Heiner v. Tindle, 276 U.S. 582 (1928)
Case details
Citation
276 U.S. 582
Full caption
HEINER, COLLECTOR, v. TINDLE et al .
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
Apr. 9, 1928
HEINER, COLLECTOR, v. TINDLE et al .
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 341. Argued March 7, 1928.—Decided April 9, 1928.
1
Under the Revenue Act of 1918, § 215, (a), 5, the devotion of a house theretofore purchased and used as the taxpayer’s residence, exclusively to the production of taxable income in the form of rentals, is a “transaction entered into for profit” as of the date when the change was made; and when such change occurred before March 1, 1913, and the new use continued until the property was sold at a loss after the date of the Act, the amount of loss deductible in computing net income is the difference between the sale price and the value of the property on the date of the change, or, if that value be larger than the March 1, 1913, value, then the difference between the sale price and the value on March 1, 1913. P. 585,
(no text on this page in the source reporter)
The tax was assessed under the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057. Section 214 specifies deductions which may be made from gross income in computing the tax and sub-section (a)5 permits the deduction of “losses sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, if incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with the trade or business.” Section 215 provides that “ in computing net income no deduction shall in any case be allowed in respect of (a) personal, living, or family expenses.” Treasury Regulations 45, promulgated April 17, 1919, and in force during 1920, provide: “Art. 141 ... A loss in the sale of an individual’s residence is not deductible.” This was amended on January 28, 1921, to read: “ . . . A loss in the sale of residential property is not deductible unless the property was purchased or constructed by the taxpayer with a view to its subsequent sale for pecuniary profit.” This regulation has remained unchanged under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924 and 1926. See Art. 141 of Regulations 62, Regulations 65 and Regulations 69.
That the exchange value of a dwelling house may increase or diminish is a consideration not usually overlooked by one who purchases it for residential purposes, but the quoted Regulations appear to assume that the acquisition of such property cannot be a transaction for profit within the meaning of sub-section (a) 5 of § 214, if the dominating purpose of it is the use of the property for a home. The correctness of that view is not before us, for there is no finding that the taxpayer built his dwelling with any hope or expectation of profit. See Appeal of D’Oench, 3 B. T. A. 24.
But the findings amply support the view of the court of appeals that the purpose to use the property as a residence of the taxpayer came to an end when it was leased p. 585in 1901, and that from that date until it was sold nineteen years later it was devoted exclusively to the production of a profit in the form of net rentals. It is not questioned that if in 1901 the property had been purchased for that use or inherited and so used the loss might have been deducted, but it is said, as the district court held, that the only transaction entered into with respect to the property was the purchase of the land and the erection of the house, regardless of the use which might afterwards be made of it, and that these acts did not appear to be a transaction entered into for profit.
But the words “ any transaction ” as used in sub-section (a)5 are not a technical phrase or one of art. They must therefore be taken in their usual sense and, so taken, they are, we think, broad enough to embrace at least any action or business operation, such as that with which we are now concerned, by which property previously acquired is devoted exclusively to the production of taxable income. We can perceive no reason why they should not be so taken unless that construction is inconsistent with the purpose or with particular provisions of the Act. Section 214, read as a whole, discloses plainly a general purpose to permit deductions of capital losses wherever the capital investment is used to produce taxable income, and the inclusion of the present deduction in those described in sub-section (a)5 would seem to be entirely harmonious with that purpose.
But it is pointed out that § 202 of the Revenue Act of 1918, prescribing the method of computing gain or loss upon the sale of property, makes value as of March 1, 1913, or cost if acquired later, the basis of the computation. It is said that this is inconsistent with the use of the market value of the property at the date of rental as the basis of the computation, which would be necessary if the construction contended for were given to sub-section p. 586(a) 5, and that in any case a computation on that basis would involve administrative difficulties in determining the value, which should lead to a different interpretation.
But it is obvious that § 202 is not all inclusive. The same and no greater inconsistency and difficulty arise in the case of property acquired by gift, bequest or devise, when market value at the time of acquisition by the donee and not cost is necessarily the basis of computing the tax. That in such cases the difference between the sale price and market value at the date of acquisition, if after March 1, 1913, is deductible under sub-section (a)5, is not questioned. The ascertainment of market value of the property at that date would not seem to involve any greater administrative difficulty than the ascertainment of market value on March 1, 1913. Section 202 itself provides that in the case of exchange the property shall be taken at this fair market value, and under the Act of 1918 this was likewise provided for in the case of property acquired by gift, devise or bequest, by Regulations 45, Art. 1562, which was incorporated in the later acts. Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, § 202 (a)2; Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, § 204 (a)2; Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, § 204 (a)2.
For the purpose of computing the loss resulting from this particular transaction we think it must stand on the same footing as losses resulting from a similar use of property acquired by gift or devise and that whenever needful the fair value of the property at the time when the transaction for profit was entered into may be taken as the basis for computing the loss.
Article 141 of the Regulations presents no necessary inconsistency with the construction of § 214(a) 5, contended for by the respondent. The article both in its original and in its amended form obviously refers to the p. 587sale of residential property of the taxpayer, that is to say, property used by him as a residence up to the time of the sale. Only if that is its meaning can it be reconciled with the Treasury rulings that losses on the sale of residential property acquired by gift, devise or bequest and devoted to rental purposes may be deducted. The loss here has resulted from the sale of property not used for residential purposes by the taxpayer, and the transaction entered into for profit and resulting in the loss was not the purchase of the property but its appropriation to rental purposes. The article of the Regulations by its terms has no application to a loss so incurred.
The findings show that the property was sold for less than its cost and the loss deducted was the difference between its March 1, 1913, value and the sale price. The only loss deductible here under sub-section (a)5 is one incurred in a transaction entered into for profit, later than the date of purchase. For all that appears from the findings the loss which had occurred between the date of purchase and March 1, 1913, may have occurred before the property was devoted to rental purposes. For that reason the findings do not support the judgment. The cause should be remanded for a new trial so that the value of the property as of October 1, 1901, when rented, may be found. If that value is larger than the value of March 1, 1913, the deduction made below should be allowed; if less, only the difference, if any, between its then value and the sale price should be allowed. See United States v. Flannery, 268 U. S. 98; McCaughn v. Ludington, 268 U. S. 106.
Reversed. p. 588DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM JANUARY 4,
1928, TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 9, 1928, OTHER THAN DECISIONS ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI.
No. 122. Leo L. Spears v . State Board of Medica l Examiners of Colorado . January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. The petition for rehearing is denied, but the Court’s order of dismissal entered December 12, 1927, is hereby changed so as to read: “ Dismissed because the record does not disclose that any substantial federal question was made in the presentation of the cause in the State Supreme Court. McCorquodale v. State of Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 436, 437; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 333, 334; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179, 180, 181.” Messrs. Carle Whitehead and Albert L. Voge for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Wm. L. Boatright and Charles H. Haines for defendant in error.
No. —, original. The State of Connecti cut v . The Commonw ealth of Mass achusetts . January 9, 1928. The motion for leave to file the bill of complaint herein is granted, and process ordered to issue returnable on Monday, March 5, 1928. Mr. Ernest L. Averill for complainant.
No. 454. Harry Hawkins et al . v . Elmer E. Klein et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 3, 1928. Decided January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of §237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. .936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Treating the writ of error as an application for certiorari, p. 589the application is denied. Messrs. Vern E. Thompson and C. H. Merillat for defendants in error, in support of the motion. Mr. C. B. Ames for plaintiffs in error, in opposition thereto.
No. 548. Henry 0. Head v . Obion County , for the use of House r Creek Draina ge Dis trict . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. Submitted January 3, 1928. Decided January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Pierce et al. v. Obion County, 275 U. S. 509; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Messrs. Rice Maxey and Henry 0. Head for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 592. James C. Colgate v . Philade lphi a Electri c Power Company et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Argued January 5, 1928. Decided January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. E. J. Dimock, with whom Messrs. Charles F. Carusi, Benjamin C. Atlee, and Eleanor S. Burch were on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. John Fox Weiss and William Clarke Mason were on the brief for appellees.
No. 143. Emma Sango v . William Will ig . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Argued January 5, 1928. Decided January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, p. 5901925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction. Treating the writ of error as an application for certiorari, the certiorari is denied. Mr. Wm. Neff for plaintiff in error. Mr. G. R. Horner, with whom Mr. Lafayette Walker was on the brief, for defendant in error.
No. 158. John Lapi que , Successor in int eres t of the Esta te of Maria Esp irit u Chiljulla De Leonis , v . Frank E. Walsh et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. Submitted January 6, 1928. Decided January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court under § 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 938), on the authority of Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 103, 105. Mr. John Lapique, pro se. Mr. Herbert J. Goudge, with' whom Messrs. Everett W. Mattoon and Lee A. Day ton were on the brief for appellees, submitted.
No. 166. United States ex rel . Niels Peter Clauss en v. Henry H. Curran , Commi ssione r of Immigration . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Suggestion of abatement submitted January 6, 1928. Decided January 9, 1928. Per Curiam. In this case the order of the District Court dismissing the writ of habeas corpus was entered on February 1, 1926; an appeal was allowed on February 9, 1926, to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which court, on December 14, 1926, entered a judgment affirming that of the District Court. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court on March 7, 1927.
It appearing that Henry H. Curran, sued herein as Commissioner of Immigration, resigned such office on March 31, 1926, and was succeeded by Benjamin M. Day, p. 591who now holds that office, and that no motion was made under § 11 of the act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229 43 Stat. 936, 941), asking the Court to “permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer,” and that the six months’ period, within which such a motion could have been made, has expired, the Court, now vacates the judgments entered in the District Court ahd in the Circuit Court of Appeals and remands the cause to the District Court with a direction to dismiss the cause as abated. Mr. Silas B. Axtell for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant A ttorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for respondent.
No. 686. Arrington v . Grand Lodge . See post, p. 617.
No. 153. Seaboar d Air Line Railw ay Company and Atlan tic Coast Line Railroad Comp any v . Will iam T. Lee et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Argued January 9, 10, 1928. Decided January 16, 1928. Per Curigm. Affirmed on the authority of Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky and Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky y. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 275 U. S. 257. Mr. Frank W. Gwathmey, with whom Messrs. Thomas W. Davis and Murray Allen were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Sidney S. Aiderman, with whom Messrs. F. P. Hobgood, Jr., Dennis C. Brummitt, and P. W. McMullan were on the brief, for appellees.
No. 155. Bryant Arnold , doing busi ness as Kansas City Hay Compa ny , et al . v . Forest Hanna and C. P.
Anderson . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Argued January 10, 1928. Decided January p. 59216, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of (1) Watters v. People of the State of Michigan, 248 U. S. 65, 66; (2) Payne N. State of Kansas, 248 U. S. 112, 113. Mr. Charles M. Blackmar for plaintiffs in error. Mr. North T. Gentry was on the brief for defendants in error.
No. 179. Gulf , Mobile and Northern Railr oad Com - pan y v. L. G. Touchstone . On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. Submitted January 12, 1928. Decided January 16, 1928. Per Curiam. Reversed on the authority of Jacobs v. Southern Railway Co., 241 U. S. 229, 232, 236. Messrs. Ellis B. Cooper and Walter S. Welch for petitioner. Mr. W. Calvin Wells for respondent.
No. 180. Ernest F. Dunham v . Albert Ottinger , in - dividually and as Attorney Gene ral of the State of New York . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Submitted January 12, 1928. Decided January 16, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. George Gordon Battle, with whom Messrs. Ernest F. Dunham, Joseph W. Spencer, and Louis Marshall were on the brief for plaintiff in error, submitted. Mr. William H. Milholland, with whom Mr. Albert Ottinger was on the brief, for defendant in error, submitted.
No. 172. Lloyd Littr ell , Receiver , v . Peter G. Cam - eron , Secretary of Banking of Pennsylvania , et al . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. Argued January 13, 1928. Decided January 16, 1928. Per Curiam. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the
State of Pennsylvania in this case is affirmed for the reason that, on the record and on the facts, no substantial federal question is presented. Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull n . Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. William S. Moorhead for plaintiff in error. Messrs. E. Lowry Humes and Leonard K. Guiler were on the brief for defendants in error.
No. 184. Fred M. Kirby v . Unite d States . On writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims. Argued January 17, 18, 1928. Decided February 20, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of (1) Mason v. Routzahn, Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U. S. 175; (2) United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422, 443. Mr. Martin A. Schenck, with whom Mr. Edward Cornell was on the brief, for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Assistant Attorney General Galloway, and Mr. L. F. McCormick were on the brief, for the United States.
No. 187. Fort Smith , Subiaco and Rock Island Rail - road Company v . Emma Moore , Administr atrix . On writ of certiorari to the Supreme, Court of the State of Arkansas. Argued January 18, 1928. Decided February 20, 1928. Per Curiam. Reversed on the authority of Gulf, Mobile & Northern R. R. Co. v. Wells, 275 U. S. 455; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U. S. 472, 477, 478. Mr. James B. McDonough for petitioner. Emma Moore, pro se.
No. 203. Josep h M. Davis and Southern Surety Company v . Esthe r M. Jessup , Admin istra trix . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. Argued January 20, 1928. Decided February 20, 1928. Per Cu-
318°—28------ 38
riam. The writ of error is dismissed for want of a final judgment in the highest court of the State as required by § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), on the authority of Haseltine n . Central Bank of Springfield (No. 1), 183 U. S. 130, 131; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, 175; Arnold v. United States, for the use of Guimarin & Co., 263 U. S. 427, 434. Mr. Robert S. Neely, with whom Mr. Wymer Dressier was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 154. John W. Blodgett v . Charles Holden , Col - lector of Internal Revenue . February 20, 1928.
It is hereby ordered that the opinion in Cause No. 154 of the present term, John W. Blodgett v. Charles Holden, Collector of Internal Revenue, on certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, heretofore handed down, be modified and made to read in the following manner:
By the Court: An equal division of opinion among the eight Justices who heard and considered this matter renders it impossible categorically to answer certified question No. 2. The other two questions, we think, are not essential. The statements of views by the Justices are enough to show that the tax exacted of Blodgett can not be sustained under §§ 319-324 of the Revenue Act of 1924, and they will enable the Circuit Court of Appeals readily to reach a proper decision. The cause will be remanded there for appropriate action.
The opinion of Mr . Justice Mc Reynol ds is amended by striking out the words “And the question is so answered,” and by adding thereto “ The Chief Just ice , Mr . Justice Van Devante r , and Mr . Justi ce Butler concur in this opinion.
The opinion of Mr . Justi ce Holmes is concurred in by Mr . Justice Brandeis , Mr . Justi ce Sanford , and Mr . Justi ce Stone .
[The opinions of Mc Rey no ld s and Hol mes , JJ., the former modified as above ordered, are reported in 275 U. S. 142.]
No. 96. Ella R. Clarke v . Shoshoni Lumber Com - pany and Allan Boysen . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming. Motion to dismiss submitted February 20, 1928. Decided February 21, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Messrs. Robert F. Cogswell, D. Avery Haggard and Michael A. Rattigan for defendants in error in support of the motion. Mr. Wm. J. Hughes, Jr., for plaintiff in error in opposition thereto.
No. 13, original. United Stat es v . State of Idaho . Motion submitted February 20, 1928. Decided February 27, 1928. Per Curiam. The motion by the United States for judgment on the pleadings is granted. It is ordered that the decree as proposed by the United States be entered, and that the Clerk be directed to send a copy thereof to the Governor of the State of Idaho, and to the Secretary of the Interior. The Attorney General for the United States. Mr. F. L. Stephan for defendant.
No. 631. L. F. Vance v . Chicago Portra it Company et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Motion to dismiss submitted February 20, 1928. Decided February 27, 1928. Per Curiam. The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in this Court under §238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, p. 596938), is granted. Mr. John T. Evans for appellees in support of the motion. Mr. L. F. Vance, pro se, in opposition thereto.
No. 430. State of Ohio , on relat ion of National Mutual Insurance Compa ny , v . Will iam C. Saffo rd , Supe rinten dent of Insurance ; and
No. 431. State of Ohio , on relation of the Celina Mutual Casua lty Company , v . William C. Saff ord , Superi ntendent of Insurance . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Argued February 21, 1928. Decided February 27, 1928. Per Curiam. The writs of error are dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Messrs. Arthur I. Vorys and Herman L. Ekern for plaintiffs in error. Mr. C. S. Younger, with whom Mr. Edward C. Turner was on the brief, for defendant in error.
No. 6, original. State of Oklahom a v . State of Texas , United State s , Interve ner . In equity. Order entered March 5, 1928. Announced by Mr . Justice Sanfor d .
Upon consideration of the responses to the rule to show cause issued on January 9, 1928, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that clause 1 of the decree entered in this cause on January 3,1927 (273 U. S. 93), be and is changed so as to read as follows:
“ 1. The boundary between the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma constituting the eastern boundary of the Panhandle of Texas and the main western boundary of Oklahoma, is the line of the true one-hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, extending north from its intersection with the south bank of the South
Fork of Red River to its intersection with the northern boundary line of the State of Texas as surveyed and marked upon the ground by John H. Clark, United States Commissioner, under the Act of June 5, 1858, c. 92, or with a line running due east from the eastern terminus of the Clark survey if it is west of the meridian.”
The clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to the Governors of Texas and Oklahoma, the Secretary of the Interior, and Samuel S. Gannett, Commissioner, respectively.
No. —, original. Ex parte : Thomas E. Willi ams , Tax Commi ss ioner . March 5, 1928. The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. The petition will be filed, and an order, returnable April 9 next, will issue against Hon. Joseph W. Woodrough, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha Division, to show cause in printed form, if any there be, why a writ of mandamus should not issue out of this Court requiring him to call to his assistance two other Federal judges, as provided for by § 266 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 938) to hear and determine the case herein at the final hearing. Messrs. 0. S. Stillman, George L. Bayse, and Hugh LaMaster for petitioner.
No. 223. Western Gas Construction Company v . Commonw ealth of Virginia , at the rela tion of the State Corp oration Commis sion . Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Submitted February 27, 1928. Decided March 5, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of Browning v. Way cross, 233 U. S. 16, 22; General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia, 246 U. S. 500, 510. Messrs. M. J. Fulton, T. J. Michie, Jr., and John S. Brookes, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. p. 598Leon M. Bazile and John R. Saunders for defendant in error.
No. 227. Cora B. Beatty , Executrix , v . D. B. Heiner , Collector . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Argued February 28, 1928. Decided March 5, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U. S. 161, 167, 168. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. W. D. Stewart, with whom Messrs. Earl F. Reed and W. A. Seifert were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell was on the brief, for respondent.
No. 230. Henry Ellis on et al . v . Max Kosw ig , tradin g as F. F. Koswi g . On writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of the State of Pennsylvania. Argued February 28, 1928. Decided March 5, 1928. Per Curiam. The grourids which were presented in the petition for certiorari, because of which the writ was granted, do not prove to have a substantial basis in the record because of the lack of assignments of error therein showing the proper presentation of federal questions to the Superior Court of the State. The certiorari heretofore granted in this case is, therefore, vacated on the authority of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hanna, 266 U. S. 184; El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Co. v. Eichel, 226 U. S. 590, 598; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U. S. 128, 131, 132. Mr. John G. Kaufman, with whom Messrs. H. Edgar Barnes and Albert T. Bauerle were on the brief, for petitioners. Messrs. Julius Henry Cohen and Kenneth Day ton were on the brief for respondent.
No. 256. Mrs . James A. Swayne v . City of Hatties - burg , Miss iss ipp i. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. Submitted February 29, 1928. Decided March 5,1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of Embree v. Kansas City Road District, 240 U. S. 242, 250; Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester County, 261 U. S. 155, 162, 164. Mr. T. J. Wills for plaintiff in error. M. J. N. Flowers for defendant in error.
No. 709. Lil li an Weare v . United States . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. March 5,1928. Per Curiam. The petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is granted, and, on confession of error by the United States, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the case. Mr. Donald G. Hughes for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 301. C. P. and S. J. Beaty et al . v . W. S. Richard - son , Tax Colle ctor . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. Submitted March 5, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction for the reason that the federal questions sought to be presented were by the record abandoned in the State Supreme court. Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 88; Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275, 281; Central Union Telephone Co. v. Edwardsville, 269 U. S. 190, 194, 195. Mr. R. E. Church for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. George M. Napier and T. R. Gress for defendant in error.
No. 291. Peninsula Produc e Exchange v . New York , Phil adel phi a and Norfolk Railr oad Compa ny , and The Pennsylvani a Railr oad Company . Error to the p. 600Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. Argued March 5, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Wolf, 261 U. S. 133, 139, 140; Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. R. Co., 268 U. S. 633, 636. Mr. J. M. Crockett, with whom Messrs. George F. Graham and Robert E. Quirk were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. F. D. McKenney, JohnS. Flannery, George R. Allen, and Henry W. Bikie were on the brief for defendants in error.
No. 292. Arthur E. Hoffm an , Executor , v . The Industri al Commis si on of Ohio . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Motion to dismiss submitted March 5, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. The motion to dismiss is granted for want of a federal question. Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Messrs. Frank Davis, Jr., and Edward C. Turner for defendant in error in support of the motion. Messrs. Wm. H. Miller and Frank H. Ward for plaintiff in error in opposition thereto.
No. 296. C. A. King & Comp any v . D. 0. Horton ; and No. 304. D. O. Horton v . C. A. King & Company . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Argued March 5, 1928. Decided March 12, T928. Per Curiam. The writs of error are dismissed for want of jurisdiction for the reason that the only federal questions presented are frivolous, on the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toup v. Ulyssess Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. y. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195; Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236, U. S. 668, 671; *Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial p. 601Commission, 255 U. S. 445, 448, 449. Mr. Morris Townley, with whom Messrs. Robert Newbegin and E. R. Morrison were on the brief, for King & Co. Mr. A. L. Gebhard, with whom Mr. E. R. Effler* was on the brief, for Horton.'
No. 297. Beatric e Grayson Johnson v . Wright Thornburgh , Adminis trator , et al . On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Argued March 7, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a federal question in that the decision of the court below could be sustained, and was sustained, on non-federal grounds. Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 366, 370; New York ex rel. Doyle n . Atwell, 261 U. S. 590, 592; Richardson Machinery Co. n . Scott, ante, p. 128. Mr. A. L. Emery, with whom Mr. C. B. McCrory was on the brief, for petitioner. Messrs. Joseph L. Hull, Nathan A. Gibson, and James M. Hays were on the brief for respondents.
No. 319. Standa rd Pipe Line Compa ny , Inc ., et al . v . Commiss ioners of Index Sulph ur Drain age Dis trict . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. Argued March 7, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Upon the application of the plaintiffs in error the writ will be treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari and will be considered upon the filing of briefs on such petition on or before March 21, 1928. Mr. Wm. H. Arnold, with whom Mr. David C. Arnold was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Henry Moore, Jr., was on the brief for defendants in error.
No. 321. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v . Edgar M. Wrigh t , Guardi an . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Argued March 7, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed for the reason that the amount involved is not sufficient to sustain federal jurisdiction, on the authority of Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578, 580; Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108, 109; Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195, 200; The Sydney, 139 U. S. 331, 334, 336; New England Mortgage Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123, 127. Mr. Wm. D. Arant, with whom Mr. Frederick L. Allen was on the brief, for petitioner. Messrs. B. P. Crum and Richard T. Rives were on the brief for respondent.
No. 364. Mutual Life Insu ranc e Company of New York v . State of Wisc ons in ; and
No. 365. New York Life Insurance Company v . State of Wisconsi n . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin. Argued March 8, 9, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. J. Gilbert Hardgrove, with whom Messrs. George P. Miller, Edwin S. Mack, Arthur W. Fairchild, and Frederick L. Allen were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. John W. Reynolds and T. L. McIntosh were on the brief for the State of Wisconsin.
No. 366. G. F. De Graf f , Treasure r , v . City of Spo - kane , Washington . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Argued March 9, 1928. Decided March 12, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a p. 603federal question, on the authority of Risty n . Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry Co., 270 U. S. 378, 390; City of Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182, 192; City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Co., 250 U. S. 394, 399; Maryland v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 3 Howard 534, 550, 551; Edgewood v. Wilkinsburg & East Pittsburgh Street Ry. Co., 258 U. S. 604; Avon v. Detroit United Railways, 257 U. S. 618; Chicago v. Chicago Ry. Co., 257 U. S. 617; Chicago v. Dempcy, 250 U. S. 651. Messrs. Charles W. Greenough and A. O. Colburn, with whom Mr. Samuel M. Driver was on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. J. M. Geraghty and Alex M. Winston were on the brief for defendant in error.
No. 615. The Staten Island Rapid Trans it Railway Company v . The Transit Commis sion of the State of New York ; and
No. 616. The State n Island Rapid Transit Railway Company and The Staten Island Railw ay Company v. The Transi t Commis sion of the State of New York . Error to the Transit Commission of the State of New York. Motion to amend writ of error submitted March 12, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. The writs of error are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in that the writs herein are not directed to a court, but to an administrative commission. Mr . Justi ce Mc Reynol ds , Mr . Justi ce Sanford , and Mr . Just ice Stone entertain a different view.
The motions to amend the writs of error, or for other appropriate relief in the premises, or that the writs of error be treated as petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, are denied. Mr. Frederick H. Wood for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Clarence M. Lewis and George P. Nicholson for defendant in error.
No. 538. A. B. Caplin ger , Count y Judge of Poinset t County , Arkans as , v . United Stat es on relation of Harriman National Bank . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted March 12, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. The motion of the respondent to dismiss is granted in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas in the case of Jackson v. Madison County, 175 Ark. 826. Messrs. Harvey D. Jacob, Joe T. Robinson, Joe W. House, and C. H. Moses for respondent in support of the motion. Mr. A. B. Caplinger, pro se, in opposition thereto.
No. 830. Edith E. Kelley v . James Compton et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the unprinted record herein submitted, finds that no federal question is presented, and that there are no grounds upon which the jurisdiction of this Court can be sustained. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Such costs as have already been incurred herein shall, by direction of the Court, be paid by the clerk from the special fund in his custody as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Edith E. Kelley, pro se. No appearance for appellees.
No. 117. Daniel V. Harkin and Union Bank of Chicago , Receivers , etc ., v . Edward J. Brundage , Re - ceiver , etc ., et al . • Motion submitted March 12, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. The motion to amend the opinion already filed in this case is granted as to one addition on page eleven, and denied in other respects. Mr. Henry J. Darby for respondents in support of the motion. No appearance for petitioners. [The opinion is reported ante p. 37, amended as here ordered.]
No. 387. Bank of India nola et al . v . W. J. Mille r , Revenue Agent of the State of Mis si ss ippi . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. Argued March 12, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toup n . Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 585; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195; Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668, 671; Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Commission, 255 U. S. 445, 448, 449. Mr. Cary C. Moody, for plaintiffs in error, submitted. Mr. J. H. Sumrall, with whom Mr. Marion W. Reily was on the brief, for defendants in error.
No. 388. Max M. Tannenbaum and Hannah N. Tan - nenbaum , BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTORS, V. JOHN J. O’Niell , Inheri tance Tax Collector . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Argued March 12, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed for want of a final judgment in the highest court of the state as required by § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), on the authority of Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield (No. T), 183 U. S. 130, 131; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, 175; Arnold v. United States, for the use of Guimarin & Co., 263 U. S. 427, 434. Mr. Benjamin Y. Wolf, with whom Mr. Max M. Tannenbaum, pro se, was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Harry Gamble, for defendant in error, submitted.
No. 391. A. R. Young Constructi on Company and Cecil L. Newbo ld , Receiver , v . D. E. Dunne , G. C. Dunne , and G. M. Dunne , partners . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Argued March 12,
1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. Willard Brooks, with whom Mr. Charles N. Miller was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Chester I. Long and Austin M. Cowan were on the brief for defendants in error.
No. 399. Georg e A. Wilcox v . George B. Munger , Tax Colle ctor , et al . ; and
No. 400. Georg e A. Wilcox v . Town of Madi son et al . Error to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut. Submitted March 12, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. The writs of error are dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, Mr. George E. Beers for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Ernest L. Averill and Thomas R. Fitzsimmons for defendants in error.
No. 610. Unite d States v . John Barth Company and United State s Fidelity & Guaranty Company . On certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Argued March 13, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. The questions certified in this case require in their answer a consideration of eight sections in the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, 1924, and of 1926, and are not properly confined to any distinct question or proposition of law and need not be answered. The lower court is not authorized to make, or require this Court to accept, a transfer of the case. The certificate of the two questions is dismissed on the authority of News
Syndicate Co. v. New York Central R. R. Co. et al., 275 U. S. 179; The Folmina, 212 U. S. 354, 363; United States v. Bailey, 9 Peters 267, 273, 274; United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 66; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 451, 454. Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. J. Louis Monarch were on the brief, for the United States. Messrs. M. K. Whyte and Louis Quarles, with whom Messrs. Richard S. Doyle and S. Sidney Stein were on the brief, for Barth Co. et al.
No. 663. F. M. Ring v . State of Oregon . Error to.the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. Argued March 13, 14, 1928. Decided March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 342, 343, 345. Messrs. Thomas Mannix and Edward W. Wickey, with whom Messrs. Jerry A. Matthews and Josephus C. Trimble were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. I. H. Van Winkle and G. C. Fulton were on the brief for defendant in error.
No. 841. Wallace C. Gaines v . State of Washington . Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. March 19, 1928. Per Curiam. Upon examination of the record herein submitted, the Court finds that this is not a case in which there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of the State of Washington, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity. It is, therefore, not a case which, under § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), may be reviewed p. 608by this Court on writ of error, and this Court has no jurisdiction thereof under said section. Treating the writ of error as a petition for writ of certiorari under § 237(c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 938), the clerk is directed to issue an order returnable April 23 next against Wallace C. Gaines to show cause, if any there be, by printed return and printed brief, why the petition for certiorari should not be denied for lack of a substantial federal question shown in the record giving this Court jurisdiction. Mr. W. P. Guthrie for plaintiff in error. Mr. Ewing D. Colvin for defendant in error.
No. 877. Joe Wysong v . Peop le of the State of Cali - fornia . Error to the District Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, State of California. April 9,1928. Per Curiam. Upon consideration of the record herein submitted, the Court finds that this is not a case in which there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity; or where is properly drawn in question the validity of a statute of the State of California, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity. It is, therefore, not a case which, under § 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), may be reviewed by this Court on writ of error, and this Court has no jurisdiction thereof under said section. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6.
Treating the writ of error as a petition for writ of certiorari under § 237(c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), the Clerk is directed to issue an order returnable April 30th next against Joe Wysong to show cause, if any there be, p. 609276 U. S. Decisions Granting Certiorari
by printed return and printed brief, why the petition for certiorari should not be denied for lack of a substantial federal question shown in the record giving this Court jurisdiction. Mr. James E. Fenton for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED, FROM JANUARY 4, 1928, TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 9, 1928.
No. 636. Anna Marie Maney v . United States . January 9, 1928. The petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis are granted. The clerk is hereby directed to have the record printed forthwith and to pay the cost thereof, as well as the costs already incurred herein, from the special fund in his custody as provided in the order of October 29,1926. Messrs. Edwin S. Mack, Louis Marshall and Bruno B. Bitker for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 493. Roy Olms tead et al . v . United States ;
No. 532. Charl es S. Green et al . v . United States ; and
No. 533. Edward H. Mc Innis v . United States . January 9, 1928. Orders were entered on November 21, 1927, denying petitions for certiorari in these cases. Thereafter a petition for rehearing in No. 533 was denied January 3, 1928, and a similar petition has been filed in No. 532. This Court now reconsiders all these three petitions for certiorari and grants the writs therein, limiting their consideration, however, to the question whether the use of evidence of private telephone conversations, between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tap-
318°—28------3»
Decisions Granting Certiorari. 276 U.S.
ping, is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and, therefore, not permissible in the federal courts. Messrs. John F. Dore, Frank R. Jeffrey, and Arthur E. Griffin for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. John J. Byrne for the United States.
No. 633. Adelaide F. Chap man v . Unite d States . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Mr. Sanford Robinson for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States.
No. 662. Securi ty Mort gage Comp any v . Charl es A. Powers , Trustee in Bankruptc y . January 23, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. John E. Benton for petitioner. Mr. Walter S. Dillon for respondent.
No. 674. Westi nghous e Electric & Manufacturing Comp any v . De Forest Radio Tele phone & Tele grap h Company . February 20, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Frederick H. Wood, Drury W. Cooper and Thomas Ewing for petitioner. Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, Thomas G. Haight and Samuel E. Darby, Jr., for respondent.
No. 675. Westi nghou se Electr ic & Manuf actu ring Company and Edw ard H. Armst rong v . United Stat es , Alexan der Meiss ner , Genera l Electr ic Comp any , et al . February 20, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Frederick H. Wood, Drury W. Cooper, and Thomas Ewing for petitioners, Messrs. Charles E. p. 611276 U. S. Decisions Granting Certiorari.
Hughes, Thomas G. Haight, Samuel E. Darby, Jr., and Wm. R. Ballard for respondents.
No. 659. Botan y Worst ed Mills v . United States . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Mr. Nathan A. Smyth for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States.
No. 678. Richar d Crane v . Commonwealth of Vir - gini a and County of Charl es City . February 27,1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia granted. Mr. A. W. Patterson for petitioner. Mr. E. Warren Wall for respondents.
No. 684. Remi ngton Arms Union Metallic Cart - ridge Company , Inc . v . United States . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Mr. Wm. Wallace, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Galloway and Mr. Dwight E. Rorer for the United States.
No. 685. Northe rn Coal & Dock Comp any and Gen - eral Accident Fire & Life Ass uranc e Corporat ion , Ltd ., of Perth , Scotland v . Emma Strand and Indus - trial Commis sion of Wiscons in . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin granted. Messrs. Louis Quarles, Charles B. Quarles, Lyman T. Powell, and John S. Sprowls for petitioners. Messrs. John A. Cadigan and John W. Reynolds for respondents.
No. 692. The Kansa s City Southern Railw ay Com - pany and Texarkana & Fort Smith Railw ay Company v. Roy Hooper , Tax Collector . February 27, 1928.
Decisions Granting Certiorari. 276 U. S.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas granted. Messrs. F. H. Moore, A. F. Smith, James B. McDonough and Samuel W. Moore for petitioners. Mr. E. C. Lake for respondent.
No. 705. United State s v . Rober t H. Lenson . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Solicitor General Mitchell for the United States. Messrs. George A. King, Wm. B. King, and George R. Shields for respondent.
No. 707. Pacific Steamshi p Company v . Carl G. Peterson . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington granted. Messrs. Benjamin S. Grosscup, W. Carr Morrow, and J. 0. Davies for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 715. John W. Gleason v . Seaboar d Air Line Railway Company . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. Edward Brennan for petitioner. Mr. E. Ormonde Hunter for respondent.
No. 730. Benja min Russell et al . v . United States . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted.. Messrs. Douglas Arant and Wm. S. Pritchard for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Messrs. J. Louis Monarch, C. M. Charest and Ralph E. Smith, for the United States.
276 U.S. Decisions Granting Certiorari
No. 744. James A. Reed et al . v . The County Com - miss ioners of Delaw are County , Pennsy lvania , et al . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. James A. Reed, Charles L. McNary, Wm. H. King, Guy D. Goff, Jerry C. South, Levi Cooke and Frederick P. Lee for petitioners. Mr. Albert J. Williams for respondents.
No. 746. George Tazew ell , Presi ding Judge of the Circui t Court , v . The State of Oregon ex rel. Edward Sullivan . March 12,1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon granted. Mr. Erskine Wood for petitioner. Mr. Wallace McCamant for respondent.
No. 747. Atlant ic Coast Line Rail road Company v . C. M. Tyner , Admin ist rator . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina granted. Messrs. Thomas W. Davis and Simeon Hyde for petitioner. Mr. Lionel K. Legge for respondent.
No. 771. Hubert Work , Secretary of the Interior , v. Standard Oil Company . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Mr. W. C. Morrow for petitioner. Messrs. Oscar Sutro and Louis Titus for respondent.
No. 736. A. Leo Weil and Charles M. Thorp v . Edw ard M. Neary . March 19, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. A. Leo Weil, pro se, for petitioners. Mr. Louis Marshall for respondent.
Decisions Denying Certiorari. 276 U. S.
No. 700. United State s v . The Cambridge Loan and Buildi ng Company . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States. Mr. L. L. Hamby for respondent.
No. 770. Atlant ic Coast Line Railr oad Company v . Morgan L. Davis , Adminis trator . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina granted. Messrs. Thomas W. Davis and Henry E. Davis for petitioner. Mr. Thomas H. Peeples for respondent.
No. 319. Standard Pipe Line Compa ny , Inc ., et al . v . Commiss ioners of Index Sulph ur Draina ge Distr ict . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas granted. Messrs. Wm. H. Arnold and David C. Arnold for petitioners. Mr. Henry Moore, Jr., for respondent.
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI DENIED OR DISMISSED, FROM JANUARY 4, 1928, TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 9, 1928.
No. 660. W. B. Mitchel l v . Glenn E. Cunningham , Truste e in Bankrupt cy . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. January 9, 1928. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the record herein submitted, finds that there are no grounds upon which certiorari can be issued, application for which is therefore also denied.
The costs already incurred herein shall, by direction of the Court, be paid by the clerk from the special fund in
276 U. S. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
his custody, as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Mr. W. B. Mitchell, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 664. Floyd Richardson v . Califor nia . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California. January 9, 1928. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the unprinted record herein submitted, finds that there are no grounds upon which certiorari can be issued, application for which is therefore also denied.
The costs already incurred herein by direction of the Court shall be paid by the clerk from the special fund in his custody, as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Mr. Floyd Richardson, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 626. Mil ton A. Nelms v . United States . January 9,1928. Petition Jor a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Everett J. Smith for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 627. East ern Coal and Export Corporati on v . Norfolk and Wester n Railw ay Company . January 9, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia denied. p. 616Mr. Sherlock Bronson for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 628. Warner Marsh all î). Walter D. Love ll . January 9, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Franklin F. Phillips for petitioner. Mr. James D. Shearer for respondent.
No. 629. Wm . Wrigl ey , Jr ., Company v . L. P. Larso n , Jr ., Compa ny . January 9, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Wallace R. Lane and Isaac H. Mayer for petitioner. Messrs. Charles H. Aldrich and George I. Haight for respondent.
No. 632. The De Laski & Thropp Circula r Woven Tire Company v . Murray Rubber Company . January 9, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. Thomas G. Haight and E. Clarkson Seward for petitioner. Messrs. Drury W. Cooper and Luther E. Morrison for respondent.
No. 637. Graver Corporation v . Fred Mansur , Trus - tee in Bankru ptcy . January 9, ’1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. H. S. Lewis for petitioner. Mr. Byron C. Hanna for respondent.
No. 638. New Amste rdam Casu alty Company v . W. T. Taylor Cons truc tion Company . January 9, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Augustus Benners for petitioner. Mr. E. H. Cabaniss for respondent.
No. 640. Alyea -Nicho ls Company v . John L. Pick - ering , Coll ecto r of Internal Revenue ; and
No. 641. Alyea -Nichol s Company v . United States . January 9, 1928. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Charles H. Shamel, Rufus M. Potts, and Joseph W. Cox for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt for respondents.
No. 686. Mrs . Ruby Inglett Arrington v . The Grand Lodge of Brothe rhood of Railro ad Trainm en and Mrs . Ethel Ingle tt . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. January 16, 1928. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the unprinted record herein submitted finds that there are no grounds upon which certiorari can be issued, application for which is therefore also denied. The costs already incurred herein by direction of the Court shall be paid by the Clerk from the special fund in his custody as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Ruby Inglett Arrington, pro se. No appearance for respondents.
No. 635. Lacquer & Chem ical Corporation v . Ches - ter P. Mills , Fede ral Prohibition Admini strator , et al . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Lewis Landes for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. John J. Byrne for respondents.
No. 644. Towns hip of Maplewood v . Max Margo li s . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the p. 618Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey denied. Mr. A. P. Bachman for petitioner. Mr. William L. Woodward for respondent.
No. 645. Towns hip of Maplew ood , and Reinhardt 0. Ost erman , Buildi ng Insp ector , v . Max Margo li s . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey denied. Mr. A. P. Bachman for petitioners. Mr. William L. Woodward for respondent.
No. 647. The Monument Pottery Comp any v . Im - peria l Coal Corporat ion . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Edward L. Katzenbach for petitioner. Messrs. Gibbs L. Baker and Henry Ravenel for respondent.
No. 648. W. S. Mc Cray v . Sapul pa Petroleum Com - pany et al . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. F. E. Riddle for petitioner. Mr. Claude H. Rosenstein for respondents.
No. 649. Olaf Stromland et al . v . Myst ic Steamshi p Company , Clai mant . January 16, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. J. L. Morewitz for petitioners. Mr. Henry H. Little for respondent.
No. 646. Minni e H. Leach v . Floyd E. Fis cher , Guardia n . January 23, 1928. Petition for a writ of p. 619276 U. S. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Messrs. I. N. Watson and R. E. Watson for petitioner. Mr. T. M. Lillard for respondent.
No. 650. Paul Rubio v . Unite d States ; and
No. 651. Irving M. Austi n v . United States . January 23, 1928. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Maxwell McNutt for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Louise Foster for the United States.
No. 652. Irvi ng M. Austin v . United States . January 23, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Clarence V. Opper for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt and Mr. K. L. Campbell for the United States.
No. 656. Finance & Guaranty Company of Balti - more , Md ., v. Harry C. Stitt , Trustee in Bankruptc y . January 23, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. James G. Giessner and Leo Oppenheimer for petitioner. Mr. Clayton E. Emig for respondent.
No. 658. The Lawre nce - William s Comp any v . Societe Enfants Gombault , et Cie . January 23, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. John F. Oberlin for petitioner. Messrs. Lanier McKee and James R. Garfield for respondent.
Decisions Denying Certiorari. 276 U. S.
No. 661. The Citizens & Southern Bank v . Carrie Y. Fayram , Executrix . January 23, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Robert C. Alston for petitioner. Mr. Charles B. Shelton for respondent.
No. —. Addie Robinson , Admi nis tratri x , v . Ameri - can Car and Found ry Compa ny . February 20, 1928. The motion for leave to file petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. J. Gray Lucas for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 642. Steve Nechay v . United States . February 20, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert Black and Frank Davis for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt and Mr. K. L. Campbell for the United States.
No. 654. P. De Ronde & Co., Inc ., v . Unite d States . February 20, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. Robert Ash for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 655. National City Bank of Seatt le v . Unite d States . February 20,1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. Robert Ash for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 657. W. M. Farris et al . v . Illinois Bankers Life Associ ation et al . February 20, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Jesse L. England for petitioners. Messrs. R. F. Potter and L. A. Stebbins for respondents.
No. 665. Herm an Miller v . United States . February 20, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Bernhardt Frank for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. John J. Byrne for the United States.
No. 669. United States ex rel. Louis C. Mouquin v . Will iam C. Hecht , United States Marshal . February 20, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John E. Joyce for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiejer for respondent.
No. 672. Charles M. Baker v . Unite d States . February 20, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. L. S. Parsons for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt for the United States.
No. 681. Morris & Cummin gs Dredgin g Company , Inc ., v. Cahill Towing Line , Inc ., as owner of the ste am tug “ Anna W,” et al . February 20, 1928. Peti-
Decisions Denying Certiorari. 276U.S.
tion for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. James D. Carpenter, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. George V. A. McCloskey for respondents.
No. 631. L. F. Vance v . Chicag o Portra it Comp any et al . February 27, 1928. The suggestion of a diminution of the record and motion for a writ of certiorari in this case is denied. Mr. L. F. Vance, pro se. Mr. John T. Evans for respondent.
No. 721. Byron Dunn and W. Rober t Dunn v . J. Horace Lyons , Sherif f . On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. February 27, 1928. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the unprinted record herein submitted, finds that there are no grounds upon which certiorari can be issued, application for which is therefore also denied. The motion of the petitioner for a refund of the deposit heretofore made in the case is denied. Such additional costs as may have already been incurred herein and not paid shall, by direction of the Court, be paid by the clerk from the special fund in his custody as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Messrs. M. G. Adams and C. W. Howth for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 667. Chicag o , Milw aukee & St . Paul Railway Company v . Unit ed States . February 27, 1928. Peti-
tion for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. F. Carter Pope for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Galloway, and Mr. Lisle A. Smith for the United States.
276 U. S. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
No. 668. John Morini v . United States . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. J. Mossholder for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 670. Alfred H. Beach v . Unite d States . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Frans E. Lindquist for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 671. Page Steel & Wire Comp any v . Blair Engi - neering Company . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. James M. Gifford, Wilson B. Brice, and Forrest M. Anderson for petitioner. Mr. Merritt Lane for respondent.
No. 677. Sidney T. Ewert , Executor , et al . v . Geor - gia Valliere Hampton et al . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. Joseph C. Stone, A. C. Wallace, and Wm. M. Matthews for petitioners. Mr. Joseph W. Howell for respondents.
No. 680. Farme rs Union Grain Company v . Hall et & Carey Compa ny . February 27,1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. John Junell and Egbert S. Oakley for petitioner, Mr, Frederick H. Stinchfield for respondent.
No. 683. Farmer s State Bank and Guarant ee Fund Comm iss ion of Nebraska v . Metro pol itan Savi ngs Bank & Trus t Company . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. Charles M. Skiles and Ernest B. Perry for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 688. Eagle Indemn ity Company v . United States . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Messrs. John S. Rixey and Cleaton E. Rabey for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. John J. Byrne for the United States.
No. 689. Baltimore and Ohio Railro ad Company v . Edward Bilyeu . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of the State of Illinois, Fourth District, denied. Messrs. Wm. A. Eggers, Edward C. Kramer, Rudolph J. Kramer, Bruce A. Campbell, and Morison R. Waite for petitioner. Messrs. Louis Beasley and Edward C. Zulley for respondent.
No. 690. Fred S. Hudson , Truste e in Bankru ptcy , et al . v. Maryland Casualt y Company . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Henry A. Bundschu for petitioners. Messrs. Spencer Harris and Clyde Taylor for respondent.
No. 693. The Buckeye Incubator Comp any and Samuel B. Smith v . Ira M. Pete rsi me and Ray Peter - sime . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari p. 625to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Charles E. Brock, Newton D. B[aker, and Charles Neave for petitioners. Messrs. H. A. Toulmin anAH. A. Toulmin, Jr., for respondents.
No. 694. Caroline A. Allis on et al . v . Harry J. Schnell and Frank V. Baldwi n , Executor s and Truste es , et al . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey denied. Messrs. Wilton J. Lambert, Rudolph H. Yeatman, and George D. Horning, Jr., for petitioners. Messrs. Josiah Stryker and Edward L. Katzenbach for respondents.
No. 695. Virginia Ship buildi ng Corporation and Josep h L. Crupp er , Receiver in Bankr uptcy , v . United States . February 27, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Messrs. Wm. A. Barber, Wm. L. Day, J. K. M. Norton, and James K. Caton for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Messrs. J. Frank Staley, Chauncey G. Parker, and W. W. Nottingham for the United States.
No. 230. Elliso n et al . v . Kosw ig . See ernte, p. 598.
No. 691. Aust in Morley et al . v . Herbert A. Wil son , Police Commis si oner . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court for the County of Suffolk, State of Massachusetts, denied. Messrs. Romney Spring and Wm. G. Thompson for petitioners. Mr, Herbert Parker for respondent.
318°—2a -40
Decisions Denying Certiorari. 276 U. 8.
No. 698. Morris & Company v . K. Ikuno , Maste r and Claima nt of the Steam ship “Naples Maru .” March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Messrs. George M. Lanning and Edward R. Baird, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. George C. Sprague for respondent.
No. 702. Greater New York Dock & Ware hous e Co . v. Stapl eton Dock & Warehouse Corp oration and The City of New York . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Mr. Samuel Silbiger for petitioner. Messrs. Albert S. Boardman and George P. Nicholson for respondents.
No. 703. Knickerbocker Fuel Company v . Andrew W. Mellon , Direct or General . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. John G. Poore for petitioner. Mr. Frederick H. Wood for respondent.
No. 704. State of Washi ngton , on the relation of Crooker Perry and Leonora Perry v . The Superior Court of the State of Washi ngton for the County of Chelan , The Hono rable W. 0. Parr , Judge , et al . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied. Mr. Frank Reeves for petitioners. Messrs. F. G. Dorety, Thomas Balmer, Frank T. Post, and Charles S. Albert for respondents.
No. 706. Marion & East ern Railro ad Comp any v . Illi nois Centra l Railro ad Compa ny . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the p. 627276 U. S. Decisions Denying Certiorari.
State of Illinois denied. Mr. Henry C. Keene for petitioner. Messrs. R. V. Fletcher and Edward C. Craig for respondent.
No. 708. Thom as Craven v . United States . March 5. 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. Wm. H. Lewis and Matthew L. McGrath for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer for the United States.
No. 710. W. S. Mc Cray v . J. A. Fulp , Receive r for the Sapu lp a Petr ole um Company , and Sapu lp a Petro - leu m Company . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Finis E. Riddle for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 711. Martim e Ginal v . Benjami n M. Day ,,Com - mis si oner of Immi gration . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Hugh Reid for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for respondent.
No. 713. John Quinlan et al . v . Unite d States . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles Akerman for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer for the United States.
No. 714. Abra ham Bucksp an v . The Hudso n ’s Bay Comp any . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. George 0. Wallace and W. L. Crawford for petitioner. Mr. Robert E. L. Saner for respondent.
No. 718. John C. Tobin , Trustee in Bankrupt cy , v . Samuel Ackerman ;
No. 719. John C. Tobin , Trustee in Bankr uptc y , v . Barnett Klei nman ; and
No. 720. John C. Tobin , Trustee in Bankrupt cy , v . Joseph Goldmun tz et al . March 5, 1928. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Jacob M. Lashly for petitioner. Mr. Harry S. Gleick for respondents.
No. 724. Duluth & Iron Range Rail road Com - pany , v. City of Duluth . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota denied. Messrs. Frank D. Adams and Elmer F. Blu for petitioner. Mr. John B. Richards for respondent.
No. 726. Josiah T. Rose , Coll ecto r , v . Nunnally In - vestment Company . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Messrs. C. M. Charest, L. H. Baylies, and K. L. Campbell for petitioner. Messrs. Clifford L. Anderson and Daniel W. Rountree for respondent.
No. 731. Aetna Insurance Compa ny , Agricultural Insurance Comp any , Allemannia Fire Insurance Compa ny , et al . v . William R. Baker , Supe rint ende nt of Insurance . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of p. 629certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Messrs. Robert Stone, R. J. Folonie, Charles E. Hughes, and John L. Hunt for petitioners. Messrs. Wm. A. Smith, John G. Egan, and John F. Rhodes for respondent.
No. 732. Joe H. Tiger v . Will iam M. Fewell et al . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. Neff for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
No. 734. Ira Jew ell Willi ams v . Blake ly D. Mc - Caugh n , Colle ctor . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. Francis S. Brown and Ira Jewell Williams, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. Sewall Key for respondent.
No. 737. Robert C. Adams v . United States . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. W. Chadbourne for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Mr. J. Frank Staley for the United States.
No. 738. Mis souri Paci fi c Railr oad Company v . Mrs . Fannie Skip per , Administratrix . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas denied. Messrs. Thomas B. Pryor and Edward J. White for petitioner. Mr. Frank P. Pace for respondent.
No. 741. W. K. Horton , sui ng as Guardian , et al . v . New York Life Insuranc e Company . March 5, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Harry H. Smith for petitioners. Mr. T. M. Stevens for respondent.
No. 725. Wyando tte Termin al Railroad Company v . United States . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Mr. Don F. Reed for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 733. State of Washi ngton ex rel . Mike Lukich , ALIAS Yu KIJ, ET AL. V. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF Washi ngton for King County and Calvin S. Hall , Judge there of . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied. Mr. John J. Sullivan for petitioners. Mr. Howard A. Hanson for respondents.
No. 735. Unite d States ex rel . Isabel London v . Cliff ord D. Phelps , United States Immigra tion In - sp ector . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Harold Van Riper for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for respondent.
No. 742. Synthetic Patents Company , Inc . v . How - ard Suther land , Alien Proper ty Cust odian , and Frank White , Treasure r . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Nelson J. Jewett and
Lyttleton Fox for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Messrs. Robert W. Bonygne, and Dean H. Stanley for respondents.
No. 743. Synthetic Patents Compa ny , Inc ., v . How - ard Sutherl and , Alien Proper ty Custodi an , and Frank White , Treasure r . March 12,1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Nelson J. Jewett and Lyttleton Fox for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Messrs. Robert W. Bonygne and Dean H. Stanley for respondents.
No. 749. Barker Paint ing Comp any v . Broth erho od of Painters , Decor ators , and Paperhan gers of Amer - ica , et al . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Wm. C. Sullivan for petitioner. Mr. Vincent A. Sheehy for respondents.
No. 750. W. A. Ledbetter et al . v . Elias Wes ley et al . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. H. L. Stuart, R. R. Bell, E. P. Ledbetter, H. A. Ledbetter, L. A. Ledbetter, and W. A. Ledbetter, pro se, for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Parmenter, and Mr. Charles E. McPherren for respondents.
No. 752. Samuel Thom as Walkup v . Inter borough Rapid Transi t Co . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel Thomas Walkup, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 755. Elme r B. Jeff ries v . Sam L. Gros s , Unite d States Marsh al . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. B. Harrell for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for respondent.
No. 756. Charles E. Forbes v . Sam L. Gros s , United State s Marsh al . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. B. Harrell for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for respondent.
No. 760. D. H. Keene v . F. T. Gauen . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Theodore Mack for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 762. Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company v. C. R. Wils on Body Company and Paul E. Breneman . March 12, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Melville Church and Henry S. Drinker, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. Wm. J. Belknap and Clarence B. Zewadski for respondents.
No. 754. Rickmers Rhederei Actien Gesel lschaft v. Howard Suthe rland , Alien Property Custod ian , et al . March 19, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied.
Mr. Reeves T. Strickland for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Mr. Dean Hill Stanley for respondents.
No. 761. Babcock Printing Press Manuf actu ring Comp any v . Rober t L. Murphy , Trustee in Bank - ruptcy . March 19, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. A. P. Bachman for petitioner. Mr. Leon E. Cone for respondent.
No. 772. W. D. Dilbeck et al . v . State of Texas . March 19, 1928. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, 3rd Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas, denied. Messrs. W. J. Rutledge, Jr., and R. L. Batts for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
No. 775. Manuf actur ers ’ Finance Company v . Fred - erick S. Foster , Truste e . March 19, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. Harrison J. Barrett, Lee M. Friedman, Percy A. Atherton, and George W. Reed for petitioner. Mr. Robert A. B. Cook for respondent.
No. 777. Seth B. Orndorff et al . v . El Pas o County , Texas , et al . March 19, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, 8th Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas, denied. Mr. Wm. C. Dennis for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 778. Loren zo Veneri v . Charles H. Draper , Re - ceive r ; and
No. 779. Ermin Mario tti v . Charl es H. Draper , Re - ceiver . March'19, 1928. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Russel S. Ritz for petitioners. Mr. M. M. Neely for respondent.
No. 780. Home Insurance Company of New York v . Lakin C. Hightower and Winsto n S. Garth , partners . March 19, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Alex W. Spence and C. M. Smithdeal for petitioner. Mr. A. J. Harris for respondents.
No. 682. Rocco De Bellis v . Unite d States . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert A. Milroy and Benjamin P. Epstein for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 739. Anna Louise Nolde v . Unite d States . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. Messrs. Walter E. Barton and Harry F. Kantner for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Galloway for the United States.
No. 733. Stuyvesant Insurance Comp any v . Jack - sonville Oil Mill . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Bruce Barnett for petitioner. Mr. Wm. P. Metcalf for respondent.
No. 774. The Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Comp any v . Jacksonville Oil Mill . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Bruce Barnett for petitioner. Mr. Wm. P. Metcalf for respondent.
No. 776. John Thomas Gillesp ie and Samuel Has - sard Gilles pie , co -partne rs , v . Hong Kong & Shangh ai Banking Corporat ion . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. Frank J. Hogan and Elkan Turk for petitioners. Messrs. Garret W. McEnerney and Andrew F. Burke for respondent.
No. 783. Union Pacif ic Rail road Comp any v . Louis Ilfe ld Company . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. John W. Lacey, N. H. Loomis, and Herbert W. Lacey for petitioner. Messrs. Carle Whitehead and Albert L. Voge for respondent.
No. 784. Oliver Chap man , Licen se Colle ctor of the City of St . Louis , v . International Shoe Company . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Messrs. Oliver Senti, Julius T. Muench, and George F. Haid for petitioner. Mr. Frank Y. Gladney for respondent.
No. 785. Armour and Company v . Bass el Brothers , a copartners hip , et al . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth p. 636Circuit denied. Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., and Alfred S. Austrian for petitioner. Mr. A. L. Curtis for respondents.
No. 786. Armour and Company v . Belton Nation al Bank . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., and Alfred S. Austrian for petitioner. Mr. A. L. Curtis for respondents.
No. 787. William H. Hardie v . United States . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph E. Pottle for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, and Mr. John J. Byrne for the United States.
No. 790. Jess e Mc Gee et al . v . W. A. Ledbe tte r et al . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. J. D. Lydick for petitioners. Messrs. E. P. Ledbetter, L. A. Ledbetter, H. A. Ledbetter, H. L. Stuart, R. R. Bell, and W. A. Ledbetter, pro se, for respondents.
No. 792. Guisepp e Yaconi v . Brady & Gioe , Inc . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied. Messrs. Silas B. Axtell and Wm. F. Purdy for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 793. Katie Roubedeau x and Lizz ie Gibbs et al . v. Quaker Oil & Gas Comp any of Oklahoma , et al . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. John T. Smith, Thomas D. McKeown, and John S. Barbour for petitioners. Messrs. George S. Ramsey, p. 637Alvin Richards, L. 0. Lytle, T. J. Flannelly, and Louis C. Lawson for respondents.
No. 799. C. G. Schull , Bank Commis sio ner of the State of Oklahoma , v . New Amste rdam Casualty Company ;
No. 800. Same v . Fidelity Casua lty Company ; No. 801. Same v . Fidelit y and Depo sit Company of Maryland ;
No. 802. Same v . American Suret y Company of New York ; and
No. 803. Same v . Fidelit y & Guaranty Company . April 9, 1928. The petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is denied. Mr. Kirby Fitzpatrick for petitioner. Messrs. Claude Nowlin and J. R. Speelman for respondent in No. 799. Mr. James S. Ross for respondents in Nos. 800 and 801. Mr. Stephen Ch/andler for respondent in No. 802. Messrs. Joseph A. McCullough and C. B. Ames for respondent in No. 803.
No. 804. George Lee Johnston v . United Stat es . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. G. McLaren for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
No. 805. Southern Pacific Company v . United States . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. E. R. Wright for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Mr. John T. Fowler, Jr., for the United States.
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 276 U. S.
No. 808. Thoma s W. Miller v . United States . April 9, 1928. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert S. Johnstone and Samuel Seabury for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan, and Mr. Charles H. Tuttle for the United States.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM JANUARY 4, 1928, TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 9, 1928.
No. 446. Charley Hee , alias Dong Bow Hee , v . United States . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. February 20, 1928. Reversed and remanded, per stipulation of counsel, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States. Messrs. Joseph Fairbanks and Dan F. Reynolds for petitioner.
No. 448. Goon Bon June v . United States . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. February 20, 1928. Reversed and remanded, per stipulation of counsel, on motion of Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhring and Mr. Frank M. Parrish for the United States. Messrs. Walter Bates Farr and Edward Flint Damon for petitioner.
No. 233. John Lapi que , Assi gnee of the Estate of Migue l Leonis , v . Harry L. Dunnig an et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. February 24,1928. Dismissed pursuant to the 21st rule. Mr. John Lapique, pro se. Mr. Everett W. Mattoon for appellees.
276 U. S. Amendment of Rules.
The following order, amending the Rules of June 8, 1925, 266 U. S. 653, was made on February 27, 1928, and is here printed in its chronological order. On June 5, 1928, the Rules were revised with important changes, and by order of the Court the revision was printed in Volume 275 U. S. then preparing for press.
Order
1. It is now hereby ordered by this court that section 7 of rule 29 of this court be amended by striking therefrom the words “ For docketing a case and filing and indorsing the transcript of the record, ten dollars,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ For docketing a case and filing and indorsing the transcript of the record, five dollars.”
2. Also, by striking therefrom the words “ For preparing the record or a transcript thereof for the printer, in all cases, including records presented with petitions for certiorari, indexing the same, supervising the printing, and distributing the printed copies to the justices, the reporter, the law library, and the parties or their counsel, eight cents per folio of each one hundred words,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ For preparing the record or a transcript thereof for the printer, in all cases, including records presented with petitions for certiorari, indexing the same, supervising the printing, and distributing the printed copies to the justices, the reporter, the law library, and the parties or their counsel, four cents per folio of each one hundred words,” but leaving therein unchanged the words “but where the necessary printed copies of the record as printed for the use of the court below are furnished, charges under this item will be limited to any additions printed here under the clerk’s supervision.”
3. Also by striking therefrom the words “ For making a manuscript copy of the record when required under rule 11, twenty cents per folio of each one hundred words, but nothing in addition for supervising the printing,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ For making a manu-
Amendment of Rules. 276 U. S.
script copy of the record when required under rule 11, fifteen cents per folio of each one hundred words, but nothing in addition for supervising the printing.”
4. Also, by striking therefrom the words. “ For filing briefs, five dollars for each party appearing,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ For filing briefs, three dollars for each party appearing.”
This order shall apply to causes filed here on or after March 1, 1928, but not to causes filed prior to that date.
2
Article 141 of Treasury Regulations 45, refers to property used by the taxpayer as a residence up to the time of sale. P. 586. 18 F. (2d) 452, reversed. Certiora ri , 275 U. S. 514, to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed a judgment for the Collector in an action to recover money paid as income taxes. Mr. Gardner P. Lloyd, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. James Walton, with whom Mr. Clarence A. Miller was on the brief, for respondents. Mr . Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court. Before 1892 the late Philander C. Knox built a dwelling house in Pittsburgh, at a total cost for land and buildings of $172,000. He occupied the house as a residence until 1901 when, circumstances requiring his residence elsewhere, he leased the property at a stipulated rental. He continued so to lease it from October 1st in that year until 1920, when it was sold for $73,000. The fair market value of the property on March 1, 1913, was $120,000. Its value in 1901 does not appear. In his income tax return for 1920 he deducted from gross income the difference between the selling price of the property and its March 1, 1913, value, less depreciation from that date to the date of sale. The commissioner disallowed the deduction and assessed a correspondingly increased tax, which was paid under protest. The present suit was brought in the district court for western Pennsylvania to recover the additional tax assessed. The trial was to the court, a jury having been waived by written stipulation. Judgment was given for the collector, 17 F. (2d) 522, which was reversed by the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. 18 F. (2d) 452.