White v. Sparkill Realty Corp., 280 U.S. 500 (1930)

WHITE et al . v. SPARKILL REALTY CORPORATION ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 336. Argued January 7, 1930.—Decided February 24, 1930.

federal district court, even though the validity of the statute under the federal Constitution be challenged by the bill. The remedy at law is adequate. P. 510.

2. Section 274a of the Judicial Code (U.S.C., Title 28, § 397) and Equity Rule 22, providing for transfer to the law side of the court of actions at law erroneously begun as suits in equity, refer only to cases of which the court would have jurisdiction if they were brought on the law side; and if the case be one which, if brought as an action at law, would not be within the jurisdiction of the federal court, then the bill must be dismissed, but without prejudice to an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. P. 512.

3. In the absence of diversity of citizenship, the federal district court has no jurisdiction of an action in ejectment, if the complaint, confined to an orderly statement of the cause of action, without anticipating possible defences, does not present a case arising under the Constitution, or a treaty or law, of the United States. P. 512. Reversed.

Appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges granting an interlocutory injunction against the appellants to restrain them from continuing in possession of certain real property.

Mr. Walter H. Pollak, with whom James Gibson, Second Assistant Attorney General of New York, Carl S. Stern and Ruth I. Wilson were on the brief, for appellants.

I. That the pledge of the general credit of the State assures just compensation and satisfies the constitutional requirement of due process has been decided so often by this Court that a contention to the contrary does not raise a substantial federal question.

II. Every provision of the New York constitution and statutes that the court below took as a reason for rejecting the principle settled by this Court, is in reality but an additional reason for applying that principle.

III. Appellees’ objections to being compensated out of moneys authorized by the people in 1924, appropriated by the Legislature in 1926 and reappropriated in 1928,

Argument for Appellants. 280 U. S

are without color of merit. It cannot be assumed that the New York courts would sustain them and they cannot be made to serve as a basis for the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

IV. Appellees are not injured by having their compensation paid out of funds derived from the bond issue of 1924. They are therefore without standing to raise the questions of New York law on which they predicate their so-called federal question.

V. The bill of complaint does not even allege the facts necessary to present the unsubstantial question of due process upon which jurisdiction was invoked. It fails to show that the funds available for appellees’ compensation at the time of the entry and appropriation were even upon appellees’ own theory inadequate. Nor does it show any obstacle to the use of moneys derived from the bond issue of 1924 other than appellees’ own objections.

The jurisdiction of the federal courts cannot be based upon a question purely hypothetical.

VI. The only prospective relief appellees asked was that appellants be enjoined “ from continuing in possession of plaintiffs’ said property,”—in other words that appellees themselves be restored to possession by injunction.

The relief asked under the guise of an equity bill and prayer for injunction is thus nothing more or less than the relief a judgment in ejectment would give. The equity jurisdiction of the federal courts does not extend to such a case. United States v. Wilson, 118 U. S. 86; Whitehead V. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146; Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U. S. 119; Black v. Jackson, 177 U. S. 349, 361, 363; Boston & Montana Mining Co. v. Montana Ore P. Co., 188 U. S. 632; Denison v. Keck, 13 Fed. (2d) 384; Johnston v. Corson Gold Mining Co., 157 Fed. 145.

Nothing is pleaded to take the case out of the rule. Inadequacy of legal remedy is the test of equity jurisdiction,—“ the only test of jurisdiction ” in the federal courts {Payne n . Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 430; McConihay v. Wright, 121 U. S. 201, 206; Indiana Mjg. Co. n . Koehne, 188 U. S. 681, 690) and the test applied in this class of cases {Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co., 241 U. S. 551, 555)—and there is nothing in the bill to show that the legal remedy of ejectment is inadequate. The only “ irreparable ” damage alleged is said to be caused by appellants’ “ continued unlawful occupation ” and by “ impossibility of operation.” There is nothing alleged that even suggests that the officials of the State of New York, who are the defendants, would dispute title and right to possession in the face of a judgment against them in ejectment.

That the bill shows no ground of equity jurisdiction is fatal to the jurisdiction of the statutory court,—to the jurisdiction of any federal court of equity. That the suit in reality is in ejectment defeats the jurisdiction of the federal court even on the law side. For an ejectment action is not one arising “ under the Constitution or the laws of the United States,” and in the absence of diversity of citizenship an ejectment action will not lie in the federal courts. Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74; Deere v. New York, 22 Fed. (2d) 851; Florida Central & P. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 325; Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 340.

It is not only in the plaintiff’s statement of his own case, it is in his statement of the facts essential to his case, that the federal question which will support jurisdiction must be found. And since in an ejectment action it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to state the source of his title, he cannot, even by pleading that the Federal Government was the source, give jurisdiction to the fed-

Argument for Appellees. 280 U. S.

eral courts, as this Court flatly decided in the last two cases cited.

Mr. Jackson A. Dykman, with whom Mr. William H. Dykman was on the brief, for appellees.

I. No power exists to pledge the credit of New York.

II. A taking of property in eminent domain is a violation of due process unless there is provided a sure, efficient and convenient remedy by which the owner can coerce payment of just compensation.

III. No enforceable means of obtaining compensation has been provided.

IV. Being without the means of enforcing payment of compensation appellees are injured and may raise the questions presented.

V. All facts essential to the presentation of the federal question appear by allegations of the bill.

VI. Public bodies will be enjoined from illegal acts done under color of right which cause irreparable injury to the property rights of individuals.

The bill rests upon an absence of lawful power to enforce a statute and an abuse of authority, and its merits must be determined accordingly; it is concededly not a suit against the State.

It is established by the decisions of the Court of Appeals of New York that a peculiar jurisdiction exists in equity to prevent illegal acts of public officers under color of right which injuriously affect the property rights of individuals. The same rule will be applied in this Court. Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 444; Litchfield v. Bond, 186 N. Y. 66, 85; Flood v. Van Wormser, 147 N. Y. 284, 289.

fugitive trespass. Baron v. Korn, 127 N. Y. 224, 228; Bloomquist v. Farson, 222 N. Y. 375.

This recent decision of the highest court establishes that in New York adequacy of legal remedy is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and cannot be raised upon a motion to dismiss the complaint. No answer is in the record and we assume appellants will concede that in the answer filed after the submission below the only plea of this nature is an allegation that appellees may obtain a judgment in the Court of Claims.

The same jurisdiction to restrain public officers acting under color of right is recognized in the federal courts. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738.

Concededly appellees were about to commence operations. They find themselves deprived of their property “daily suffering great loss from the continued unlawful occupation of their property, deterioration of buildings and machinery and impossibility of operation.” The Commission “may at any time enter upon the destruction and demolition of the plant” which it took one year to erect at a cost of one million dollars and which it would take as much time and probably more money to replace. Meanwhile appellee Standard Trap Rock Corporation has earned no return on its capital and paid no dividends. If the property is destroyed it is not at all likely new capital will be forthcoming to replace the plant; so that success without injunctive relief will not stay execution of the death warrant.

The land taken for a park will meanwhile be overrun by some of the millions whose “recreational needs” will be satisfied only when every last vestige of moveable property has disappeared from the lands. A multiplicity of suits would result.

In many varieties of action it is established in this Court that violation of the federal constitution by state officers may be enjoined. Western Union Tel. Co. n . Andrews, 216 U. S. 165; Big Six Development Co. v. Mitchell, 138 Fed. 279; Twist v. Prairie Oil Co., 274 U. S. 684, 691; United States Freehold Land & Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 89 Fed. 769, 773.

VII. The interlocutory decree is proper and grants proper relief.

Mr . Justice Sutherla nd delivered the opinion of the Court.

This in form is a suit in equity against the members of the Board of Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, appointed pursuant to a statute of the State of New York, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the Conservation Department of the state. The bill was filed March 19, 1929, and alleges that the Sparkill Realty Corporation is the owner in fee of lands lying within the southern district of New York, of which the Standard Trap Rock Corporation is lessee. The lands contain valuable deposits of “ trap rock ”; and the Standard Trap Rock Corporation, in preparing to develop the deposits, contracted for the erection and equipment of a plant, not adapted for use elsewhere, thereby subjecting itself to liabilities exceeding $1,000,000.

It is further averred that the sum of $500,000 was allocated to the acquisition of the property, but that the value of the property exceeds $3,000,000; that appellees are suffering daily loss from the “ continued unlawful occupation of their property,” the aggregate sum of which will be such that the damage will be irreparable and destructive of appellees’ property; and that, therefore, they are without adequate remedy at law.

The prayer is, that the acts of the board and state officers, and the statutes of the state purporting to authorize them, be declared invalid as violating the Fourteenth Amendment and other provisions of the federal Constitution, as well as a provision of the state Constitution; and that appellants be enjoined from attempting to enforce the provisions of the statute, notice, description or certificate, or proceeding against appellees at law or in equity to compel compliance with, or inflicting or recovering any penalty, forfeiture or damage for noncompliance by appellees with the statute, notice, description or certificate, or “ from continuing in possession of plaintiffs’ said property.”

The statutory provisions assailed as unconstitutional are found in §§59 and 761 of the New York Conservation

• Law, L., 1928, chap. 242. Section 761 confers upon the Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park power to acquire lands by entry and appropriation in the manner provided for in § 59. Section 59 authorizes the Conservation Department to enter upon and take possession of lands, etc., which, in the judgment of the department, shall be necessary for public park purposes, or for the protection and conservation of the lands, forests and waters within the state. A description of the property to be entered upon must be made and certified, which, together with a notice endorsed thereon that the property described is appropriated by the people of the state, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. A duplicate must be served on the owner or owners of the lands, etc., and “ thereupon such property shall become, and be, the property of the people of the state.” Provision is made for an adjustment of compensation for the property and legal damages, and the issue of a certificate stating the amount due; which amount shall be paid out of the state treasury upon the audit and warrant of the Comptroller. It is further provided that any owner may present to the state Court of Claims a claim for the value of the land and damages; and the court is authorized to hear and determine such claim and render judgment thereon. The Comptroller is directed to issue his warrant for the payment of the amount, with interest from the date of the judgment until the thirtieth day after the entry of final judgment; and such amount shall be paid out of the state treasury.

Appellant submitted a motion to dismiss the bill on the ground, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a valid cause of action in equity against the defendants. The court below denied the motion to dismiss and granted an interlocutory injunction in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The state statute was held invalid for the reason that it authorized the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, or making adequate provision for payment thereof. In respect of its denial of the motion to dismiss, the court simply said that the action was not one for ejectment, and cited Hopkins v. Clemson College, 221 U. S. 636; United States Freehold Land & Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 89 Fed. 769.

The Board of Commissioners, acting for the state, entered upon the lands and had been in the exclusive possession thereof for several months before the filing of the bill, effectively preventing appellees from using, enjoying or occupying the property. The relief sought was to enjoin appellants “from continuing in possession,” that is to say, to oust appellants so as to restore the lands to the possession of appellees. It is plain that this is not the office of an injunction. Entry and possession of the lands by appellants and all alleged wrongful acts and proceedings preliminary thereto and in aid thereof had been consummated long before suit was brought and preventive relief by injunction, consequently, had ceased to be appropriate.

Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146, was a suit in equity to quiet title to real property. Plaintiff was the owner in fee, holding title as trustee. Defendants claimed title and were in possession, openly and adversely. Plaintiff averred that defendants’ claim of title was made in fraud of his rights; that the patent under which they claimed was fraudulently made, the land not being subject to entry and patent. Upon these facts, this Court held that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law, and that a suit in equity could not be sustained, saying (page 151):

In Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U. S. 119, 124, this court said:

“The plaintiff was out of possession when he instituted this suit; and by the prayer of this bill he attempts to regain possession by means of the injunction asked for. In other words, the effort is to restore the plaintiff, by injunction, to rights of which he had been deprived. The function of an injunction is to afford preventive relief, not to redress alleged wrongs which have been committed already. An injunction will not be used to take property out of the possession of one party and put it into that of another. 1 High on Injunctions, 2d ed. § 355.”

To the same effect is United States v. Wilson, 118 U. S.* 86, 89; Black v. Jackson, 177 U. S. 349, 361. In the latter case the rule was applied, notwithstanding the financial inability of the defendant to respond in damages.

The two cases cited by the court below are not in point. In Hopkins n . Clemson College, supra, plaintiff sued for damages caused by erection of a dike on one side of a river, which had the effect of submerging his lands lying wholly upon the other side. The injury was “ continuous from day to day and year to year.” The prayer was for damages, and abatement and removal of the dike. The injury was in the nature of a continuing trespass; possession was neither involved nor sought.

In United States Freehold Land & Emigration Co. n . Gallegos, supra, the bill was to enjoin the diversion of water to the injury of complainant’s lands, constituting a continuing trespass. The ownership or possession of the lands was not in controversy.

The decree below must be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill, but without prejudice to an action at law in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 274a of the Judicial Code, U. S. C., Title 28, § 397, and Rule 22 of the Equity Rules, 226 U. S., appendix, 6, contemplate that where what is really an action at law is erroneously begun as a suit in equity, the same may be transferred to the law side of the court and after appropriate amendments may be prosecuted to a judgment as if originally begun on the law side. See Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U. S. 235; Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Grannis, 273 U. S. 70, 76; Twist v. Prairie Oil Co., 274 U. S. 684, 689, 692. But both the statute and the equity rule refer, and can only refer, to cases of which the court would have jurisdiction if they were brought on its law side. This is not such a case. The parties are citizens, not of different States, but of the same State. And if the plaintiffs were suing at law in ejectment their complaint, if confined to an orderly statement of such a cause of action, without anticipating possible defenses, would not present a case arising under the Constitution, or a treaty or law of the United States. Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74. Thus the case, if brought as an action at law, would be one of which a federal district court would not have jurisdiction. In this situation no other course is open than to direct that the bill be dismissed and leave the plaintiffs free to sue in a state court, if they be so advised.

DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM OCTOBER 7,

1929, TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 27, 1930.1

No. 578. Macallen Co . v . Massachuse tts . Petition submitted June 20,1929. Decided October 14,1929. Per Curiam: The motions presented on behalf of the American Bankers Association and on behalf of the Massachusetts National Bank Association for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, in support of the petition for a rehearing in this cause, are granted. The Court has considered these two briefs, and also the four briefs heretofore permitted to be filed by the States of California, Washington, Oregon, and New York, as friends of the Court. After consideration of these briefs, and of the petition for a rehearing of this cause filed by the State of Massachusetts, such petition for a rehearing is denied. Messrs. Joseph E. Warner, Attorney General, and James S. Eastham and R. Ammi Cutter, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For the opinion of this Court in the cause, see 279 U. S. 620.

No. 21, original. Ex parte Northern Pacific R. Co . et al . Motion submitted October 7, 1929. Motion granted October 14, 1929. Per Curiam: The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the motion for leave to amend and supplement such petition, are granted.

No. 18, original. New Jers ey v . City of New York . Motion submitted October 7, 1929. Motion granted October 14, 1929. The motion for the appointment of a special master is granted; and the Honorable Edward K. Campbell is appointed special master in this cause, with power to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and to take such testimony as may be introduced and such as he may desire to call. The master is directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to submit the same to this Court with all convenient speed, together with his recommendations for a decree. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the master shall be subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the Court. Messrs. Duane E. Minard and Wm. A. Stevens for complainant. Mr. Arthur J. W. Hilley for defendant.

No. 190. David v . Hubbard , Trustee in Bankruptc y ; and

No. 388. Brown et al . v . Calif ornia . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. Motion submitted October 7, 1929. Decided October 14, 1929. Per Curiam: The Court is of opinion that the arguments of petitioners upon the action of the state court in allowing a juror to sit and in denying a writ of error coram nobis are frivolous. For this reason, the motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis, and the petition for a writ of certiorari, are severally denied.

The clerk is directed to enter the usual order for the payment of costs already incurred, as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Messrs. George C. Faulkner and J. J. Henderson for petitioners. Mr. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, for respondent. Reported below: 277 Pac. 320.

No. 329. Good Springs Anchor Co . v . Unite d States . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition submitted October 7, 1929. Decided October 21, 1929. Per Curiam: The petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is granted. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California with directions to dismiss the suit. Mr. Ralph W. Smith for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes and Mr. Sewall Key for the United States. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 1019.

No. 90. Harrington et al . v . Sloan . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Nebraska. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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. Wymer Dressier and Robert D. Neely for appellants. Messrs. J. A. C. Kennedy and Charles L. McLaughlin for appellee. Reported below: 223 N. W. 663.

No. 119. Gandy et al . v . Louis iana Oil Refini ng Co . et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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. E. H. Randolph for appellants. Mr. Elias Goldstein for appellees. Reported below: 168 La. 37.

No. 173. Central Nat ’l Bank v . Lynn . Appeal from the Superior Court for County of Essex, Massachusetts. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14,1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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 n . Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. Thomas Hunt for appellant. Mr. Wm. Harold Hitchcock for appellee.

No. 183. Tremo nt Lumbe r Co . v . Polic e Jury of the Parish of Winn et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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. John C. Theus for appellant. No appearance for appellees. Reported below : 168 La. 597.

No. 199. Workman v . Boone et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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. Robert M. Clarke, Don G. Bowker, Arthur R. Smiley, Alexander T. Sokolow, and Henry S. Mackay, Jr., for appellant. Mr. David R. Faries for appellees. Reported below: 274 Pac. 62; 273 Pac. 819.

No. 294. Museli n v . Pennsylvania ;

No. 295. Zima v. Same ; and

No. 296. Rese tar v . Same . Appeals from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Jurisdictional statements submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeals are dismissed and certiorari is denied for the want of a substantial federal question on the authority of 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. Thomas M. Henry for appellants. Mr. John G. Frazer for appellee. 295 Pa. 311.

No. 343. Diani sh v . Vill age of Broadview . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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. Stuart E. Knappen and Meyer Abrams for appellants. Messrs. James McKeag and William A. Morrow for appellee. Reported below: 335 Ill. 299.

No. 169. Booth et al . v . Clapp et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the 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 n . Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. The costs already incurred herein by direction of the Court shall be paid by the clerk as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Mr. Jonathan Taylor for appellants. No appearance for appellees. Reported below: 120 Ohio St. 91.

No. 115. Jones v . Conso lidate d Wagon & Machine Co . Appeal from the District Court for the District of Idaho. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of § 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, § 1, 43 Stat. 938. Mr. Wilson S. Wiley for appellant. Mr. Bernard J. Stewart for appellee. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 383.

No. 341. VlNYARD ET AL. V. NORTH SlDE CANAL Co . et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Idaho. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is denied for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question on the authority of St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Shephard, 240 U. S. 240; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk de Ocean View Ry., 228 U. S. 326. Mr. James B. Eldridge for appellants. Mr. E. A. Walters for appellees. Reported below: 274 Pac. 1069.

No. 349. Garysburg Mfg . Co . v . Board of Commi s - sioners et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the state court sought here to be reviewed was based on a non-federal ground adequate to support it. Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257; Farson Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271. Messrs. George Roundtree and F. S. Spruill for appellant. No appearance for appellees. Reported below: 196 N. C. 284.

No. 392. Califor nia Delta Farms , Inc . v . Chinese American Farms , Inc . Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 14, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed on the authority of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of Feb. 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the decree sought to be reviewed is not a

final one. Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield, 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. F. Eldred Boland for appellant. Mr. Albert H. Elliott for appellee. Reported below: 278 Pac. 227; see also 278 Pac. 232, 268 Pac. 1050, and 255 Pac. 1097.

No. 70. King v . Unite d States . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Argued October 23, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed on the authority of Albrecht v. United States, 273 U. S. 1. Messrs. Clarence Wood, S. X. Christensen, and Leon J. Dugan were on the brief for petitioner. Assistant Attorney General Sisson, with whom Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Luhring, Mr. George C. Butte, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely were on the brief, for the United States. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 17.

No. 18. Sutte r et al . v . Midland Valle y R. Co . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Argued October 24, 1929. Decided October 28, 1929. Per Curiam: The writ of certiorari herein [278 U. S. 597] is dismissed as improvidently granted, in that it now appears that the petition for certiorari did not adequately and fairly disclose the questions involved and the grounds upon which the state court rested its decision. See Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182. Mr. Harry William Hart, with whom Messrs. Charles G. Yankey, John Gleason, Glenn Porter, Enos E. Hook, and W. G. McDonald were on the brief, for petitioners. Messrs. O. E. Swan and James D. Gibson were on the brief for respondent. Reported below: 28 F. (2d) 163.

Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 280 U.S.

No. 403. Moe et al v . Aberg et al ., Truste es . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Jurisdictional statement submitted October 28, 1929. Decided November 4, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed, and certiorari is denied, for the want of a question adequate to support the jurisdiction of this Court. Messrs. R. M. Rieser and H. L. Butler for appellants. Messrs. John W. Reynolds, Franklin E. Bump, John B. Sanborn, and Chauncey E. Blake for appellees. Reported below: 224 N. W. 132.

No. 465. Hill v . United States . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motion submitted November 4, 1929. Decided November 25, 1929. 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 no ground upon which a writ of certiorari can be issued. The petition for certiorari is therefore also denied. The Clerk is directed to pay the costs already incurred in this cause in the manner provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Mr. John J. Sullivan for petitioner. No appearance for the United States. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 489.

No. 472. Hallam v . Grant . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon. Motion submitted November 4, 1929. Decided November 25, 1929. 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 there is no substantial federal question upon which a writ of certiorari can be issued. The petition for a writ of certiorari is therefore also denied.

The costs already incurred herein shall be paid by the Clerk as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Mr. William H. Hallam, pro se, for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 276 Pac. 687.

No. —, original. Ex parte Atwood et al . Motion submitted November 4, 1929. Decided November 25; 1929. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Mr. Lyman K. Clark, Jr., for petitioners.

No. —, original. Ex parte United States ex rel . Senith a . Motion submitted November 25, 1929. Decided December 2, 1929. The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Mr. Curley C. Hoffpauir for petitioner.

No. —, original. Ex parte Rishel . Motion submitted November 25, 1929. Decided December 2, 1929. The motions for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied without prejudice. Minnie Rishel, pro se, for petitioner.

No. 41. Tyson v . Hartley , Governor , et al . Appeal from the U. S. Dist. Ct., W. D. of Washington. Argued December 2, 1929. Decided December 3, 1929. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Thomas Mannix submitted for appellant. Mr. Edward P. Donnelly, Assistant Attorney General of Washington, with whom Mr. John H. Dunbar, Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellees. Mr. J. M. Devers, Assistant Attorney General of Oregon, with whom Mr. I. H. Van Winkle, Attorney General, was on the brief, for the State of Oregon, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

No. 247. Troch e v . Califor nia . Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. Argued December 2, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the 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. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), the certiorari is denied. Mr. Ray T. Coughlin, with whom Mr. Roland Becsey was on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, and William F. Cleary, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for appellee. Reported below: 273 Pac. 767.

No. 34. Blind et al . v . Brock man et al . Appeal from and in error to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Argued December 2, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed, on the authority of Adams n . Milwaukee, 288 U. S. 572, 581, 583; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144; Central Lumber Company v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 160. Mr. Ernest F. Oakley, Jr., with whom Messrs. Edward G. Davidson and Lena Frank Oakley were on the brief, for Blind et al. Messrs. Julius T. Muench and Oliver Senti were on the brief for Brockman et al. 12 S. W. (2d) 742.

No. 40. Greenway Apartm ent Co . v . The Conven - tion of the Protestant Epis copa l Church et al . Appeal from the Baltimore City Court, State of Maryland. Argued December 3, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented federal question, on the authority of Jett Bros. Distilling Company v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), the certiorari is. denied. Mr. Isaac Lobe Strauss for appellant. Messrs. Charles F. Harley and Edward F. Bassett, with whom Messrs. Henry D. Harlan, Edw. Guest Gibson, and Burdette B. Webster were on the brief, for appellees.

No. 46. Anglo & London - Paris Nat ’l Bank v . Consolidated Nat ’l Bank . On writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Pima, and to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Argued December 4, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: The writ of certiorari herein is dismissed as improvidently granted. Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, with whom Mr. Mahlon B. Doing was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. John W. Davis, with whom Mr. Samuel L. Kingan was on the brief, for respondent. Reported below: 269 Pac. 68.

No. 51. Gulf , Mobile & Northern R. Co . v . Will iams . On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Argued December 5, 1929. Decided December 5, 1929. Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. Mr. J. G. Hamilton, with whom Mr. J. N. Flowers was on the brief, for petitioner. Messrs. B. F. McMillan, Jr., and 5. M. Johnston, with whom Messrs. Gregory L. Smith and Harry H. Smith were on the brief, for respondent. Reported below: 119 So. 212.

arch and Helen R. Carloss, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, and Messrs. Clarence M. Charest and Shelby S. Faulkner were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. W. J. Howard, pro se, for respondent. Reported below: 29 F. (2d) 895.

No. 58. First Addit ion to the Rattle Snake Drain - age Dis trict et al . v . Bodeman et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued December 6, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the 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 n . Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), the certiorari is denied. Messrs. Charles E. Buell, Frank Lucas, H. L. Butler, and R. M. Rieser submitted for appellants. Mr. Frank W. Hall, with whom Messrs. Wm. R. Bagley, John F. Baker, and Laurence W. Hall were on the brief, for appellees. 197 Wis. 261.

No. 429. Ortega v . Magma Copp er Co . Appeal from the District Court for the District of Arizona. Jurisdictional statement submitted December 2, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: Appeal dismissed for the lack of jurisdiction, upon the authority of § 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938). Mr. Norman B. Landreau for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

No. 435. The State of North Dakota , doing busi - ness as the Bank of North Dakota v . Olson , Col - lector of Internal Revenue . Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Jurisdictional statement submitted December 2, 1929. Decided December 9, 1929. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the lack of jurisdiction, upon the authority of § 240 (b) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 939). Mr. James Morris for appellant. Solicitor General Hughes and Messrs. Seth W. Richardson, Sewall Key, and Morton P. Fisher for appellee. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 848.

City of New York.

No. 19, original. New Jersey v . Delaw are . Motion submitted December 9, 1929. Decided January 6, 1930. The motion for the appointment of a special master in this case is granted; and William L. Rawls, Esquire, of Baltimore, State of Maryland, is appointed special master in this cause with the power to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and to take such testimony as may be introduced and such as he may deem necessary to call. The master is directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to submit the same to this Court with all convenient speed, together with his recommendations for a decree. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the special master shall be subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the Court. Mr. Duane E. Minard submitted the motion for the State of New Jersey. Mr. Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., for the State of Delaware.

No. 65. Iowa Motor Vehicl e Associ ation et al . v . Board of Railr oad Comm is si oners of Iowa et al . ; and

No. 69. Hawkeye Stage s , Inc . v . Same . Appeals from the Supreme Court of Iowa. Argued December 9, 1929. Decided January 6, 1930. Per Curiam: Decrees affirmed upon the authority of Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. Riley, ante, p. 80. Mr. Casper Schenk, with whom Messrs. C. S. Bradshaw, John A. Senneff, W. L. Bliss, and H. S. Hunn were on the brief, for Iowa Motor Vehicle Association. Messrs. John J. Halloran and A. D. Pugh were on

the brief for Hawkeye Stages, Inc. Messrs. John Fletcher, Attorney General of Iowa, Maxwell A. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, J. H. Henderson, Commerce Counsel of Iowa, and Stephen Robinson, Assistant Commerce Counsel, were on the brief for the Board of Railroad Commissioners of Iowa et al. Reported below: 207 Iowa 461.

No. —, original. Ex parte Rhode Island et al . Motion submitted January 6, 1930. Decided January 8, 1930. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Mr. Sigmund W. Fischer, Jr., for petitioner in support of the motion. Solicitor General Hughes for respondent in opposition thereto.

No. —, original. Ex part e Bradford . Motion submitted January 6, 1930. Decided January 13, 1930. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Mr. Otto Gresham for petitioner.

No. 21, original. Ex part e Northe rn Pacific R. Co. et al . Motion submitted January 6, 1930. Decided January 13, 1930. On consideration of the motion for the issuance of a formal writ of mandamus herein and of the supplement to such motion. It is ordered that a formal and peremptory writ of mandamus issue in this cause, conformable to the rule to show cause which was made absolute by this Court’s opinion of December 2, 1929, and that there be included in such formal writ a direction requiring the defendant, Bourquin, to vacate so much of his order of December 14, 1929, as assumes to appoint a Special Master to take testimony and assumes to fix a time for the final hearing of the cause before the statutory court of three judges. Mr. Dennis F. Lyons submitted the motioiufor petitioners. See ante, p. 142.

No. 545. Hunter v . Baas h -Ross Tool Co . et al . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. Motion submitted January 6, 1930. Decided January 13, 1930. 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 there is no properly presented substantial federal question. The petition for writ of certiorari is therefore also denied. The costs already incurred herein shall be paid by the Clerk as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. Mr. Charles W. Hunter, pro se. No appearance for respondents.

No. 89. Texas & Pacific R. Co . v . Guidry , Admin is - trat rix . On writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, Fifth Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas. Argued January 15, 1930. Decided January 20, 1930. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed. Western & Atlantic R. R. v. Hughes, Administratrix, 278 U. S. 496, 498. Mr. J. H. T. Bibb, with whom Messrs. T. D. Gresham and R. 8. Shapard were on the brief, for petitioner. Messrs. 8. P. Jones, Franklin Jones, and P. G. Henderson were on the brief for respondent. Reported below: 9 S. W. (2d) 284.

No. 475. Southern Calif ornia Edison Co . v. Rail - road Comm iss ion of Calif ornia et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. Jurisdictional statement submitted January 13, 1930. Decided January 20, 1930. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed on the authority of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the judgment sought to be reviewed is not a final one. Grays Harbor Logging Company v. Coats-Fordney Logging Company, 243 U. S. 251. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Messrs. W. C. Mullendore and Roy V. Reppy for appellant. Messrs. Erwin P. Werner, Arthur T. George, and Wm. B. Mathews for appellees.

No. 13, original. Connecticut v . Massac husett s . Argued January 20, 1930. Decided January 20, 1930. On consideration of the motions of the complainant to strike out certain parts of the answer of the defendant and to dismiss answer of the defendant, and of the argument of counsel thereupon had,

It is now here ordered by this Court that the said motions be, and they are hereby, denied.

And it is further ordered by this Court that the complainant file its reply to the answer of the defendant within one week from this date. Messrs. Benedict M. Holden and Ernest L. Averill for complainant. Mr. Bentley W. Warren for defendant.

280 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc.

No. 245. Texas ex rel . Isens ee et al . v . Sims et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Texas. Argued January 23, 24, 1930. Decided January 24, 1930. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. M. G. Eckhardt, Jr., with whom Messrs. Barry Mohun, Edward R. Kleberg, John C. North, B. D. Tarlton, L. H. Lowe, and Linton 8. Savage were on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. Sidney P. Chandler, Claude V. Birkhead, and M. D. Brown were on the brief for appellees. Reported below: 12 S. W. (2d) 540.

No. —, original. Ex parte Hagenson . Motion submitted January 13, 1930. Decided January 27, 1930. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for leave to file petition for a writ of prohibition is denied. Mr. Winter S. Martin for petitioner.

No. 426. Aubrey et al . v . Mahonin g Valle y Sani - tary Distr ict et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Motion submitted January 20, 1930. Decided January 27, 1930. The motion to dismiss as to the parties appellants, Aubrey and Callan, is granted, and the motion of Pauline Gottlieb for leave to intervene and to be substituted as the party appellant is also granted. Mr. Harry J. Gerrity in support of the motion. 120 Ohio St. 449.

No. 165. Nash ville , Chattan ooga & St . Louis R. Co . et al . v. Morgan et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Argued January 22, 1930. Decided January 27, 1930. Per Curiam: The judgment herein is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Mr. Fitzgerald Hall, with whom Messrs. Frank Slemons and Walton Whitwell were on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. J. B. Sizer and Joe Frassrand were on the brief for appellees. 160 Tenn. 316.

No. 184. Murphey v . Corporation Commis sion of North Caroli na . Appeal from the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Argued January 24, 1930. Decided January 27, 1930. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed. Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U. S. 29; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 414; Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30, 32-33. Mr. J. A. Jones for appellant. Messrs. Dennis G. Brummitt, Attorney General of North Carolina, and I. M. Bailey for appellee. Reported below : 147 S. E. 667.

No. 167. Hanover Fire Ins . Co . v . Specktor et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 24, 1930. Decided January 27, 1930. Per

Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial 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. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Mr. Horace Michener Schell, with whom Mr. Henry A. Craig was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Wm. A. Gray for appellees. Reported below: 295 Pa. 390.

PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED, FROM OCTOBER 7, 1929, TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 27, 1930.

No. 122. Federal Radio Commo n v . General JElectric Co. et al . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Messrs. Louis J. Caldwell, Paul M. Segal, and Bethuel M. Webster, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. Frank J. Hogan, Wm. H. Donovan, Charles E. Hughes, and Allen S. Hubbard for respondents. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 630.

No. 87. Baltimore & Ohio Southw este rn R. Co . v . Carroll . October 14, 1929. The petition for a writ of certiorari herein to the Supreme Court of Indiana is granted with the limitation, however, that counsel shall confine themselves, in the briefs and in oral argument, to the question whether this suit is barred by the statute of limitations. Messrs. Wm. A. Eggers, Morison R. Waite, and Cassius W. McMullen for petitioner. Messrs. Wm. J. Hughes and 0. H. Montgomery for respondent. Reported below: 163 N. E. 99.

No. 123. Royal Insu ranc e Co ., Ltd ., et al . v . U. S. Shipp ing Board Merchant Fleet Corp . October 14, 1929. The petition for a writ of certiorari herein to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted, with provisions for advancement of the cause, to be heard with other related causes. Mr. John C. Crawley for petitioners. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Mr. J. Frank Staley for respondent. Reported below: 30 F. (2d) 946.

Decisions Granting Certiorari. 280U.S.

No. 81. Empl oyers ’ Liabilit y Assur ance Corp ., Ltd ., v. Cook et al . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Messrs. Clyde A. Sweeten and W. A. Vinson for petitioner. Mr. D. A. Simmons for respondents. RdJjorted below: 31 F. (2d) 497.

No. 89. Texas & Paci fi c R. Co . v . Guidry . October 14, 1929. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, Sixth Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas, granted. Mr. T. D. Gresham for petitioner. Mr. S. P. Jones for respondent. Reported below: 9 S. W. (2d) 284.

No. 92. Lucas , Commiss ioner of Internal Revenue , v. North Texas Lumbe r Co . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Attorney General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt, and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat and Randolph C. Shaw for petitioner. Messrs. Albert B. Hall and Joseph J. Eckford for respondent. Reported below: 30 F. (2d) 680.

No. 93. Cooper v . United States . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Mr. Wayne Johnson for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Galloway, and Messrs. Lisle A. Smith and Henry A. Cox for the United States. Reported below: 67 Ct. Cis. 711.

No. 99. Lucas , Commi ssione r of Internal Revenue , v. Earl . October 14,1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Attorney General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney

General Willebrandt, and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat and Millar E. McGilchrist for petitioner. Messrs. Warren Olney, Jr., and J. M. Manon, Jr., for respondent. Reported below: 30 F. (2d) 898.

No. 114. Renzie hausen v . Lucas , Commis sion er of Internal Revenue . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Messrs. Wm. A. Seifert and Wm. Wallace Booth for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. J. Louis Monarch and John Vaughan Groner for respondent. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 675.

No. 118. Florsh eim Brothers Drygoods Co ., Ltd ., v . United States . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. E. H. Randolph for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Barham R. Gary for the United States. Reported below: 29 F. (2d) 895.

No. 127. Univers al Batte ry Co . v . United State s . October 14, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Mr. George Maurice Morris for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Galloway, and Messrs. George C. Butte and R. C. Williamson for the United States. Reported below: 66 Ct. Cis. 748.

No. 128. Unite d State s v . American Can Co .;

No. 129. Same v . Miss ouri Can Co .; and

No. 179. Unite d States Fidel ity & Guaranty Co . v . Guenther . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted, Mr. C. M. Hom for petitioner. Messrs. James G. Bachman and Wm. M. Byrnes for respondent. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 919.

No. 188. Davi s v . Prest on . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas granted. Messrs. W. L. Cook and Sidney F. Andrews for petitioner. Mr. Robert L. Cole for respondent. Reported below: 16 S. W. (2d) 117.

No. 198. Alumi num Castings Co . v . Routzahn . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. John T. Scott for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Sewall Key and Millar E. McGilchrist for respondent. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 669.

No. 212. New York Central R. Co . v . Marcone . October 21,1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey granted. Mr. Albert C. Wall for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 144 Atl. 635.

No. 229. Dis trict of Colum bia v . Fred . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Mr. Wm. W. Bride for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 375.

No. 248. Nogueira v . New York , New Haven & Hart - ford R. Co. October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Humphrey J. Lynch for petitioner. Messrs. John M. Gibbons and Edward R. Brumley for respondent. Reported below : 32 F. (2d) 179.

No. 250. Lucas , Commissi oner of Internal Revenue , v. Ox Fibre Brush Co . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes and Mr. Morton P. Fisher for petitioner. Messrs. Albert L. Hopkins and Merritt Starr for respondent. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 42.

No. 261. Miller v . Mc Laughlin . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska granted. Mr. A. Henry Walter for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 224 N. W. 18.

No. 270. The Henri ett a Mills v . Rutherford County et al . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of

Decisions Granting Certiorari. 280 U.S.

certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Messrs. Murray Allen and Willis Smith for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 570.

No. 300. Quapaw Land Co ., Inc ., v . Bolinger . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Messrs. F. W. Clements and & L. Herold for petitioner. Messrs. Frank J. Looney and J. M. Grimmet for respondent. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 627.

No. 303. Atchis on , Topek a & Santa Fe R. Co . v . Toops . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas granted, Messrs. Alfred A. Scott, E. E. McInnis, Wm. R. Smith, and Alfred G. Armstrong for petitioner. Mr. Carr W. Taylor for respondent. Reported below: 128 Kan. 189.

No. 305. Franc -Strohmenge r & Cowan , Inc ., v . Forchheimer . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Messrs. Holland S. Duell, Clifford E. Dunn, Frederick P. Fish, and Charles Neave for petitioner. Mr. O. Ellery Edwards for respondent. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 696.

No. 311. May et al . v . Heine r , Colle ctor . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. Charles H. Sachs for petitioners. Solicitor General Hughes and Mr. Sewall Key for respondent. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 1017.

No. 314. Niles Bemen t Pond Co . v . United States . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Messrs. Karl D. Loos, E. Barrett Prettyman, and Preston B. Kavanaugh for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney Gênerai Galloway, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch and R. C. Williamson for the United States. Reported below: 67 Ct. Cis. 693.

No. 323. Lucas , Commi ssione r , v . Kansas City Structural Steel Co . ; and

No. 324. Same v . Same . October 21, 1929. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes and Messrs. Sewall Key and Randolph C. Shaw for petitioner. Mr. Armwell L. Cooper for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 53.

No. 334. Becker Steamshi p Co . v . Snyde r . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio granted. Messrs. Frederick L. Leckie, S. H. Holding, and Tracy H. Duncan for petitioner. Mr. Luther Day for respondent. Reported below: 31 Ohio App. 379.

No. 340. United States v . Updi ke et al . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes and Mr. Sewall Key for the United States. Messrs. Francis A. Brogan, Alfred G. Ellick, and Anan Raymond for respondents. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 1.

No. 345. U. S. Ship pin g Board Merchant Fleet Corp . v . Harwood . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes and Messrs. Claude R. Branch and Chauncey G. Parker for petitioner. Messrs. Frederick H. Wood and Herbert B. Lee for respondent. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 680.

No. 356. Lucas , Commi ssione r , v . Pilliod Lumber Co. October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes and Mr. Sewall Key for petitioner. Messrs. Herbert W. Nauts and Henry M. Ward for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 245.

No. 363. Georgia Powe r Co . v . Decatur . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia granted. Messrs. Walter T. Colquitt and Ben J. Conyers for petitioner. Mr. Hooper Alexander for respondent. Reported below: 149 S. E. 32.

No. 365. Esche r v . Woods . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Messrs. Spier Whitaker and Lyttleton Fox for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch and Henry A. Cox for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 556.

No. 370. Federa l Trade Common v . Western Meat Co. et al . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Robert E. Healy, Alfred M. Craven, and Claude R. Branch for petitioner. Messrs. Edward I. Barry and Frank L. Horton for respondents. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 824.

No. 372. Cincin nati v . Vest er ;

No. 373. Same v . Richards et al . ; and

No. 374. Same v . Reakirt . October 21, 1929. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Messrs. John D. Ellis and Ed F. Alexander for petitioner. Messrs. John Weld Peck and Milton Sayler for respondents. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 242.

No. 375. Weste rn Cartri dge Co . v . Emmers on . -October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois granted. Mr. Colin C. H. Fyffe for petitioner. Messrs. Oscar E. Carlstrom and Bayard Lacey Catron for respondent. Reported below: 335 Ill. 150.

No. 390. Jamison et al . v . Encar nacio n . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York granted. Messrs. James B. Henney and Daniel Miner for petitioners. Messrs. Wm. S. Butler and J\ames A. Gray for respondent. Reported below: 224 App. Div. 260; 226 App. Div. 769.

No. 397. Charter Shipp ing Co ., Ltd ., v . Bowri ng Jones & Tidy , Ltd . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit granted. Mr. Cletus Keating for petitioner. Mr. Theodore L. Bailey for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 280.

No. 402. United States v . Guaranty Trus t Co . et al . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant to the Attorney General O’Brian, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch and Elmer B. Collins for the United States. Messrs. Joseph M. Hartfield, Edwin S. S. Sunderland, James H. McIntosh, Henry V. Poor, Charles Bunn, Warren S. Carter, Mortimer H. Bauteile, and Edward H. Blanc for respondents. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 533.

No. 412. Todok et al . v . Union State Bank . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska granted. Messrs. Frank E. Edgerton and Norris Brown for petitioners. Mr. Frank D. Williams for respondent. Reported below: 223 N. W. 664.

No. 425. Panama Mail Steamsh ip Co. v. Vargas . October 21, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Thomas A. Thatcher for petitioner. Mr. H. W. Hutton for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 894.

No. 329. Good Spri ngs Anchor Co . v . United States . See ante, p. 515.

No. 414. White , Coll ecto r , v . Hood Rubber Co . October 28, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Sewall Key, and Barham R. Gary for petitioner. Messrs. Frank S. Bright and H. Stanley Hinrichs for respondent. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 739.

No. 423. Collie et al . v . Ferguss on et al . October 28, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Mr. Jacob L. Morewitz for petitioners. Mr. Leon T. Seawell for respondents. Reported below: 31 F. (2d) 1010.

No. 350. Bassi ck Mfg . Co . v . Unit ed States ;

No. 351. F. W. Stewar t Mfg . Co . v . Same ; and

No. 352. Gemco Mfg . Co . v . Same . November 4,1929. The petitions for writs of certiorari herein to the Court of Claims are granted, and the cases assigned for argument with cases Nos. 127 and 275, as one case. Mr. George M. Wilmeth for petitioners. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Galloway, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, R. C. Williamson, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 68 Ct. Cis. 366, 67 Ct. Cis. 275, and 67 Ct. Cis. 287, respectively.

No. 424. Danovitz v . United States . November 4, 1929. The petition for a writ of certiorari herein to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is granted, with the limitation, however, that counsel shall confine themselves, in the briefs and in oral argument, to the question whether the property seized is forfeitable under § 25, Title II, of the national prohibition act. Messrs. John W. Dunkle and Ward Bonsall for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Howard T. Jones, and John J. Byrne for the United States. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 30.

No. 389. Chesap eake & Potoma c Tele phone Co . v . Unite d States . November 25, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Messrs. Stanton C. Peelle, C. F. R. Ogilby, Paul E. Lesh, Dale D. Drain, and Jerome F. Barnhard for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Galloway, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Heber H. Rice, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 68 Ct. Cis. 273.

No. 428. Tyler et al . v . United States . November 25, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Messrs. Frank S. Bright, and H. Stanley Hinrichs for petitioners. Solicitor General Hughes, Messrs. Claude R. Branch and Sewall Key, and Helen R. Carloss for the United States. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 724.

No. 443. Campbell , Fede ral Prohibit ion Admin is - trat or , et al . v. Galeno Chemical Co ., Inc ., et al .;

No. 444. Same v . D. P. Paul & Co., Inc . ; and

No. 452. Richbourg Motor Co . v . Unite d States . December 2, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Messrs. Joseph G. Myerson and R. R. Williams for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Mahlon D. Kiefer, and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 38.

No. 457. Alp ha Steamshi p Corp ’n , et al . v . Cain . December 2, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Carver W. Wolfe for petitioners. Mr. Melville J. France for respondent. 35 F. (2d) 717.

No. 462. Lucas , Commi ssione r of Internal Revenue v. Reed . December 2, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes for petitioner. Mr. Maynard Teall for respondent. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 263.

No. 463. Jackso n v . United States . December 2, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted. Mr. Thomas Amory Lee for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Mr. W. Clifton Stone for the United States. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 241.

Decisions Granting Certiorari. 280 U.S.

No. 469. Texas & New Orleans R. Co . et al . v . Brotherhoo d of Railw ay and Steamshi p Clerks et al . December 9, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Messrs. H. M. Garwood and J. H. Tallichet for petitioners. Messrs. Donald R. Richberg and John H. Crooker for respondents. Reported below: 33 F. (2d) 13.

No. 477. Barker Painting Co . v . Local No . 734, Brotherhoo d of Pain ter s . December 9, 1929. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. Merritt Lane for petitioner. Mr. Morris Hillquit for respondent. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 3.

No. 464. Brinkerhof f -Faris Trust & Savings Co . v. Hill , Treasure r . January 6, 1930. On further consideration, the order of December 2, 1929, denying the petition for certiorari herein to the Supreme Court of Missouri is revoked and the petition is now granted. Mr. Roy W. Rucker for petitioner. Mr. Lieutellus Cunningham for respondent. Reported below: 19 S. W. (2d) 746.

No. 269. Meadow s v . United States . January 6, 1930. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Mr. Jean S. Breitenstein for petitioner. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Farnum, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, James O’C. Roberts, and James T. Brady for the United States. Reported below: 32 F. (2d) 570.

No. 530. United States v . Equitable Trust Co . et al . January 20, 1930. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.

Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Richardson, and Mr. George C. Butte for the United States. Messrs. Carroll G. Walter and Almond D. Cochran for respondents. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 916.

No. 546. United State s v . Provid ent Trust Co . et al . ; and

No. 547. Lucas , Commis sioner of Internal Reve - nue v. Girard Trust Co . et al . January 20, 1930. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. The motion to advance is granted and the cases assigned for hearing following the hearing of case No. 428. Solicitor General Hughes for petitioners. No appearance for respondents. Reported below: 35 F. (2d) 339.

No. 520. Lektophone Corp ’n v . Rola Co . January 27, 1930. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. Charles E. Hughes and Wm. H. Davis for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 34 F. (2d) 764.

No. 528. Broad River Power Co . et al . v . South Caroli na ex rel . Danie l , Attorney Genera l . January 27, 1930. Petition for writ of certiorari ^o the Supreme Court of South Carolina granted. Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt for petitioners. Messrs. John M. Daniel, Cordie Page, and W. S. Nelson for respondent.

No. 535. Willcuts , Collect or , v . Bunn . January 27, 1930. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. Solicitor General Hughes, Assistant Attorney General Youngquist, and Mr. Sewall Key for petitioner. Mr. Charles Bunn, pro se. Reported below: 35 F. (2d) 29.