is approached from the other end of the scale, it is apparent that not every person who uses his property or derives a profit, in his dealings with the government, may clothe himself with immunity from taxation on the theory that either he or his p. 523property is an instrumentality of government within the meaning of the rule. Thomson n . Pacific Railroad, 9 Wall. 579; Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U. S. 375; Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U. S. 362, 371; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania, 240 U. S. 319; Choctaw, 0. & G. R. R. Co. v. Mackay, 256 U. S. 531.
As cases arise, lying between the two extremes, it becomes necessary to draw the line which separates those activities having some relation to government, which are nevertheless subject to taxation, from those which are immune. Experience has shown that there is no formula by which that line may be plotted with precision in advance. But recourse may be had to the reason upon which the rule rests, and which must be the guiding principle to control its operation. Its origin was due to the essential requirement of our constitutional system that the federal government must exercise its authority within the territorial limits of the states; and it rests on the conviction that each government, in order that it may administer its affairs within its own sphere, must be left free from undue interference by the other. McCulloch v. Maryland, supra; Collector v. Day; Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, supra.
In a broad sense, the taxing power of either government, even when exercised in a manner admittedly necessary and proper, unavoidably has some effect upon the other. The burden of federal taxation necessarily sets an economic limit to the practical operation of the taxing power of the states, and vice versa. Taxation by either the state or the federal government affects in some measure the cost of operation of the other.
But neither government may destroy the other nor curtail in any substantial manner the exercise of its powers. Hence the limitation upon the taxing power of each, so far as it affects the other, must receive a p. 524practical construction which permits both to function with the minimum of interference each with the other; and that limitation cannot be so varied or extended as seriously to impair either the taxing power of the government imposing the tax (South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 461; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, at 172,) or the appropriate exercise of the functions of the government affected by it. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, supra, 31.
While it is evident that in one aspect the extent of the exemption must finally depend upon the effect of the tax upon the functions of the government alleged to be affected by it, still the nature of the governmental agencies or the mode of their constitution may not be disregarded in passing on the question of tax exemption; for it is obvious that an agency may be of such a character or so intimately connected with the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty by the one government, that any taxation of it by the other would be such a direct interference with the functions of government itself as to be plainly beyond the taxing power.
It is on this principle that, as we have seen, any taxation by one government of the salary of an officer of the other, or the public securities of the other, or an agency created and controlled by the other, exclusively to enable it to perform a governmental function, (Gillespie v. Oklahoma, supra,) is prohibited. But here the tax is imposed on the income of one who is neither an officer nor an employee of government and whose only relation to it is that of contract, under which there is an obligation to furnish service, for practical purposes not unlike a contract to sell and deliver a commodity. The tax is imposed without discrimination upon income whether derived from services rendered to the state or services rendered to private individuals. In such a situation it cannot be said that the tax is imposed upon an agency of government in any technical sense, and the tax itself cannot be deemed p. 525to be an interference with government, or an impairment of the efficiency of its agencies in any substantial way. Railroad Co. v. Peniston; Gromer n . Standard Dredging Co.; Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania;. Choctaw, 0. & G. R. R. Co. v. Mackey, supra.
As was said by this Court in Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore, supra, in holding that a state might tax the interest of a corporation in a dry dock which the United States had the right to use under a contract entered into with the corporation:
“ It seems to us extravagant to say that an independent private corporation for gain created by a State, is exempt from state taxation either in its corporate person, or its property, because it is employed by the United States, even if the work for which it is employed is important and takes much of its time.” (p. 382.) And as was said in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania, supra, in holding valid a state tax on premiums collected by bonding insurance companies on surety bonds required of United States officials:
11 But mere contracts between private corporations and the United States do not necessarily render the former essential government agencies and confer freedom from state control.” (p. 323.)
These statements we deem to be equally applicable to private citizens engaged in the general practice of a profession or the conduct of a business in the course of which they enter into contracts with government from which they derive a profit. We do not suggest that there may not be interferences with such a contract relationship by means other than taxation which are prohibited. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, supra, at p. 36, recognizes that there may. Nor are we to be understood as laying down any rule that taxation might not affect agencies of this character in such a manner as directly to interfere with the p. 526functions of government and thus be held to be void. See Railroad v. Peniston, supra, page 36; Farmers Bank v. Minnesota, supra, p. 522; Choctaw & Gulf Railway Co. v. Harrison, supra, p. 272.
But we do decide that one who is not an officer or employee of a state, does not establish exemption from federal income tax merely by showing that his income was received as compensation for service rendered under a contract with the state; and when we take the next step necessary to a complete disposition of the question, and inquire into the effect of the particular tax, on the functioning of the state government, we do not find that it impairs in any substantial manner the ability of plaintiffs in error to discharge their obligations to the state or the ability of a state or its subdivisions to procure the services of private individuals to aid them in their undertakings. Cf. Central Pacific Railroad v. California, 162 U. S. 91, 126. We therefore conclude that the tax in No. 183 was properly assessed.
No. 183, judgment affirmed.
No. 376, writ of error dismissed. p. 527DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM OCTOBER 5,
1925, TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 11, 1926, OTHER THAN DECISIONS ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI.
No.—, original. Ex Parte in the Matter of the City of Monterey , October 12, 1925. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus denied by the court in the exercise of its discretion, without prejudice to the petitioner’s other remedies. Messrs. Argyll Campbell, Golden W. Bell and Herman J. Hughes for the City of Monterey.
No. 421. The City of Tulsa et al . v . Oklahom a Natural Gas Comp any et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 5, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Company, 250 U. S. 394; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182; Newark v. New Jersey, 252 U. S. 192, 196. Messrs. Russell G. Lowe, David A. Richardson and E. S. Ratliff for appellees, in support of the motion. Messrs. Finis E. Riddle and Ira J. Underwood for appellants, in opposition thereto.
No. 236. George E. Bowli ng et al . v . Frank Beaver et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 5, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Mr, Dick Rice for defendants in error, in support of the p. 528motion. Messrs. Vern E. Thompson and Halbert H. McCluer for plaintiffs in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 144. Chicag o , Rock Island & Pacif ic Railway Comp any v . Mrs . Abi Janney . Error to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, of the State of Louisiana. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 5, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Messrs. Richard S. Doyle, Merritt Starr and Albert L. Hopkins for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Mr. Thomas S. Buzbee for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 186. Henry F. du Pont v . Corneli us R. Mille r , as Direct or of Public Works and Buildi ngs , etc . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted June 1, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for failure to apply for writ of error in time as required by section 6 of the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 727. Messrs. Edward J. Brundage, Clyde L. Day, Ednyjed H. Williams, Rufus T. Robinson, Oscar' E. Carlstrom and John J. Boilman for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Mr. Angust Roy Shannon for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 48. Daisy M. Scott et al . v . The City of Co - lumbus , Ohio . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Motion to dismiss submitted October 5, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon authority of Erie Railroad
v. Solomon, 237 U. S. 427, 431. Mr. Charles A. Leach for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. Timothy S. Hogan and John S. Hogan for plaintiffs in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 197. The Arkan sas Rive r Gas Company v . Board of County Commis sioners of Sedgwic k County , Kan - sas , et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Motion to dismiss submitted October 5, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Erie R. R. v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356; Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51. Mr. I. N. Williams for defendants in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. Joseph S. Clark and Thomas C. Wilson for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 17. Stanle y P. Hall et al ., Admini strato rs v . F. Alexande r Chandler et al ., Recei vers . Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Argued October 8, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon authority of Begg v. New York City, 262 U. S. 196, 198; Shultes v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 568. Mr. Stanley P. Hall, with whom Messrs. Walter B. Grant and Arthur F. Harper were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Judd Dewey for appellees.
No. 23. Prince Tyner v . Henry Buffington et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Argued October 8, 9, 1925. Decided October 12, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as
80048°—26-------34
amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Petition for writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. William Neff, with whom Messrs. Robert M. Rainey and Streeter B. Flynn were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Carter Smith, with whom Mr. George S. Ramsey was on the brief, for appellbes.
No. ,10. Char lotte Anita Whitney v . The Peopl e of the State of Calif ornia . Error to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, of the State of California. Argued October 6, 1925. Decided October 19, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726. Mr. Walter H. Pollak, with whom Messrs. Walter Nelles and John Francis Ney-Ian were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Mr. John H. Riordan, with whom Mr. U. S. Webb was on the brief, for defendant in error. See post, p. 538.
No. 18. John W. Murphy , Attorney General of the State of Arizo na , et al . v . A. Sardell . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona. Argued October 8, 1925. Decided October 19, 1925. Per Curiam. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed upon the authority of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525. Mr. Justice Holmes requests that it be stated that his concurrence is solely upon the ground that he regards himself bound by the decision in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. Mr. Justice Brandeis dissents. Mr. Earl Anderson, with whom Messrs. James P. Lavin and John W. Murphy were on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. Thomas G. Nairn and Challen B. Ellis, p. 531with whom Messrs. Louis Henry' Chalmers, Alexander Britton and Leslie C. Hardy were on the brief, for appellee.
No. 43. Apalac hicola Land & Developm ent Com - pany et al . v. W. A. Mc Rae , Commis sio ner of Agric ul - ture of the State of Florida , et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Submitted October 12, 1925. Decided October 19, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726 ; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6. Messrs. Fred H. Davis and E. Tillman Davis, for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Rivers Buford and Fred T. Myers, for defendants in error.
No. 35. Frank L. Smith et al . v . Illi nois Bell Telepho ne Company . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Argued October 13,1925. Decided October 19, 1925. Per Curiam. Affirmed upon the authority of Chicago & Great Western Ry. Co. n . Kendall, 266 U. S. 96, 100. Mr. Stephen A. Foster, with whom Messrs. E. Barrett Prettyman, Oscar E. Carlstrom and Karl D. Loos were on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. John W. Davis and Charles M. Bracelen, with whom Messrs. N. T. Guernsey and Philip B. Warren were on the brief, for respondent.
No. 45. M. Frank Donoh ue v . The State of Maine ; and
No. 46. Frank C. Power v . The State of Maine . Error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine. Submitted October 15, 1925. Decided October 19, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdic-
Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 269 U.S.
tion upon the authority of (1) section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; (2) United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 382; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 93; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243. Messrs. Herbert E. Holmes and E. N. Pike for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Ransferd W. Shaw and Edward W. Wheeler for defendant in error.
No. 118. J. O’Neal Sande l , Adminis trator , v . The State of South Caroli na . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 19, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Iowa Central Ry. Co. n . Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 683; Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 129, 136; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 281; DeBeam v. Safe Deposit Co., 233 U. S. 24, 34; McDonald v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co., 233 U. S. 665, 669-670; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 370. Messrs. Samuel M. Wolfe and A. M. Lumpkin for the defendant in error, in support of the motion. Mr. William N. Graydon for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 52. Iver Olbers v . U. S. Shipp ing Board Emer - gency Fleet Corpor ation et al . Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argued October 15,16,1925. Decided October 26,1925. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Qhicago Junction Ry. Co., 222 U. S. 222, 224; Boehmer v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 252 U. S. 495, 498. Mr. S. B. Axtell for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. Frank Staley, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Beck and Assistant Attorney General Letts were on the brief, for defendants in error.
No. 72. Clara Showalt er v . Georgia Valliere Hampt on . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Argued October 19, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448; sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrolton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6. Mr. Halbert H. McCluer for plaintiff in error. Messrs. L. A. Wetzel and P. D. Adams for defendant in error.
No. 61. Loui svi lle Bedding Compa ny v . United States ; and
No. 62. The Hudso n Bay Knitting Company , Lim - ited v. Unite d States . Appeals from the Court of Claims. Argued October 19, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. These two appeals, allowed before the going into effect of the act of February 13, 1925, revising the jurisdiction of this court, abolishing appeals from the Court of Claims and requiring that review may be had of its judgments only by certiorari, abundantly show the wisdom of the change. They invoke no substantial question of law, they did not merit and did not elicit a formal opinion from the Court of Claims, and they do not call for one here. The appeals are accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed. Mr. Raymond M. Hudson for appellants. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 63. William Meier v . The State of Florida . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Argued October 19, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended p. 534by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6. Mr. Henry C. Clark with whom Messrs. Oscar 0. McCollum, Charles Cook Howell and Austin Miller were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Rivers Bujord and Marvin Crosby McIntosh for defendant in error submitted.
No. 64. Fidelity & Depo sit Company of Maryland v. The City of Clebur ne et al . Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Argued October 19, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. Affirmed with costs upon the authority of Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission oj Louisiana, 232 U. S. 338, 339; Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Baker v. Scholfield, 243 U. S. 114, 118; Piedmont Ac G. C. Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U. S. 1, 13. Mr. Washington Bowie, Jr., with whom Mr. Albert B. Hall was on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Alex W. Spence and E. B. Stroud, Jr., with whom Mr. E. B. Perkins was on the brief, for appellees.
No. 69. Jose ph Hodgson v . The Midw est Oil Com - pany et al . -Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Wyoming. Argued October 21, 1925. Announced October 26,1925. Per Curiam. Transferred to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upon the authority of the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 3, 39 Stat. 726, and section 238 of the Judicial Code as amended by section 238 (a), act of September 14, 1922, c. 305; Smith v. Apple, 264 U. S. 274. Order that case be transferred entered October 21, 1925. Mr. J. M. Hodgson, with whom Messrs. Floyd E. Pendell and Robert P. Stewart were on the brief, for plaintiff in p. 535269 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc.
error. Messrs. Tyson Dynes, Jr., Tyson S. Dynes, Peter H. Holme and Harold D. Roberts for defendants in error.
No. 75. United Gas & Electr ic Engineeri ng Cor - por ation v. Unite d Stat es . Appeal from the Court of Claims. Argued October 22, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed upon the authority of Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 592, 597; Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 385. Mr. Raymond M. Hudson for appellant. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan, and Mr. John E. Hoover, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 89. Thorva ld Berg et al . v . Unite d States . Appeal from the Court of Claims. Submitted October 23, 1925. Decided October 26, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed upon the authority of Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 502. Mr. Paul Cooksey for appellants. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. J. Frank Staley, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 465. St . Paul & Tacoma Lumber Company v . Northern Pacific Railw ay Company . Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted October 12, 1925. Decided November 16, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon the authority of Southern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Stewart, 254 U.‘ S. 359; Barnett v. Kunkel, 264 U. S. 16. Messrs. Alexander Britton, Charles W. Bunn, L. B. da Ponte and Dennis F. Lyons for the appellee, in support of the motion. Mr. Benjamin S. Grosscup for the appellant, in opposition thereto.
No. 13. Original. State of Oklahoma v . State of Texas , Unite d Stat es , Intervener . In Equity. Order entered November 16, 1925.
The boundary commissioners having this day presented their third report showing further compliance with the decree of March 12, 1923, and particularly that they have run, located and marked upon the ground portions of the boundary line between the States of Texas and Oklahoma from the one hundredth meridian of longitude to the eastern limit of Lamar County, Texas, other than the Big Bend and Fort Augur areas covered by two reports heretofore presented and confirmed;
It is ordered that the report be filed, and that the parties have thirty days from this date within which severally to present any objections which they may have to the report.
No. 738. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad v . James Davis . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Motion to dismiss submitted October 26, 1925. Decided November 23, 1925. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. S. 170, 178; Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U. S. 86, 91; Milwaukee Electric Ry. Co. v. Milwaukee, 253 U. S. 100, 106. Messrs. W. L. Gleason and E. M. Miner for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Mr. Percy 8. Benedict for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 411. The New York & Porto Rico Steam ship Company v . Rafael Cintron La ’stra , et al ., etc . Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted November 16, 1925. Decided November 23, 1925. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of El Banco Popular De
Economías y Prestamos de San Juan, P. R., v. Wilcox, 255 U. S. 72. Mr. Archibald King for appellees, in support of the motion. Mr. Ray Rood Allen for appellant, in opposition thereto.
No. 276. Hattie Rowe v . Robert L. Sartain et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, Motion to dismiss submitted November 16, 1925. Decided November 23, 1925. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Messrs. C. B. Ames, John Sander, E. T. Noble, A. D. Cochran and B. W. Griffith, Jr., for defendants in error, in support of the motion. Mr. John Tomerlin for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. —, original. The Comm onweal th of Pennsy l - vania v. The State of New Jers ey . November 23, 1925. Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint herein granted; and process ordered to issue returnable on Monday, January 25 next. Messrs. George W. Woodruff and William A. Schnader for complainant. Messrs. Edward L. Katzenbach and John R. Hardin for defendant.
No. 242. The Pasca goula National Bank of Moss Poin t and Pascagoula , Miss iss ipp i v . The Federal Re - serv e Bank of Atlanta et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Northern District of Georgia. Argued November 24, 25, 1925. Decided November 30, 1925. Per Curiam. Transferred to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upon the authority of the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 3, 39 Stat. 727, p. 538and section 238 of the Judicial Code as amended by section 238 (a), act of September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837; act of February 13, 1925, sec. 14; Heitler v. United States, 260 U. S. 438. Mr. Alexander W. Smith, Jr., with whom Mr. Alexander W. Smith was on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Hollins N. Randolph, Montgomery Angell, Newton D. Baker, Robert S. Parker and F. H. Watkins were on the brief, for appellees.
No. —, original. Ex Parte In the matt er of James A. Wood . December 7, 1925. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus herein denied. James A. Wood, pro se.
No. 562. Alexande r Sedgw ick v . Thomas E. Wing , Truste e . Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted November 16, 1925. Decided December 7, 1925. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the 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; Barnet v. Kunkel, 264 U. S. 16. Mr. Philip W. Russell for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. Hector M. Hitchings and Hugh W. Ogden for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 10. Charlotte Anita Whitney v . The People of the State of Calif ornia . December 14, 1925. The petition for rehearing in this cause, which was heretofore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, having been considered by the court, is hereby granted, and the cause is set down for further hearing on Monday, March 15 next, when the issue as to the jurisdiction of this court and the merits of the case will be reargued. See ante, p. 530.
No. 13, original. State of Oklahom a v . State of Texas , Unite d States , Intervener . In Equity. Orders entered January 4, 1926. Announced by Mr. Justice Van Devanter.
The report of the boundary commissioners of the work done, time employed and expenses incurred in the survey, marking and mapping of the boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma, along the Red River from the One Hundredth meridian of longitude to the eastern limit of Lamar County, Texas, other than the Big Bend and Fort Augur areas, pursuant to the decree of March 12, 1923 (261 U. S. 340), is approved and adopted. The compensation of the commissioners for the work done by them, as shown in the report, is fixed at amounts stated in the order. The expenses incurred, as shown in the report, and the compensation here allowed shall be charged as part of the costs in this cause and shall be borne and paid by the three parties to the cause in the proportions specified in said decree. The parties severally shall be credited with the amounts advanced by them, as shown in the report; and they shall advance additional amounts to pay the compensation of the commissioners, as here allowed, and the balance due for expenses, as shown in the report.
No. 739. Mrs . Ida Hughes v . The State of Georg ia . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. January 4, 1926. Per Curiam. Application for further proceedings in forma pauperis herein denied, for the reason that the court has examined the typewritten record and found that the writ of error presents no substantial federal question. Messrs. Charles Clark and R. R. Jackson for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 504. H. B. Crone v . John W. Snook , Warden . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. January 11, 1926. Per Curiam. Petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, for the reason that the court has examined the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, for which this is an appeal, has found the question therein presented frivolous, and dismisses the appeal. Mr. William Schley Howard for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
No. 227. Beatrice J. Weston et al . v . The City of Tulsa et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 4,1926. Decided January 11, 1926. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Messrs. R. C. Allen and I. J. Underwood for defendants in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. Louis W. Pratt and James M. Springer for plaintiffs in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 787. Chesa peak e & Ohio Railw ay Compa ny v . Willi ams Slate Company . Error to the Special Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Motion to dismiss submitted January 4, 1926. Decided January 11, 1926. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Petition for certiorari denied, and, there appearing to be no reasonable ground for granting the petition, a penalty of $25 is awarded respondent and against the p. 541petitioner as reasonable damages for the delay under the proviso in section C of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, sec. 1, 43 Stat. 937. Messrs. Samuel A. Anderson and Arden Howell for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. David H. Leake and Walter Leake for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 174. J. L. Lanca ster et al ., Receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railw ay v . H. L. Smit h et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. Submitted January 4,1926. Decided January 11, 1926. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Petition for certiorari denied. Messrs. T. D. Gresham and Robert L. W. Thompson for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Thornton Hardie for defendants in error.
No. 101. J. L. Lancast er et al ., Receivers v . Ber - nice S. Graham . Error to the Court of Civil Appeals, 4th Supreme Judicial District, of the State of Texas. Submitted January 4, 1926. Decided January 11, 1926. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Messrs. F. H. Prendergast, T. D. Gresham, George Thompson and Robert L. W. Thompson for plaintiffs in error. Mr. J. C. George for defendant in error. p. 542PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED, FROM OCTOBER 5, 1925, TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 11, 1926.
No. 529. Northern Railw ay Company v . Donal d Page et al ., Adminis trators . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Mr. Robert G. Dodge for petitioner. Mr. Charles F. Perkins for respondents.
No. 555. James Mc Donald , Jr ., et al ., etc ., v . Law - rence Maxwell et al ., Execut ors . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Messrs. Charles V. Imlay, M. M. Allison and John J. Hamilton for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 558. Unite d States v . Stone & Downer Com - pany et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Customs Appeals granted. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Hoppin for the United States. Mr. Edward P. Sharretts for respondents.
No. 604. Hughes Bros . Timber Company v . The State of Minnesot a . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota granted. Messrs. W. D. Bailey and Oscar Mitchell for petitioner. Messrs. Clifford L. Hilton, G. A. Youngquist and H. H. Phelps for respondent.
No. 614. Carl Franz Adolph Otto Ingenohl v . Walte r E. Olse n & Compa ny , Inc . October 12, 1925.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands granted. Messrs. Joseph C. Meyerstien and James M. Beck for petitioner. Mr. Allison D. Gibbs for respondent.
No. 623. Yu Cong Eng and Co Liam , for the msel ves AND FQR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND AFFECTED V. W. TRINIDAD, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL Revenue , et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands granted. Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert, Mahlon P. Doing, Allison D. Gibbs and Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., for petitioners. Messrs. J. Kennedy White, A. R. Stallings, Mark E. Guerin and Charles S. Brice for respondents.
No. 653. Elizabeth F. Shukert et al ., Executrices of the Esta te of Gust ave E. Shukert , decea sed , v . Arthur B. Allen , Collector of Internal Revenue for the Dis trict of Nebras ka . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Mr. Arthur F. Mullen for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt and Mr. Sewall Key for respondent.
No. 680. Jose ph Seeman et al ., etc ., v . Philadelphia Warehouse Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Messrs. Samuel F. Frank, W. W. Spalding and M. D. Hildreth for petitioners. Messrs. Owen J. Roberts and Charles A. Riegelman for respondent.
No. 683. Chicago , Rock Island & Pacific Railw ay Company v . A. D. Schendel , as Specia l Admin is tra - p. 544TOR OF THE ESTATE OF CLARENCE Y. HOPE, DECEASED. October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota granted. Messrs. M. L. Bell, W. F. Dickinson, Thomas D. O’Brien, Edward 8. Stringer, Daniel Taylor and Alex E. Horn for petitioner. Messrs. Tom Davis and Ernest A. Michel for respondent.
No. 684. Chicago , Rock Island & Pacif ic Railway Compa ny v . Fred A. Elder . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota granted. Messrs. M. L. Bell, W. F. Dickinson, Thomas D. O’Brien, Edward S. Stringer, Daniel Taylor and Alex E. Horn for petitioner. Messrs. Tom Davis and Ernest A. Michel for respondent.
No. 686. Will iam A. Rhea v . Thoma s C. Smit h . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri granted. Mr. Thomas Hackney for petitioner. Mr. W. R. Robertson for respondent.
No. 694. Rober t L. Mess el v . Foundation Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana granted. Mr. J. F. Pierson for petitioner. Messrs. P. M. Milner and William A. Porteous for respondent.
No. 712. New York Life Insur ance Company v . William H. Edwards , Collect or . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.. Mr. James H. McIntosh for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for respondent.
No. 713. David H. Blair , Commis sio ner of Inter - nal Revenue v . Unite d Stat es ex rel . G. Thomas Birkenstoc ket al ., Execu tors . October 26,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt and Mr. Sewall Key for petitioner. Messrs. James Craig Peacock and John W. Townsend for respondents.
No. 714. Federal Trade Commiss ion v . Alfre d Kles ner , doing busi ness under the name , “ Shade Shop .” October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Solicitor General Mitchell for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 716. United State s v . Central Railroad Com - pan y of New Jersey . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States. Mr. Alex H. Elder for respondent.
No. 718. Edward F. Goltra v . John W. Weeks , Sec - retary of War , et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Messrs. Joseph T. Davis and Douglas W. Robert for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. J. Frank Staley for respondents.
No. 719. United Stat es v . F. Brims et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the
80048°—26------35
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan, Messrs. Roger Shale and Ralph C. Williamson, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for the United States. Messrs. Charles Maitland Beattie, Robert W. Childs, Hope Thompson and Albert Fink for respondents.
No. 721. Thatcher Manufacturing Comp any v . Federal Trade Commis si on . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. Charles Henry Butler for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for respondent.
No. 725. Federa l Trade Comm iss ion v . Eastman Kodak Compa ny et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Mitchell for petitioner. Messrs. Clarence P. Moser and John W. Davis for respondents.
No. 740. Ellam ar Mining Company v . Alaska Steamshi p Company . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. George de Steiguer and John H. Powell for petitioner. Messrs. W. H. Bogle and Lane Summers for respondent.
No. 741. Public Utili ties Comm iss ion of Rhode Island et al . v . Attleboro Steam & Electr ic Co . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island granted. Messrs. Arthur M. Allen, Charles P. Sisson, Roland W.
Boyden and Frank D. Comerford for petitioners. Messrs. Robert G. Dodge, Archibald C. Matteson and Harold 8. Davis for respondent.
No. 580. Seward K. Lowe et al . v . Alexander J. Dicks on . November 16, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma granted. Mr. Claude Nowlin for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 764. Die Deuts che Bank Fili ale Nurnberg v . Charl es Franklin Humphrey . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Amos J. Peaslee for petitioner. Mr. William Grant for respondent.
No. 768. Burnri te Coal Briquet te Compa ny v . Ed - ward G. Riggs et al ., Recei vers . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Robert H. McCarter and James J. Lynch for petitioner. Mr; Merritt Lane for respondents.
No. 774. New York Dock Compa ny v . Steams hip Poznan , Her Engines , etc ., et al . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Messrs. Joseph 8. Auerbach and Charles H. Tuttle for petitioner. Messrs. George Whitfield Betts and Mark W. Maclay for respondents.
No. 761. Victor Talking Machine Compa ny v . Brunswi ck -Balke -Collender Company et al . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the p. 548Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, William Clarke Mason, George W. Schurman and William Houston Kenyon for petitioner. Messrs. Melville Church and George W. Case, Jr. for respondents.
No. 778. The State Industrial Board of the State of New York . v . Terr y and Tench Comp any , Inc ., et al . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted. Messrs. Albert Ottinger, Attorney General of New York, and E^ Clarence Aiken for petitioner. Mr. William W. Dimmick for respondents.
No. 781. Swi ft & Comp any v . Federa l Trade Com - mis sio n . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Messrs. Albert H. Veeder, Henry Veeder and James M. Sheean for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell. and Mr. Adrien F. Busick for respondent.
No. 783. American Railway Expr es s Comp any et al . v. Jacob Krige r . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee granted. Messrs. Clinton H. McKay, Charles N. Burch, H. D. Minor, H. S. Marx and A. M. Hartung for petitioners. Mr. Auvergne Williams for respondent..
No. 800. Unite d Stat es Sugar Equalization Board , Inc ., v. P. De Ronde & Compa ny , Inc . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Wil- p. 549269 U.S. Decisions Granting Certiorari.
Ham A. Glasgow, Jr., and Charles F. Curley for petitioner. Messrs. Robert H. Richards and Joseph M. Hartfield for respondent.
No. 809. Frede rick C. Hicks , as Alien Proper ty Cust odi an , et al . v . Mercantile Trus t Company .
November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. Dean Hill Stanley, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for petitioners. Messrs. Samuel W. Fordyce and Douglas W. White for respondent.
No. 810. United Stat es v . Merc antile Trust Com - pany . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. Dean Hill Stanley, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States. Mr. Samuel W. Fordyce for respondent.
No. 789. International Stevedoring Compa ny v . R. Haverty . November 30, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington granted. Mr. Stephen V. Carey for petitioner. Mr. Mark M. Letchman for respondent.
No. 804. William H. Edwards , Collector , v . New York Life Insuran ce Company . November 30, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted, and cause assigned for argument with No. 712, heretofore assigned for March 1, as one case. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant General Willebrandt for petitioner. Mr. James H. McIntosh for respondent.
No. 791. Luther Weedin , Commis sio ner of Immi - grati on , v. Chin Bow. December 7, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Luhring for petitioner. Messrs. Clement L. Bouve and A. Warner Parker for respondent.
No. 820. The State of Minnes ota v . First Nation al Bank of St . Paul . December 14, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota granted. Messrs. Clifford L. Hilton, G. A. Youngquist and Patrick J. Ryan for petitioner. Messrs. Thomas D. O’Brien, Alexander E. Horn, Edward S. Stringer and Edward M. Smart for respondent.
No. 813. Chicago , Milwaukee & St . Paul Railwa y Comp any et al . v . Publi c Util iti es Comm iss ion of the State of Idaho . January 4, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho granted. Messrs. F. G. Dorety, Thomas Balmer, L. B. da Ponte, F. M. Dudley and 0. W. Dynes for petitioners. Mr. C. E. Elmquist for respondent.
No. 814. D. H. Brasfi eld et al . v . United States . January 4, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. John W. Preston for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 816. Clarence C. Culver v . Unit ed States . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. *Messrs. George A. King, p. 551William B. King and George R. Shields for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell* for the United States.
No. 834. Beech -nut Packing Company v . P. Loril - lard Company . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, Walter A. Scott, James R. Offield and H. McClure Johnson for petitioner. Messrs. John W. Davis and William R. Perkins for respondent.
No. 838. Colo ger o Fasulo v. United States . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Benjamin L. McKinley for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI DENIED OR DISMISSED, FROM OCTOBER 5, 1925, TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 11, 1926.
No. 335. Continent al Casu alty Company et al . v . Alfred W. Agee , Admini str ator . October 12, 1925. On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Ordered that the order of June 8, 1925, granting a writ of certiorari herein be revoked because of the receipt of a certified copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Utah in the case of Carter v. Standard Accident Insurance Company. Petition dismissed. Messrs. James C. Jones, Lon 0. Hocker and Frank H. Sullivan for petitioners. Messrs. James A. Howell, James H. De Vine and Charles R. Hollingsworth for respondent.
No. 395. Thomas E. Buford v . North Amer ican Accid ent Insur ance Company . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. C. W. Howth for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 546. Newp ort News Shipbui lding and Dry Dock Comp any v . Josep h W. Ishe rwood , etc ., Truste e . See post, p. 592.
No. 412. N. M. Baldwi n v . United Stat es . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Harry S. Hall for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 460. Don Chafi n v . Unit ed Stat es . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. James H.
Holt for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 466. Giuse ppe Napoli tano v . United Stat es . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Raymond S. Oakes for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 474. The Texas & Pacif ic Railw ay Company v . Z. L. Jarrett . October 12, 1925. Petition for a.writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas denied. Messrs. F. H. Prendergast and T. D. Gresham for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 475. M. Scheuer et al ., Trustees , v . St . Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Comp any . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. William H. Watson and Samuel Pasco for petitioners. Messrs. Daniel MacDougald and J. E. D. Yonge for respondent.
No. 476. The State > of Montana v . Sunburs t Refin - ing Company . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana denied. Mr. L. A. Foote for petitioner. Messrs. George E. Hurd and H. C. Hall for respondent.
No. 478. Salvador e Larrocca v . C. J. Everett , Trus - tee . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari p. 554to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Donelson Caffery for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 479. Pan -American Bank & Trust Company et al . v. Nation al City Bank of New York . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Ralph S. Rounds, Francis E. Neagle and Eugene Congleton for petitioners. Mr. John A. Garver for respondent.
No. 483. H. Ely Golds mith , Certi fie d Public Ac - countant , v. Will iam Clabaugh et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. H. Ely Goldsmith and Edward G. Griffin for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 484. C. H. Hodgki nson v . Unite d States . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Carlos Bee for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 485. F. M. Withers v . Will iam E. White , Trus - tee ;
No. 486. F. M. Withe rs v . Will iam E. White , Trus - tee ;
No. 487. Withers Bros . v . William E. White , Trus - tee ; and
No. 488. Withe rs Bros . v . Will iam E. White , Trus - tee . October 12, 1925. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. I. Henry Harris for petitioners. Mr. H. E. Barbour for respondent.
269 U. 8. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
No. 489. J. L. Chapman , Commi ssi oner of Banking of the State of Texas , et al . v . R. M. Clayton , Jr ., et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Perry G. Dedman and B. L. Agerton for petitioners. Mr. S. C. Rowe for respondents.
No. 490. Americ an Smelt ing & Refi ning Company v. George Camp bell Cars on . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. Frederick P. Fish, William K. White, Elihu Root, Albert M. Austin and George Donworth for petitioner. Messrs. George W. Wickersham, Frank H. Hitchcock and John H. Miller for respondent.
No. 492. Edmond C. Fletcher v . Percy Kellogg , Ex - ecutor . • October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Edmond C. Fletcher, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 507. Herm an Peters on v . Unite d Stat es . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. John J. Sullivan for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 511. Fede ral Trade Commis sion v . The John C. Winston Comp any . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Solicitor General Beck for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 514. Federal Trade Comm iss ion v . Chicag o Por - tra it Company . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Solicitor General Beck for petitioner. Messrs. John T. Evans and John Lewis Smith for respondent.
No. 516. Mary Elle n Dicks on et al . v . A. C. Neal et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. W. A. Oldfield for petitioners. Mr. W. P. Strait for respondents.
' No. 524. R. Mc Colg an v . Charles H. Clark . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. George D. Collins for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 526. Samuel Sanday et al . v . United States
Shipp ing Board Emergency Fleet Corporat ion . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Russell T. Mount for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. J. Frank Staley, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for respondent.
No. 527. The American Auto mobi le Accessorie s Company v . Jerome H. Remick Company . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Alfred M. Allen for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 530. Will iam F. Falligan v . Citiz ens Trust & Savings Bank . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. W. F. Gilbert and James E. Fenton for petitioner. Messrs. Oscar Lawler, William J. Hunsaker, E. W. Britt and T. B. Cosgrove for respondent.
No. 531. John F. Herr v . Citiz ens Trust & Savi ngs Bank . October 12,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. W. F. Gilbert and James E. Fenton for petitioner. Messrs. Oscar Lawler, William J. Hunsaker, E. W. Britt and T. B. Cosgrove for respondent.
No. 532. Giorgio Borelli , as Admini strat or , v . In *- ternational Railway Company . October 12,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. Hamilton Ward for petitioner. Mr. William S. Rann for respondent.
No. 534. The Pullman Compa ny v . Jacob S. Waln et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Ira Jewel Williams for petitioner. Mr. John Lewis Evans for respondents.
No. 537. Domenico Lazzaro v . Luther Weedin , Com - mis sio ner of Immi gration . October 12,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. John J. Sullivan for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for .respondent.
No. 538. Alexande r Sedgwick v . Thomas E. Wing , Trustee . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. Hector M. Hitchings and Hugh W. Ogden for petitioner. Mr. Philip W. Russell for respondent.
No. 539. The Baltimore & Ohio Railro ad Company v . Charles Tittle . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. S. H. Tolles and W. T. Kinder for petitioner. Mr. Edward Davidson for respondent.
No. 540. Kock Shing v . John P. Johns on , Commi s - sioner of Immi grati on ; and
No. 541. Kock Tung v . John P. Johns on , Commi s - sioner of Immi gration . October 12, 1925. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. Everett Flint Damon and Walter Bates Farr for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 542. Alfr ed T. White v . United States . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. William H. Gorham and James Kiefer for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 544. James Skipi tar v . United States . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. James Skipitar, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 545. Miss iss ipp i Central Railroad Compa ny et al . v. Ernest Knight . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi denied. Mr. Thomas Brady for petitioners. Messrs. J. W. Cassidy and E. L. Dent for respondent.
No. 547. United State s ex rel . Wilbur H. Rock v . Cuno H. Rudolp h et al ., Comm is si oners , etc . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. Wilton J. Lambert and R. H. Yeatman for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 560. Isad ore Luvisc h v. W. I. Bidd le , Warden , etc . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. I. J. Ringolsky and L. 8. Harvey for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan for respondent.
No. 563. Amer ican Centra l Life Insurance Com - pany v. American Trust Company , Guardi an , etc . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Thomas J. Tyne and Charles E. Cox for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 569. Fannie B. Jones et al ., Admini strators v . Pearl Mosier et al ., etc . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. Preston A. Shinn for petitioners. Mr. C. K. Templeton for respondents.
No. 571. Mary Ann Parramo re et al ., etc . v . Denve r & Rio Grande Wester n Railroad Company . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. J. Harry Covington, Spencer Gordon, Mahlon E. Wilson and R. B. Webster for petitioners. Mr. Waldemar Van Cott for respondent.
No. 572. W. D. Kynerd v . John A. Hulen , Recei ver , etc . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. J. M. McCormick and Paul Carrington for petitioner. Mr. Joseph Hudson Barwise, Jr., for respondent.
No. 573. Leong Don v . Will iam T. Chris ty , Com - miss ioner of Immi gration . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. W. J. Waguespack for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for respondent.
No. 575. Mysti c Stea ms hip Company v . Diamond -0 Navig ation Company . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. D. A. Neal and Harry B. Beckett for petitioner. Mr. Erskine Wood for respondent.
No. 576. Will iam F. Young v . J. E. Stillw ell . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Messrs. F. Dumont Smith and W. I. Gilbert for petitioner. Messrs. Leslie R. Hewitt and F. C. Price for respondent.
No. 577. W. Martin Jones , Jr . v . Thomas Midgley et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. W. Martin Jones, Jr., pro se. Mr. Edward C. Taylor for respondents.
No. 581. Herman Miel ke v . James B. Schermer - horn . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota denied. Mr. Webster Ballinger for petitioner. Mr. R. J. Powell for respondent.
No. 583. 0. K. Eyse nbach et al . v . Samm ie Na - harkey . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. Charles B. Stuart for petitioners. Mr. Edmund Lashley for respondent.
No. 585. George Dail , Trustee , etc . v . H. A. Hart & Brother . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. T. D. Warren for petitioner. Mr. L. I. Moore for respondent.
No. 586. Samuel Schecht er v . United States . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. A. S. Drescher for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 587. W. S. Mc Cray v . Sapulp a Petroleu m Com - pany et al . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of
80048°—26------- 36
certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Finis E. Riddle for petitioner. Mr. Jerre P. O'Meara for respondents.
No. 588. Josep h Levin et al . v . Unite d States . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. Ellwood P. Morey and John L. McNab for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt and Mr. Sewall Key for the United States.
No. 591. The Dis trict of Colum bia v . Howe Totte n . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. F. H. Stephens and Robert L. Williams for petitioner. Mr. Henry E. Davis for respondent.
No. 598. Frederick N. Littleton v .. United States . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. John W. Preston and Annette Abbott Adams for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 600. United Stat es ex rel . Troy Laundry Ma - chinery Company , Limit ed , v . Thomas E. Robert son , Commi ssi oner of Patents . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. George L. Wilkinson, Henry M. Huxley and Ralph Munden for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Messrs. Theodore A. Hostetler and H. E. Knight for respondent.
No. 602. Road Distri ct No . 4 of Shelby County , Texas , v . Home Bank and Trust Comp any . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Hampson Gary for petitioner. Mr. H. M. Garwood for respondent.
No. 605. The City of South Housto n et al . v . John L. Carman . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Lewis R. Bryan for petitioners. Mr. Robert L. Cole for respondent.
No. 607. United States , Owner of the Stea ms hip Sagap orack , v . Norfolk Dredging Comp any . October 12, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. J. Frank Staley, for the United States. Mr. Henry H. Little for respondent.
No. 310. Carter Lynch , Truste e in Bankru ptcy of the Tennes see River Coal Company , v . Nashvi lle Chattanooga & St . Louis Railw ay Comp any et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of- the State of Tennessee denied. Mr. Charles C. Moore for petitioner. Messrs. Mark E. Guerin, Pablo G. Corinsta and Guillermo B. Guevara for respondents.
No. 455. James Scott v . Morris National Bank of Morris . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. Lewis C. Lawson for petitioner. Mr. Charles A. Dickson for respondent.
No. 617. The New York Central Rail road Comp any v. Frank Sanders . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Messrs. William S. Rann and F. D. McKenney for petitioner. Mr. Hamilton Ward for respondent.
No. 618. Lew is & Conger et al . v . Unite d States . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Customs Appeals denied. Mr. John Gibbon Du^y for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Hoppin for the United States.
No. 619. S. Will iam Levins on v . United Stat es . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Miller Outcalt, Dudley C. Outcalt and Joseph W. Huntsman for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 620. The Mead Fibre Company v . W. H. Varn et al .. Copartners as Yarn Brothers Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. F. B. Grier for petitioner. Mr. J. M. Moorer for respondents.
No. 622. S. Blattn er , Doing Busi ness as Unite d Produce Compa ny v . A. H. Lamborn et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. George C. Bedell for petitioner. Messrs W. M. Toomer, W. T. Stockton, Herman Ulmer and A. B. Lovett for respondents.
No. 627. The City of Seattl e v . Puget Sound Powe r and Light Comp any . October 19,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas J. L. Kennedy for petitioner. Mr. James B. Howe for respondent.
No. 632. William E. Moore et al . v . Lincoln Hos - pit al Assoc iati on et al . October 19,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. C. C. Flansburg for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 633. J. H. Bunnell & Comp any , inc ., et al ., v . Radio Corporat ion of America . October 19,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the’ Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Walter H. Pumphrey for petitioners. Mr. L. F. H. Betts for respondent.
No. 637. Charles H. Moore et al . v . Lincoln Hos - pit al Assoc iati on et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. C. C. Flansburg for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 638. Lawrenc e Moore Byerl y v . Lincoln Hos - pit al Assoc iati on et al . October 19,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. Henry H. Wilson and Elmer J. Burkett for petitioner. Mr. C. Petrus Peterson for respondents
No. 639. The City of Sour Lake et al v . Vernon H. Branch . Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Wil- p. 566Ham D. Gordon for petitioners. Messrs. Chester I. Long, Austin M. Cowan, J. D. Houston, Claude I. Depew and W. E. Stanley for respondent.
No. 640. Charles H. Unverzagt v . United States . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. Tracy L. Jeffords and Edwin C. Dutton for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States.
No. 641. Charles H. Unverz agt v . E. B. Benn , as United State s Marshal for the Wester n Dis trict of Washi ngton . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs."Tracy L. Jeffords and Edwin C. Dutton for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States.
No. 642. Pinki e E. Moore et al . v . Linco ln Hosp ital Ass ocia tion et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. C. C. Flansburg for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 643. Pierce Wrapp ing Machin e Company v . Terkel sen Machine Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. Frederick P. Fish, Harrison F. Lyman and Albert L. Ely for petitioner. Mr. George P. Dike for respondent.
No. 644. The Fishe ries Products Compa ny et al ., Receivers of The Fishe rie s Products Company v . Abraha m S. See & Depew , Inc . October 19, 1925. p. 567Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. T. D. Warren for petitioners. Messrs. Robert H. Elder and Otho S. Bowling for respondent.
No. 656. George Owen Squier v . Americ an Tele - phone & Telegraph Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. R. Randolph Hicks and George F. Canfield for petitioner. Mr. Charles Neave for respondent.
No. 657. Olof L. Bruce et al . v . Dudley K. Wood - ward , Jr ., as Receiver of the Northern Oil and Gas Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota denied. Mr. H. V. Mercer for petitioners. Mr. George 8. Grimes for respondent.
No. 659. Petro leum Iron Works Company , Inc ., v . Willis C. Wrig ht . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Harry Preston Lawther for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 660. F. M. (Bee ) Adams et al . v . The State of Kansas . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Messrs. James A. Cobb and Elisha Scott for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 661. Erie Iron & Metal Compa ny v . United States . October 19, 1925. 'Petition for a writ of p. 568certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. John B. Brooks for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 664. Charles A. Stoneham v . Walte r A. Clif - for d et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Max D. Steuer for petitioner. Messrs. William M. Chadbourne and Francis L. Kohlman for respondents.
No. 720. Alber t H. Benhard et al . v . Charles A. Stoneham . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William M. Chadbourne for petitioners. Mr. Max D. Steuer for respondent.
No. 665. John Browni ng v . Unit ed States . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. H. P. White and Allen W. Comstock for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States.
No. 666. The Chesap eake and Ohio Railw ay Com - pany v. John T. Diede rich , Admini str ator of the Estate of Leonard Callihan , decea sed . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky denied. Messrs. LeWright Browning and Stanley Reed for petitioner. Mr. John F. Hager for respondent.
No. 667. W. P. Black et al . v . Unite d Stat es . October 19, 1925. Petition for a Writ of certiorari to the Cir- p. 569269 U. S Decisions Denying Certiorari.
cuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Norman B. Morrell for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 668. Panama Railroad Company v . Simon Theoktistou . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. F. Edward Mitchell for petitioner. Mr. Chauncey P. Fairman for respondent.
No. 669. John W. Ellenb erg v . Birmingham Belt Railroad Company . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama denied. Mr. Hugo L. Black for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 671. Michae l T. Naughton v . United States . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Alonzo H. Ranes and Corinne L. Rice for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 672. Norm an T. Whitaker v . United Stat es . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Norman T. Whitaker, pro se. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 673. Ex parte Ernest Stoff regen . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. Melville Church, William G. Johnson and Charles E. Tullar p. 570for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. H. E. Knight, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 676. United State s at the relat ion of The Kansa s City Southern Railway Company et al . v . Interstate Commerce Commis si on . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. S. W. Moore, F. H. Moore and T. P. Littlepage for petitioners. Mr. P. J. Farrell for respondent.
No. 677. SUGARLAND INDUSTRIES ET AL. V. OLD COLONY Trust Comp any . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. H. M. Garwood for petitioners. Mr. Henry C. Coke for respondent.
No. 678. Edmond Van Dyk v . Will iam A. Young . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William G. Cooke for petitioner. Mr. Godfrey Goldmark for respondent.
No. 682. Jacob L. Fishe r et al . v . James F. A. Clark et al . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Herman S. Hertwig for petitioners. Mr. Clarence J. Shearn for respondents.
No. 685. E. J. Fitzgerald v . Unite d States . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. p. 571269 U. 8. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
Herbert Pope and Frank E. Harkness for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan for the United States.
No. 688. Herman D. Ruhm v . Hers chel C. Ogden . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Richard B. Cavanaugh for petitioner. Mr. Merritt Lane for respondent.
No. 689. General Fire Exting uis her Compa ny v . George I. Rockwood . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Charles Neave, Frederick P. Fish and Everett E. Kent for petitioners. Messrs. Louis W. Southgate and 0. Ellery Edwards for respondent.
No. 690. Thomas Mc Donnell v . United State s . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert N. Golding and Charles A. Williams for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 691. Washington Market Compa ny v . Unite d Stat es . October 19, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. Charles A. Douglas, Hugh H. Obear and Alexander Wolf for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 695. Eberh art Steel Products Company , Inc ., v. United States . October 19, 1925. Petition for a p. 572writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. William D. Harris and Mitchell Staples for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Galloway and Mr. R. R. Koch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States.
No. 394. Eastern Products Corporat ion et al . v . Tennes se e Coal , Iron & Railroad Company . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee denied. Messrs. Carlyle S. Littleton, James J. Lynch and E. Bright Wilson for petitioners. Messrs. Frank Spurlock and Augustus Benners for respondent.
*
No. 654. Merchant s Bank & Trust Comp any v . J. Frank Pflug et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Joseph E, Alexander and C. T. Bundy for petitioner. Mr. Irvine T. Gilruth for respondents.
No. 452. Laura Smit h , admin istr atrix , etc ., v . Chi - cago , Burling ton & Quincy Rail road Company . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of the State of Illinois denied. Mr. Cyrus A. Geers for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 497. Joe H. Tiger v . Will iam M. Few ell et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. William Neff for petitioner. Mr. William 0. Beall for respondents.
No. 509. Frank C. Mebane , as Receiver , v . Staten Island Rail wa y Company et al . Error to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York. October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Messrs. Benjamin Catchings and Merle F. St. John for petitioner. Messrs. Joseph W. Welch, John F. Hughes, A. S. Gilbert, Royal E. T. Riggs, Morgan J. O’Brien and Albert Ottinger for respondents.
No. 566. The Gulf and Ship Islan d Railroad Com - pany v. C. G. Hendric ks . October 26,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi denied. Mr. T. J. Wills for petitioner. Mr. W. H. Watkins for respondent.
No. 570. James C. Davis , Agent , v . Louis Philli ps et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Bristol County, State of Massachusetts, denied. Mr. Arthur W. Blackman for petitioner. Mr. David R. Radovsky for respondents.
No. 621. Will ie Conner et al v . H. U. Bartlett et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. October 26,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. William Neff for petitioners. Mr. B. B. Blakeney for respondents.
No. 658. Robert Galla gher et al . v . John E. Ha n - nigan , Trustee . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Lowell A. Mayberry for petitioners. Mr. John E. Hannigan for respondent.
No. 703. Max Pottash and Harry Pottash , Copart - ners , etc ., v. Birds , Heil gers , Ironsides , Inc . October p. 57426, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Ira Jewel Williams for petitioners. Mr. George B. Covington for respondent.
No. 704. Louis Under lei der et al . v . United State s . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. J. Bernard Handlan for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 705. Alber t Eick v . United Stat es . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. J. Bernard Handlan for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 706. Mary C. H. Frenze r et al . v . Arthur J. Frenzer , etc ., et al . October 26, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Will H. Thompson for petitioners. Mr. Arthur R. Wells for respondents.
No. 707. Ephrai m A. Schwarzenberg v . Unite d Stat es . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. Edward F. McClennan and Walter S. Hilborn for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 708. Harry Nadl v . United States . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Frans E.
Lindquist for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 709. Salv ador Serra v . The Estate of the De - ceased Lazaro Mota et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied. Messrs. F. C. Fisher and Edwin S. Puller for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 711. Creamery Packag e Manuf actur ing Com - pany v. H. H. Mille r Indus tries Comp any . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Lincoln B. Smith and W. Clyde Jones for petitioner. Mr. Glen E. Smith for respondent.
No. 715. Ng Lin Go v . Luther Weedin , as Commi s - si oner of Immi gration . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. John J. Sullivan and Roger O’Donnell for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for respondent.
No. 717. Buenavent ura Lopez et al . v . El Hogar Filip ino , etc ., et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied. Messrs. George E. Wallace and Pedro Guevara for petitioners. Mr. Clyde A. DeWitt for respondents.
No. 723. The Wabash Railw ay Compa ny v . Hugh L. Britt on , An Infant , etc . October 26, 1915. Petition p. 576for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan denied. Mr. Clarke E. Baldwin for petitioner. Mr. B. D. Chandler for respondent.
No. 724. Susq ueh anna Steamshi p Compa ny , Inc . v . A. 0. Anderson & Company , Inc . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles R. Hickox for petitioner. Messrs. John A. McManus and H. S. Hertwig for respondent.
No. 732. Edmo nd Fenste rmacher v . Chicago , Rock Island & Pacif ic Railw ay Company , etc . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Mr. Platt Hubbell for petitioner. Messrs. M. L. Bell, W. F. Dickinson, Luther Burns and John B. Dolman for respondent.
No. 733. George D. Harter Bank v . Richard Inglis . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. C. M. Horn for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 734. George D. Harter Bank v . Mary P. Charles . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. C. M. Horn for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 735. George D. Harter Bank v . How ard L. Domiga n . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth p. 577Circuit denied. Mr. C. M. Hom for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 736. George D. Harter Bank v . J. E. Brate . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Ch M. Hom for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 737. George D. Harter Bank v . Mrs . F. U. Le - May . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. C. M. Hom for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 742. Charles De Witt v . Unite d Stat es . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. J. Wallace Bryan for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 744. Mashi e Berenson v . H. G. Vogel Company , Inc . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Suffolk County, State of Massachusetts, denied. Mr. Francis P. Garland for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 745. Patrick O’Donoghue v . Mary Jaeger . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. George E. Sullivan for petitioner. Mr. W. Gwynn Gardner for respondent.
80048°—26---- 37
No. 746. The Bank of the Philip pine Islands v . Wence sl ao Trinidad , Collect or . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied. Mr. Jesse C. Adkins for petitioner. Mr. Mark E. Guerin for respondent.
No. 747. Coast Steamshi p Comp any et al . v . Wil - liam S. Brady . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph C. Rich for petitioners. Mr. Palmer Pillans for respondent.
No. 748. Edgar P. Bleds oe , County Treasure r , etc ., v. St . Louis -San Francis co Railway Company . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. John B. Dudley for petitioner. Messrs. E. T. Miller, C. B. Stuart, J. F. Sharp and M. K. Cruce for respondent.
No. 749. National Surety Compa ny v . Salt Lake County et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Ray Van Cott for petitioner. Mr. John Jensen for respondents.
No. 752. The Americ an Surety Company of New York v . The Spri ngf ield National Bank et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Henry J. Booth and James I. Boulger for petitioner. Mr. J. E. Bowman for respondents.
No. 755. Central of Georgia Railway Compa ny v . Lillie May Davis , as Admin istra trix . October 26, 1925.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. William H. Sadler, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Fred Fite for respondent.
No. 758. Mered ith Hanna , Guardian of the Estat e of Norris W. H. Haupt , a Mino r , v . The Pennsy lvania Compa ny for Insur ance of Lives and Granting An - nuities et al . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania denied. Mr. Meredith Hanna, for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 759. Nation al Transi t Company v . James C. Davis , Direct or General of Railroads . October 26, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. James M. Beck, Frank L. Crawford, Myron Harris and Hugh C. Donworth for petitioner. Mr. John E. Walker for respondent.
No. 807. John Scott Barker v . United States . Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. November 16, 1925. Per Curiam. Application for further proceeding herein in forma pauperis is denied, for the reason that the court, having examined the typewritten record and having found the petition for writ of certiorari without merit, hereby denies the same. John Scott Barker, pro se. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 459. Lucy Fish er v . E. J. Crider . November 16, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of p. 580Oklahoma. Petition for writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. William Neff for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 469. L. J. Schw aub & Sons , Inc ., v . Tenness ee Egg Comp any . November 16, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee denied. Mr. Charles C. Moore for petitioner. Mr. John B. Hyde for respondent.
No. 662. Empi re Engineering Compa ny v . White , Gratw ick & Mitche ll , Inc . November 16, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. Mr. Adelbert Moot and Helen Z. M. Rodgers for petitioner. Mr. Laurence E. Coffey for respondent.
No. 728. Dr. B. W. Crabb v . Warren H. Kerby et al . November 16, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Mr. Eustace Smith for petitioner. Mr. Charles B. Griffith for respondents.
No. 754. S. L. Leatherman et al . v . A. J. Mayse et al . November 16, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. John F. Reilly and James G. Wilson for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 769. Josep h Wheles s v . Andrew W. Mellon , Secretary etc ., et al . November 16, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Joseph Wheless, pro se. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. William T. Offley for respondents.
No. 771. Bunker Hill & Sulli van Mining and Con - centrating Comp any et al . v . Jacob Polak . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles W. Beall for petitioners. Mr. Lawrence H. Brown for respondent.
No. 772. Roxan a Petrol eum Corporation v . Rob - ert Watchorn . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Truman Post Young for petitioner. Mr. George W. Morgan for respondent.
No. 773. J. S. Bache & Company v . Thos . W. Hinde et al . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. William Marshall Bullitt, Helm Bruce and Henry Woolman for petitioner. Messrs. Colin C. H. Fyffe and William W. Spalding for respondents.
No. 775. Brunsw ick -Balke -Collender Compa ny v . Victor Talkin g Machine Company . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. Melville Church and George W. Case, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, William H. Kenyon and William Clark Mason for respondent.
No. 777. Corneli us Anderson , etc ., v . Shipo wne rs Ass ociat ion of the Pacif ic Coast et al . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. H. W. Hutton for petitioner. Mr. Frederick Clayton Peterson for respondents.
No. 779. Banner Milli ng Company v . The State of New York . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims of the State of New York denied. Mr. Henry W. Hill for petitioner. Mr. Albert Ottinger for respondent.
No. 780. Meyer E. Kaplan et al . v . Unit ed State s . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Jacob J. Podell for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 784. Pass aic Valle y Sewer age Commis sioners v . Holbrook , Cabot & Rolli ns Corporat ion . November 23, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. John W. Davis and Frederick M. P. Pearce for petitioner. Messrs. John W. Griggs, John W. Harding, Thomas P. Conway, Joseph A. Kellogg and Thomas E. O’Brien for respondent.
No. 792. Chica go , Rock Islan d & Pacif ic Railw ay Company v . Nellie Kidd , Administratr ix . November 30, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Messrs. Luther Burns, Henry S. Conrad, M. L. Bell and W. F. Dickinson for petitioner. Mr. Platt Hubbell for respondent.
No. 796. Fred L. Krieb el v . Unite d Stat es . November 30, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Weymouth Kirkland and Robert N. Golding for p. 583petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 797. Chicago , Milwaukee & St . Paul Railw ay Company v . The City of Tacoma . November 30, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. 0. W. Dynes and George W. Korte for petitioner. Mr. E. K. Murray for respondent.
No. 802. The United State s Fidel ity & Guaran ty Compa ny v . Worthington & Company , a Partner shi p, etc . November 30, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph A. McCullough for petitioner. Mr. Augustus Benners for respondent.
Nos. 794 and 795. The Farmers ’ Loan & Trust Com - pany , etc ., v. Freder ick C. Hicks , Alien Proper ty Cus - todian , et al . December 7, 1925. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Edward H. Blanc for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts and Mr. Dean Hill Stanley for respondent.
No. 798. Henry Pommery v . United Stat es . December 7,1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. David D. Stansbury and Thomas. H. Mahony for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 799. John A. Murphy v . United States . December 7, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Myer Nusbaum for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 806. James V. Martin v . Hon . Frederick L. Sid - dons , Judge , etc . December 14, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Raymond M. Hudson for petitioner. Messrs. Joseph W. Cqx and William H. White for respondent.
No. 808. Seaboar d Air Line Railw ay Comp any v . Mrs . Louis e E. Gerow , Administr atrix . December 14, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina denied. Mr. Murray Allen for petitioner. Messrs. William C. Douglass, Clyde R. Douglass and Robert N. Simms for respondent.
No. 815. James B. Kell y et al . v . The City of Beggs , Oklahom a , et al . December 14, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Messrs. Louis W. Pratt and James M. Springer for petitioners. Messrs. R. C. Allen and I. J. Underwood for respondents.
No. 793. John Russo , alias Massi min o Pis sane llo , v. The Peop le of the State of New York . January 4, 1926. Petition for a .writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York denied. Mr. Thomas E. Nolan for petitioner. Messrs. Joab H. Banton and Felix C. Benvenga for respondent.
269 U. 8. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
No. 818. Ralph Nakutin , alias Ralph Natkin , v . United Stat es . January 4, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Jacob Levy for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 819. Chicag o and North West ern Railway Com - pany v. Edward Ott . January 4, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming denied. Messrs. R. N. Van Doren, Nelson J. Wilcox and Thomas P. Littlepage for petitioner. Mr. Ray E. Lee for respondent.
No. 868. William A. Lawre nce v . The State of Ari - zona . Application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. January 4, 1926. Per Curiam. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona to review the validity of a judgment of that court affirming the judgment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County of that State sentencing the petitioner to death for the crime of murder. There is also a motion by petitioner to be allowed to proceed in this court in forma pauperis and for a stay of the sentence which by its terms is to be executed on January 8th next. We have considered the petition, and all the papers accompanying it, and the brief of counsel for the petitioner setting forth the grounds upon which it is claimed that this court should take jurisdiction of the cause. After full examination we find that there is no Federal question disclosed upon which we properly could grant the writ of certiorari and review the case. The petition for certiorari is therefore denied, and so also of course are the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a stay of the sentence. The clerk will issue certificate of our action forth-
Decisions Denying Certiorari. ’ 269 U. S.
with to the clerk of the Supreme Court of Arizona, and in addition will advise by telegram the Governor of Arizona, the clerk of its Supreme Court, and the counsel for the petitioner. Mr. John W. Ray for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 821. Pacif ic Steamshi p Comp any v . Margaret Sutton , by Harw ood Hall , her Guardia n ad lite m . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. Benjamin Grosscup, W. Carr Morrow and Charles A. Wallace for petitioner. Mr. C. K. Poe for respondent.
No. 822. Pacifi c Steamshi p Comp any v . Ella Cackett e . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. Benjamin Grosscup, W. Carr Morrow and Charles A. Wallace for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 826. Wade Larramo re et al . v . Unite d States . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John W. Bennett for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 829. J. C. Owen s v . Unit ed States . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph E. Morrison for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 830. Evelyn Brown v . Unite d States . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph E. Morrison for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 832. Edwa rd F. Cullom et al ., Trustees , v . E. B. Kearns . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. J. E. Alexander for petitioners. Mr. Louis M. Swink for respondent.
No. 833. M. F. Jones v . Irving Page , Recei ver , etc . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. John B. Dudley for petitioner. Messrs. B. D. Shear and E. E. Blake for respondent.
No. 835. W. S. Whiti ng v . Mark Squire s , Trustee . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Alfred S. Barnard for petitioner. Mr. Mark Squires, pro se.
No. 837. George B. Wils on v . Elk Coal Company . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. John F. Dore, F. C. Reagan and Abner H. Ferguson for petitioner. Messrs. George Donworth, Elmer E. Todd, John C. Higgins and Charles T. Donworth for respondent.
No. 841. Kurt Kling et al . v . Unite d Stat es . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the p. 588Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Ferdinand Henry Wurzer for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Wdlebrandt for the United States.
No. 848. John W. Langley v . Unite d States . January 11, 1926. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.’ Mr. Henry E. Davis for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Wdlebrandt for the United States.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM OCTOBER 5, 1925, TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 11, 1926.
No. 77. United Stat es v . Union Electric Light & Power Company . Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. October 5, 1925. Judgment reversed; and cause remanded for further proceedings, on joint motion submitted by Solicitor General Mitchell in that behalf. Messrs. Jerry A. Matthews, Thomas. Bond and Josephus C. Trimble for defendant in error.
No. 132. Unite d States v . Bril liant Coal Company . Appeal from the Court of Claims. October 5,1925. Dismissed, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States. Mr. John London for appellee.
No. 176. C. C. Belknap Glass Company v . Unite d Stat es . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington. October 5, 1925. Decree reversed; and cause remanded for p. 589further proceedings, on confession of error submitted by Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States. Mr. George W. Korte for appellant.
No. 20. Capit al City Water Company v . The Public Servi ce Commis sion of Missouri . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. October 5, 1925 Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs A. Z. Patterson and Robert.A. Brown for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. H. Breur for defendant in error.
No. 21. Will iam B. Thompson v . The City of St . Loui s et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. October 5, 1925. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. W. B. Thompson and Ford W. Thompson for plaintiff in error. Mr. William K. Koerner for defendants in error.
No. 323. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v . Leo J. Drum et al . Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. October 5, 1925. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Messrs. Hollins N. Randolph and Robert S. Parker, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Sanders McDaniel for defendants in error.
No. 508. A. L. Hartli ne v . Unite d Stat es . On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. October 5, 1925. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. J. L. Howard for petitioner. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 582. John B. Bailey v . Unite d States . On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of p. 590Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. October 5, 1925. Dismissed, on motion of Messrs. John J. Bonhan, A. A. Lawrence and E. H. Abrahams for petitioner. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 616. The Inters tate Cooperag e Compa ny v . Ronal d S. Swain . On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. October 5, 1925. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. John H. Small for petitioner. Mr. P. W. McMullen for respondent.
No. 5, original. The State of New York v . The Bulls Ferry Chemic al Comp any . October 5, 1925. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. F. LaGuardia and Edgar Bromberger for complainant. Mr. Julian A. Gregory for defendant.
No. 6, original. The State of New York v . Valvoline Oil Company . October 5, 1925. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. F. LaGuardia and Edgar Bromberger for complainant. Mr. Henry B. Twombly for defendant.
No. 7, original. The State of New York v . Midland Linseed Products Comp any of New Jersey . October 5, 1925. Dismissed, on authority of Messrs. F. LaGuardia and Edgar Bromberger for complainant. Mr. Albert C. Wall for defendant.
No. 8, original. The State of New York v . Corn Products Refi ning Company . October 5, 1925. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. F. LaGuardia and Edgar Bromberger for complainant. Mr. Frank H. Hall for defendant.
No. 9, original. The State of New York v . Barret t Manufacturing Comp any . October 5, 1925. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. F. LaGuardia and Edgar Bromberger for complainant. Mr. Clark McKercher for defendant.
No. 10, original. The State of South Dakota v . The State of Minnesot a . October 5, 1925. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. Clarence C. Caldwell, M. H. Boutell, John Lind, Byron S. Payne and Oliver E. Sweet for complainant. Messrs. John E. Palmer, Charles R. Pierce, Charles E. Houston and Clifford L. Hilton for defendant.
No. 1. Auditore Contr acti ng Company , Inc ., et al . v. Foreign Trade Banking Corporation . October 5, 1925. Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. Alvin C. Cass for petitioner. Messrs. John M. Woolsey and Delbert M. Tibbetts for respondent.
No. 2. Railr oad and Wareh ous e Comm iss ion of the State of Minn esota et al . v . Duluth Street Railway Comp any . October 5, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Dismissed, per stipulation. Messrs. Clifford L. Hilton, Henry C. Flannery and John B. Richards for appellants. Messrs. W. D. Bailey and Oscar Mitchell for appellee.
No. 9. Chris s Lands berg , pet it ioner , v . The San Francisco & Portland Steamshi p Company . October 5, 1925. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Mr. Chriss Landsberg, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 12. John L. Anderson v . The City of Macon et al . October 6, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Warren Grice for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Harry S. Stozier and H. D. Russell for defendant in error.
No. 19. Road Improve ment Distr ict No . 1 of Clark County , Arkan sas , et al ., etc ., v . Charles S. Thorn - ton et al . October 7, 1925. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Dismissed, subject to a motion to restore showing satisfactory evidence of cause for delay to be submitted within 10 days. Messrs. Janies P. Lavin and John W. Murphy for appellants. Messrs. Thomas G. Nairn, Louis Henry Chalmers, Alexander Britton, Chdllen B. Ellis and Leslie C. Hardy for appellees.
No. 28. The Piqua Hosi ery Compa ny v . Unite d Stat es . October 8, 1925. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Dismissed per stipulation. Messrs. Frank Davis, Jr., and W. B. Stewart for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 17. Stanley P. Hall et al ., Adminis trators , etc . v. F. Alexande r Chandler et al ., etc . October 8, 1925. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Messrs. Walter B. Grant, Arthur V. Harper and Stanley P. Hall for appellants. Mr. Judd Dewey for appellees.
No. 546. Newp ort News Shipbui lding and Dry Dock Company v . Josep h W. Isherw ood , etc ., Trustee . October 9, 1925. On petition for writ of certiorari to the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Dismissed on motion of Messrs. Junius Parker and G. S. Ferguson, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. C. V. Meredith, F. P. Fish, Hubert Howson and Charles N. Howson for respondent.
No. 757. Swift and Company v . Federal Trade Com - missi on . October 9, 1925. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Dismissed per stipulation. Messrs. Albert H. Veeder, Henry Veeder and James M. Sheean for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 344. International -Great Northern Railr oad Company v . John Roosevelt Sneed et al . October 19, 1925. Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. R. M. Hudson on behalf of Mr. Samuel B. Dabney for the appellant.
No. 155. Robert S. Lee et al . v . The People of the State of Illinois ex rel . Loui s L. Emmers on , Secre - tary of State of the State of Illi nois . October 19, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the eleventh rule. Mr. Robert Stewart Lee for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Edward J. Brundage for defendant in error.
No. 300. Merchants Mutual Automo bile Liabi lity Insurance Compa ny of Buffalo , N. Y. v . Phebe M. Bennett , as Admin istra trix , etc . October 19, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the eleventh rule. Mr.
80048°—26------- 38
Anthony J. Ernest for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 321. United Stat es ex rel . Mary Strup v . George Will iams , Crimi nal Sheriff for the Parish of Or - leans , Louis iana . October 19, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the eleventh rule. Mr. Girault Farrar for appellant. No pearanee for appellee.
No. 519. Hende rson -Waits Lumber Company v . W. F. Croft , for the use and benefi t of the Firs t Na - tional Bank of De Funiak Sprin gs , Florida . October 19, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the eleventh rule. Mr. W. W. Flournoy for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 78. Carri e E. Rowl ey v . The State of Iowa . October 20, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. John E. Mulvaney for plaintiff in error. Mr. Ben J. Gibson for defendant in error.
No. 82. J. Edmund Michae l v . Unite d Stat es . October 21, 1925. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Horace 8. Whitman for appellant. The Attorney General ior the United States.
No. 83. W. Carl Hollow ay v . Unite d States . October 21, 1925. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. Horace 8. Whitman for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 84. Frank Schatz , Admini strat or of Michael H. Fishe r , v . United State s . October 21, 1925. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. Horace S. Whitman for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 86. Miles W. Gibbons v . United States . October 22, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Decree reversed, on confession of error, on motion of Mr. Alfred A. Wheat for the appellee; and cause remanded for further proceedings. Mr. Joseph C. Breitenstein for appellant.
No. 140. Patrick Joyce v . United States . October 26, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Judgment reversed, on confession of error; and cause remanded for further proceedings, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell for the appellee. Mr. Joseph C. Breitenstein for appellant.
No. 760. Inters tate Refin eries , Inc ., v . Kaw Boiler Works Comp any . October 26, 1925. On petition for a certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Dismissed, on motion of Messrs. James M. Johnson and Donald W. Johnson for petitioner. Messrs. Edwin 8. McAnany and Clyde Taylor for respondent.
No. 136. Thomas .W. Mill er , Alien Property Custo - dian , et al . v. George Arthur Clausen et al . November 16, 1925. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Frederick C. Hicks, present Alien Property Custodian, ordered substituted as a party p. 596appellant herein, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell for the appellants. Dismissed, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell for the appellants; and mandate granted. No appearance for appellees.
No. 392. Frederick C. Hicks , as Alien Proper ty Cus - todia n , et al . v. Adolf J. Becker . November 16, 1925. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dismissed, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell for the appellants; and mandate granted. No appearance for appellee.
No. 8. Harry Glass man v . Robert C. Rand , Tem - pora ry Receive r , etc . November 16, 1925. On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Dorothy Frooks and Mr. S. Leighton Frooks for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 13. Riley Smith v . The State of Nebraska . November 16, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Messrs. E. D. O’Sullivan and C. J. Southard for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 14. Ray A. Lower v . The State of Nebraska . November 16, 1925. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Messrs. E. D. O’Sullivan and C. J. Southard for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 15, original. The State of Arkan sas v . The State of Mis si ss ippi . November 16, 1925. Bill of complaint p. 597dismissed, on motion of counsel for the complainant. Messrs. William J. Driver and J. S. Utley for complainant. Mr. John W. Cutrer for defendant.
No. 803. Amer ican Feature Film Company v . John H. Trumbul l , Governor of the State of Conne cti - cut , et al . November 17, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. George W. Wickersham for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
No. 681. The State of Ohio ex rel . Josep h Hans on v. James W. Caldw ell , Recei ver , et al . November 30, 1925. Error to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of the State of Ohio. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Oliver B. Snider for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
No. 756. Gulf & Ship Islan d Railroa d Company v . F. L. Riley Mercantile Company et al . December 7, 1925. Error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson Davis County, State of Mississippi. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. T. J. Wills for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
No. 277. Publi c Service Comm iss ion of the State of Mis so uri , etc ., et al . v . The Louisi ana Water Com - pany . December 9, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. L. H. Breuer for appellants. Messrs. Frank H. Mason and North F. Gentry for appellee.
No. 182. United Fuel Gas Comp any v . The Pub - li c Servic e Comm is si on of West Virgin ia et al . January 4, 1926. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Harold A. Ritz for appellant. Messrs. Robert S. Spilman and C. W. Strickling for appellees.
No. 350. The New York Central Railroad Com - pany v. The Lakewood Engineering Company . January 4, 1926. Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. S. H. West for plaintiff in error. Mr. Mark A. Copeland for defendant in error.
No. 131. The Atchi son , Tope ka & Santa Fe Rail - way Company v . The State of Kansa s ex rel ., The Publi c Util iti es Commis sion for the State of Kan - sas et al . January 11, 1926. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Messrs. Alexander Britton, Alfred A. Scott, Alfred G. Armstrong and Gardiner Lathrop for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. B. Griffith for defendants in error.
APPENDIX.
The following summary of the argument of Messrs. Frederick R. Coudert, Howard Thayer Kingsbury, and Mahlon B. Doing for the appellees in Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft n . United States Steel Corporation, 267 U. S. 22, should be noted as an addition to the report of that case.
Certificates of corporate stock duly endorsed in blank are treated by the modem law as constituting property in themselves, (a) capable of manual delivery like chattels, in pledge or otherwise; (b) the subject of jurisdiction in rem; and (c) the subject of taxation as such.
(a) Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233; Travis v. Knox Terpezone Co., 215 N. Y. 259; In re Whiting, 150 N. Y. 27; Williams v. Colonial Bank, 38 Ch. Div. 388; Uniform Stock Transfer Act; Williston, Contracts, Vol. I. pp. 835-837, Vol. II, pp. 1957, 1958; Cook, Corporations, 8th ed., Vol. II, pp. 1437 et seq.; Sedgwick, Damages, 9th ed., Vol. I, p. 521; (b) Yazoo R. R. v. Clarksdale, 257 U. S. 10; South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286; Mitchell v. Leland Co., 246 Fed. 103; Vidal v. South American Securities Co., 276 Fed. 855; Beal v. Carpenter, 235 Fed. 273; Blake v. Foreman Brothers Banking Co., 218 Fed. 265; Merritt n . American Steel Barge Co., 79 Fed. 228; Simpson v. Jersey City Contracting Co., 165 N. Y. 193; Wynn v. Griffenhagen, 167 App. Div. (N. Y.) 572; General Motors Corp. v. Ver Linden, 199 App. Div. (N.Y.) 375; Griswold v. Kelly Springfield Tire Co., 120 Atl. (N.J.) 324; Puget Sound Nat. Bank v. Mather, 60 Minn. 362; Stem n . The Queen, (1896) 1 Q. B. 211; Matter of K., 58 German Imperial Court Rep. (Civil Cases) 8; Beale; Foreign Corporations, pp. 483-485; (c) De Ganay v. Lederer, 239 Fed. 568, 250 U. S. 376; Hatch v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431.
Certainly, so long as there is no direct conflict between two jurisdictions in the exercise of power over particular shares of corporate stock, the foregoing principles are not adversely affected by the decisions in Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1; Amparo Mining Co. n . Fidelity Trust Co., 75 N. J. Eq. 555; Miller n . Kaliwerke &c. Gesellschaft, 283 Fed. 746; Columbia Brewing Co. v. Miller, 281 Fed. 289.
Consequently, the seizure by the Public Trustee in England of the endorsed stock certificates in controversy, in accordance with the provisions of the British Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914-1918, operated as a lawful seizure of the shares represented thereby as enemy property within the British jurisdiction, which will be considered effective everywhere. United States v. Chemical Foundation, 294 Fed. 300; American Banana Co. n . United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347; Luther n . Sagor, (1921) 2 K. B. 532.
Furthermore, without regard to the property character istics of these duly endorsed certificates of corporate stock, there has been in effect a voluntary transfer of the enemy interest in the shares represented thereby to the British Government by the provisions of the Treaties of Versailles and Berlin.
The British War Legislation and the Vesting Orders and measures of transfer executed thereunder with regard to these shares attempted and intended upon their face to transfer to the Public Trustee every right, title and interest of the enemy in such shares.
Every such attempt and intention of the British War Legislation and the Vesting Orders and measures of transfer executed thereunder was ratified, confirmed and rendered fully effective by the so-called 11 economic clauses ” of the Treaty of Versailles without regard to the technical situs of the interests, intended to be covered thereby. Treaty of Versailles, Art. 297, Annex Arts, 297-298, subd. 1 and 3; B. & Sohne v. Baux, 107 German Imperial Court Reports (Civil Cases) 43.
This intention of the Treaty is conclusively evidenced by the practical construction placed thereon by the parties. Great Britain has given and Germany has accepted under the Treaty, credit for the proceeds of the sale of certain endorsed certificates of stock in American corporations which were seized by the Public Trustee during the war, and Germany has paid compensation under the Treaty to her Nationals whose stock was so seized and sold. American and English Encyc. of Law, Vol. 28 pp. 488-490 and citations.
The Treaty has thus operated as a taking by Germany, in the exercise of her right of eminent domain, of the property of her nationals, wherever situate, in the payment of her war obligations, for which taking Germany agreed to provide, and did in fact provide, compensation to her nationals. Treaty of Versailles, Art. 297, par. 1; Constitution of Germany; (Reichsgesetzblatt 1919, pp. 1381 et seq.) Arts. 4, 7, 178-180; German Laws, No. 6958 of July 16, 1919, No. 7033 of August 31, 1919 and No. 7573 of May 26, 1920; Directions of German Government, issued thereunder November 15, 1919; The Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, pp. 293, 294; Luxardo n . Public Trustee, (1924) 1 Chancery.
The German Government possesses the power, as an attribute of sovereignty admitted by international law, to devote the property of its nationals, wherever situate, to the termination and settlement of the war. This power in the nature of Eminent Domain finds numerous precedents in modem times as exemplified in treaties entered into by the United States, and has been sustained by this Court. It is recognized by authorities on international law generally and by the practice of civilized states. Butler, Treaty Making Power of the United States, Vol. II, p. 293 and citations; Hijo v. United States, 194 U. S. 315; Herrera v. United States, 222 U. S. 558; James v. The Second Russian Insurance Co., 210 App. Div. (N. Y.) p. 60282; Cook v. Tait, 265 U. S. 47; The Blonde, (1922) 1 App. Cas. 335.
The Treaty of Versailles contains a covenant binding German nationals not to question the title of the Public Trustee in and to the shares in controversy. Treaty of Versailles, Annex Art. 298, subd. 2.
The Treaty of Berlin, under the principles of international law, has adopted into American Law for the benefit of our Associates the ratifications and convenants of the Treaty of Versailles as against Germany and her nationals. Treaty of Berlin, Art. 2, Sec. 1; Junkers v. Chemical Foundation, 287 Fed. 597; United States v. Chemical Foundation, 294 Fed. 300; Lange v. Wingrave, 295 Fed. 565; The Resolution, 2 Dall. 1, 2 Dall. 19.
As the Government of the United States has taken no action at any time to seize under its war legislation, or to charge under the Treaty of Berlin, the shares of stock in American corporations represented by the certificates in question, that Government has no right or interest in this controversy. Miller v. Rouse, 276 Fed. 715; Stoeck v. Public Trustee, (1921) 2 Chancery 67; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 293; Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. V, p. 222 and citations.