Fairport, Painesville & E.R.R. Co. v. Meredith, 292 U.S. 589 (1934)
Case details
Citation
292 U.S. 589
Full caption
FAIRPORT, PAINESVILLE & EASTERN RAILROAD CO. v. MEREDITH.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 4, 1934
FAIRPORT, PAINESVILLE & EASTERN RAILROAD CO. v. MEREDITH.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, OF OHIO.
No. 820. Argued May 4, 7, 1934.—Decided June 4, 1934.
1
The requirement of the Safety Appliance Act that trains shall be equipped with power brakes implies that such brakes shall be maintained for use. P. 593. 18 See instructions issued April 11, 1934, by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, pursuant to the Act of March 27-28.
Argument for Petitioner. 292 U.S.
2. The title of an Act and the history leading up to its adoption, as aids to statutory construction, are to be resorted to only for the purpose of resolving doubts as to the meaning of the words used in the Act in case of ambiguity. P. 594.
3. Power brakes are required by the Safety Appliance Act for the safety not only of railway employees and passengers on trains but also of travelers on the highways at railway crossings. P. 594. 4. It fairly may be said that the nature of the duty imposed by a statute and the benefits resulting from its performance usually determine what persons are entitled to invoke its protection. P. 596. 5. The Safety Appliance Act imposes absolute duties upon interstate railway carriers and thereby creates correlative rights in favor of such injured persons as come within its purview; but the right to enforce the liability which arises from the breach of duty is derived from the principles of the common law. P. 598.
6. The doctrine of last clear chance amounts in effect to a qualification of the rule of contributory negligence, having the result of relieving the injured person from the consequences of his violation of that rule; and its application in a grade-crossing case in a state court on the assumption that the accident might have been avoided, notwithstanding the contributory negligence, if power brakes had been maintained as prescribed by the Federal Safety Appliance Act, is a matter of local law. P. 598.
46 Oh. App. 457; 189 N.E. 10, affirmed.
Certiorari , 291 U.S. 657, to review the affirmance of a recovery from the Railroad in an action for personal injuries suffered in a highway crossing accident. The Supreme Court of Ohio refused to take up the case.
Messrs. Atlee Pomerene and Elbert F. Blakely, with whom Messrs. Harry T. Nolan and Thomas M. Kirby were on the brief, for petitioner.
No cases in the courts of the United States have been found where the provisions of the Safety Appliance Act have been applied for the benefit of any person except employees and travelers upon the railroad itself.
The purpose of the Act, as shown by the recommendations of President Harrison, which brought it about, and by the title of the Act itself, was confined to employees and travelers. Thornton’s Federal Employers’ Liability p. 591589 Counsel for Respondent.
Act, § 227; Roberts, Federal Liability of Carriers, Vol. 2, § 718; Clay n . Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 210 S.W. 1072; Grand Rapids Ry. Co. v. United States, 249 Fed. 650; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 250; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617; Lang n . New York Central R. Co., 255 U.S. 455; Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U.S. 239, 241.
The violation of a statutory duty is the foundation of an action in favor of such persons only as belong to the class intended by the legislature to be protected by the statute. Schell v. DuBois, 94 Oh. St. 93, 107; Hannan v. Ehrlich, 102 Oh. St. 176; Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Oh. St. 364; Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 66 Oh. St. 276; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 249; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 13 Ohio Cir. Dec. 400; C. A. & C. Ry. Co. n . Workman, 66 Oh. St. 509.
The holding upon the last clear chance doctrine based upon the Federal Safety Appliance Act deprived the railroad company of its defense of contributory negligence which was clearly established in this case.
The trial court ignored the fact that there was nothing that the crew could do by way of connecting this air hose after the dangerous position of plaintiff was discovered.
The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply unless danger is actually discovered. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Swartzel, 17 F. (2d) 869; Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Masterson, 126 Oh. St. 42.
The error complained of is not cured by any claim that the case might properly have been decided for the plaintiff upon an issue other than the application of the Safety Appliance Act. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Mc-Whirter, 229 U.S. 265, 276; Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Masterson, 126 Oh. St. 42.
Mr. David F. Anderson for respondent.
Mr . Justice Sutherl and delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent recovered judgment against petitioner upon the verdict of a jury in an Ohio state court of first instance for a personal injury resulting from a collision at a railroad-highway crossing between an automobile which she was driving and a train of cars operated by petitioner over its line of railroad. There is evidence that the train approached the crossing without sounding the whistle of the engine or ringing the bell so as to give warning of the train’s approach. There is also evidence which fairly establishes that as respondent drew near the crossing the train was in plain view for a sufficient length of time to have enabled respondent, by the use of ordinary care, to see the train, stop and avoid the collision, and, therefore, that she was guilty of contributory negligence. Miller v. Union Pacific R. Co., 290 U.S. 227, 231. The train was equipped with air brakes, in conformity with the federal Safety Appliance Act, as amended, U.S.C., Title 45, c. 1, §§ 1 and 9,1 and the orders of the Interstate
1
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate traffic not equipped with a power driving-wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system, or to run any train in such traffic that has not a sufficient number of cars in it so equipped with power or train brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that purpose. Section 9. Whenever, as provided in this chapter, any train is operated with power or train brakes not less than 50 per centum of the cars in such train shall have their brakes used and operated by the engineer of the locomotive drawing such train; and all power-braked cars in such train which are associated together with said 50 per centum shall have their brakes so used and operated; and, to more fully carry into effect the objects of said chapter, the Interstate Commerce Commission may, from time to time, after full hearing, increase the minimum percentage of cars in any train required to be operated with power or train brakes which must have their brakes used and operated as aforesaid; and failure to comply with any such requirement of the said Interstate Commerce Commission shall be subject to the like penalty as failure to comply with any requirement of this section. 61745°—34- 38
Commerce Commission made thereunder; but the air was disconnected between the cars and the engine, leaving the brakes of the engine and tender as the only means of stopping the train or checking its speed, thus constituting a clear violation of the act, since the requirement that a train shall be equipped with power brakes necessarily contemplates that1 they shall be maintained for use. See United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 229 Fed. 927, 930.
The complaint alleges, as one ground of negligence, failure on the part of petitioner to make an air connection between the engine and cars, and to maintain and use the power brakes. In respect of that ground of negligence the trial court instructed the jury, in effect, that if the violation of the federal act resulted proximately or immediately in the injury complained of, the railroad company was liable. But the jury was also told that if respondent was guilty of contributory negligence she could not recover notwithstanding the negligence of petitioner. The trial court also instructed the jury in respect of the doctrine of the last clear chance—its view apparently being that, notwithstanding the contributory negligence of respondent, petitioner would be liable if, after the danger to respondent became apparent, it could have avoided the injury but for its antecedent failure to maintain and use an equipment of air brakes such as required by the federal act.
The appellate court, in sustaining the judgment of the trial court, held: (1) that the federal law violated by petitioner was enacted not only for the protection of railroad employes and passengers on railroad trains, but p. 594the public generally—that is to say, as applied to the present case, that the requirement of the federal Safety Appliance Act as to power-controlled brakes and their use imposed a duty upon the railroad company in respect of travelers at railroad-highway crossings; and (2) that the instructions of the trial court in respect of the doctrine of the last clear chance correctly stated the law. 46 Ohio App. 457; 189 N.E. 10.
These two rulings present the questions which the writ brings here for consideration.
First. The contention of petitioner is that the federal Safety Appliance Act was intended only for the protection of employes and travelers upon the railroads, and has no relation to the safety of travelers upon highways or of the public generally. Very likely, the primary purpose in the mind of Congress was to protect employes and passengers. So much is indicated by the title—“An act to promote the safety of employes and travelers upon railroads ” etc. And this is borne out by the history of the legislation. President Harrison in his first annual message to Congress called attention to the need of legislation for the better protection of the lives and limbs of those engaged in operating the interstate freight lines of the country, and especially the yard men and brakemen, and expressed the view that Congress had power to require uniformity in the construction of cars used in interstate commerce and the use of approved safety appliances upon them.
But we are asked to hold that the title expresses the sole intent of the act, and this involves a question of statutory construction. The title of an act and the history leading up to its adoption, as aids to statutory construction, are to be resorted to only for the purpose of resolving doubts as to the meaning of the words used in the act in case of ambiguity. Patterson n . Bark Eudora, 190 U.S. 169, 172; Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418,
430; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U.S. 78, 92. Compare Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 514, 519, 522. But here the words of §§ 1 and 9 of the act speak plainly and nothing in the nature or operation of the legislation requires, or suggests the necessity of, an appeal to extrinsic aids to determine their meaning. It may be that the protective operation of § 2 of the act requiring automatic couplers2 was not meant to extend to persons other than employes. Compare St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 620; Lang v. New York Cent. R. Co., 255 U.S. 455; Davis n . Wolfe, 263 U.S. 239, 243; Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Eisenhart, 280 Fed. 271. But the installation and use of power brakes required by §§ 1 and 9 so obviously contribute to the safety of the traveler at crossings that it is hardly probable that Congress could have contemplated their inapplicability to that situation.
Section 9, supra, provides that when a train is operated with power or train brakes, not less than 50 per cent, (under regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission now 85 per cent.) of the cars in such train shall have their brakes used and operated by the engineer of the locomotive drawing the train. That a train so equipped and operated can be brought to a stop much more quickly than by the use of hand brakes is, of course, perfectly clear; and it is reasonable to conclude that a result so readily perceivable lies within the purview of the requirement. The most important purpose of a brake upon any vehicle is to enable its operator to check its speed or stop p. 596it more quickly than would otherwise be possible. The old railway hand brake was principally for that purpose, but it was undesirable for two reasons—first, because in setting it the brakeman was exposed to danger, and second, and especially in the case of long heavy trains, it did not meet the necessity of stopping the train quickly in emergencies. In this second aspect, the common law duty of the railway company to use ordinary care to provide and keep in reasonably safe condition adequate brakes for the control of its trains was one owing, among others, to travelers in the situation which the respondent here occupied. Sections 1 and 9 of the Safety Appliance Act converts this qualified duty imposed by the common law into an absolute duty, from the violation of which there arises a liability for an injury resulting therefrom to any person falling within the terms and intent of the act. Compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Layton, supra, 620; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 295. To confine the beneficial effect of these provisions to employes and passengers would be to impute to Congress an intention to ignore the equally important element which their enactment actually contributes to the safety of travelers at highway crossings. Since all of these three classes of persons are within the mischief at which the provisions are aimed, it is quite reasonable to interpret the statute imposing the duty as including all of them.
2
Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.
It fairly may be said that the nature of the duty imposed by a statute and the benefits resulting from its performance usually determine what persons are entitled to invoke its protection. In Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Reesman, 60 Fed. 370, where the railroad company failed to erect and maintain sufficient fences, as required by a state statute, in consequence of which an animal got upon the track and derailed the train, it was held than an employe upon the train who was injured was entitled to recover under the statute. In the opinion, p. 597delivered by Mr. Justice Brewer (pp. 373-374), it is said:
“At any rate, it is clear that the fact that certain classes of persons were intended to be primarily protected by the discharge of a statutory duty will not necessarily prevent others, neither named nor intended as primary beneficiaries, from maintaining an action to recover for injuries caused by the violation of such legislative command. It may well be said that, though primarily intended for the benefit of one class, it was also intended for the protection of all who need such protection. . . . The purpose of fence laws, of this character, is not solely the protection of proprietors of adjoining fields. It is also to secure safety to trains. That there should be no obstruction on the track is a matter , of the utmost importance to those who are called upon to ride on railroad trains. Whether that obstruction be a log placed by some wrongdoer, or an animal straying on the track, the danger to the trains, and those who are traveling thereon is the same. To prevent such obstruction being one of the purposes of the statute, any one whose business calls him to be on a train has a right to complain of the company, if it fails to comply with this statutory duty.” See also Hayes v. Michigan Central R. Co., Ill U.S. 228, 239-240, and other authorities cited in the Reesman case.
In the light of what has now been said, it follows that the duty imposed upon petitioner by the provisions of the act in respect of power-controlled brakes extends to and includes travelers at railway-highway crossings.
Second. The holding of the court below as to the doctrine of the last clear chance is challenged as being contrary to the weight of American authority;3 but we are
8 See, for example, Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Nelson, 173 Fed. 915; St. Louis & 8. F. R. Co. v. Summers, 173 Fed. 358; Smith v. Norfolk p. 598precluded from considering the contention because it does not present a federal question. The federal Safety Appliance Act, as we already have said and this court repeatedly has ruled, imposes absolute duties upon interstate railway carriers and thereby creates correlative rights in favor of such injured persons as come within its purview; but the right to enforce the liability which arises from the breach of duty is derived from the principles of the common law. The act does not affect the defense of contributory negligence, and, since the case comes here from a state court, the validity of that defense must be determined in accordance with applicable state law. Moore v. C. & 0. Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205, 214 et seq., and cases cited; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co., ante, p. 57. And see Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 1, upon second appeal, 220 U.S. 590, 598. The same is true of the doctrine of the last clear chance, which likewise is not affected by the act. If doubt might otherwise exist in respect of the specific application of the cases cited to that doctrine, regarded independently, the doubt would vanish when consideration is given to the relation which it bears to the rule of contributory negligence, namely, that it amounts in effect to a qualification of that rule, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 196 Fed. 878, 880, having the result of relieving the injured person from the consequences of his violation of it.
Nothing we have said is to be understood as indicating our acceptance, as a substantive principle, of the ruling of the court below in respect of the point. That question is left open for consideration and determination when, if ever, it shall be so presented as to admit of its being dealt with upon its merits.
Judgment affirmed.
DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM MARCH 20 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 4,1934.*
No. 885. Silsb y v. Louis iana . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Motion submitted March 24, 1934. Decided April 2, 1934. Per Curiam: The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a) Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by § 237 (c) Judicial Code as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Mr. H. P. Viering for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Reported below: 178 La. 663; 152 So. 323.
No. 857. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Construction Co . v . Virgini a . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Jurisdictional statement submitted March 24, 1934. Decided April 2, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68, 71, 72; Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362, 371, 372; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U.S. 308, 311; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U.S. 29; Roe v. Kansas, 278 U.S. 191; American Baseball Club v. Philadelphia, 290 U.S. 595. Mr. John L. Abbot for appellant. Messrs. W. W. Martin and Henry R. Miller, Jr., for appellee. Reported below: 161 Va. 854; 172 S.E. 290.
No. 863. Knas s et al . v . Madis on & Kedzie State Bank et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois. Motions submitted March 26, 1934. Decided April 2, 1934. Per Curiam: The motions of the appellees to p. 600dismiss the appeal herein are granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Commission, 255 U.S. 445, 448, 449; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U.S. 444, 451; Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U.S. 30, 32, 33; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169, 172. Mr. Meyer Abrams for appellants. Messrs. Silas H. Strawn, Ralph M. Shaw, Harold A. Smith, James C. Condon, Thos. D. Nash, and Michael J. Ahern for appellees. Reported below: 354 Ill. 554; 188 N.E. 836.
*
For decisions on applications for certiorari, see post, pp. 615, 622.
No. 862. Braverman v . Terril l Bond & Mortgage Co. et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois. Motion submitted March 28, 1934. Decided April 2, 1934. Per Curiam: The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a) Judicial Code as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) Judicial Code as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Mr. Meyer Abrams for appellant. Mr. Emmet F. Byrne for appellees.
No. 89. Life & Casualt y Insu rance Co . of Tenne s - se e v. Mc Cray . April 2, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 566.
No. 509. Life & Casu alty Insurance Co . of Ten - ness ee v. Baref ield . April 2, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 575.
No. 128. Texas & Pacific Ry . Co . v . Pottorff , Re - ceiver . April 2, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 245.
No. 428. Chassaniol et al . v Greenwood . April 2, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 584.
No. 725. Mutual Life Insurance Co . of New York v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trus t Co . April 2,1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 676.
No. —, original. Ohio v . Helverin g , Commis sio ner of Inte rnal Revenue , et al . April 2, 1934. Motion for leave to file bill of complaint submitted by Mr. John W. Bricker for the complainant.
No. —, original. Arizona v . Califo rnia et al . April 2, 1934. Returns to rules to show cause presented.
No. 655. Boynton , Attor ney General , v . Hutchi n - son Gas Co . On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court 1 of Kansas. Argued April 2, 3, 1934. Decided April 9, 1934. Per Curiam: The writ of certiorari herein is dismissed for the lack of showing of service of summons and severance upon those appellees in the state court who are not parties to the proceedings in this Court. Garcia v. Vela, 216 U.S. 598; Journeymen Stone Cutters Assn. v. United States, 278 U.S. 566; Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 264 U.S. 571, 572; 265 U.S. 78, 81, 82. Mr. John G. Egan, with whom Mr. Roland Boynton, Attorney General of Kansas, and Mr. Arthur U. Roberts were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Robert Stone, with whom Messrs. Robert D. Garver, James A. McClure, Robert L. Webb, Beryl R. Johnson, and Ralph W. Oman were on the brief, for respondent. Reported below: 137 Kan. 717; 22 P. (2d) 958.
No. 905. New York ex rel . Blagden v . Lynch et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County. Jurisdictional statement submitted April 5, 1934. Decided April 9, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237(a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari, as required by § 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Mr. Sidney W. Davidson for appellant. No appearance for appellees. Reported below: 263 N.Y. 568; 189 N.E. 701.
No. 906. South Pasadena v . San Gabrie l et al . Appeal from the District Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, of California. Jurisdictional statement submitted April 5, 1934. Decided April 9, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237(a), Judicial Code as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari, as required by § 237(c), Judicial Code as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Mr. Horace E. Vedder for appellant. Mr. Benjamin F. Bledsoe for appellees. Reported below: 134 Cal. App. 403; 25 P. (2d) 516.
No. —, original. Ex par te Duke . April 9, 1934. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is also denied. Mr. Jesse C. Duke, pro se.
No. —, original. Ohio v . Helve ring , Commissi oner of Inte rnal Revenue , et al . April 9, 1934. A rule is p. 603ordered to issue, returnable April 30 next, requiring defendants to show cause why leave to file the bill of complaint should not be granted.
No. 608. Columbus Gas & Fuel Co . v . Public Utili - ties Comm iss ion of Ohio et al . April 9, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 651.
No. 919. Lutz v . Houck et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of New York. Motion submitted April 14, 1934. Decided April 30,1934. Per Curiam: The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 71, 72; Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517, 548; Toyota v. Hawaii, 226 U.S. 184, 191, 192; Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 143,144; Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 296; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 384; Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446, 453; Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 123, 124; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 396. Mr. George Clinton, Jr., for appellant. Mr. Henry Epstein for appellees. Reported below: 263 N.Y. 116; 188 N.E. 274.
No. —, original. Ex parte Martin . April 30, 1934. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Mr. Milford B. Martin, pro se.
No. 824. Miss ouri v . Miss ouri Pacif ic Ry . Co . et al . April 30,1934. Petition for rehearing denied. Act of February 13, 1925, § 13 (43 Stat. 936,942). See ante, p. 13.
No. 344. Puget Sound Powe r & Light Co . v . Seattle . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 619.
No. 355. Trinityf arm Construction Co . v . Gros - jean . April 30,1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 466.
No. 796. Illinois Bankers Life Assn , et al . v . Talley , Adminis trator . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 685.
No. 797. Benso n v . Sullivan , Receiver . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 684.
No. 804. Betts v . Railroad Comm iss ion of Califor - nia . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 652.
No. 814. New York ex rel . Sackett v . Lynch et al . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 652.
No. 857. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Constr uctio n Co . v . Virgini a . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 599.
No. 863. Knass et al . v . Madison & Kedzie State Bank et al . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 599.
No. 627. Utle y et al . v . St . Pete rsbur g . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 106.
No. 772. Cregier v . Coe , Commi ss ioner of Patents . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 683. _________
No. 848. Standard Oil Co . v . Mc Laughlin , Colle c - tor of Internal Revenue . April 30, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See post, p. 631.
No. —, original. Ohio v . Helver ing , Commis sio ner of Internal Reve nue , et al . April 30, 1934. Return to rule to show cause presented.
No. 847. Langer , Governor , et al . v . Grandin Farm - ers Co -Oper ati ve Elevator Co . et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota. Argued May 1, 1934. Decided May 7, 1934. Per Curiam: The order granting an interlocutory injunction is affirmed. Meccano, Ltd., n . Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141; Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 338; United Drug Co. N. Washbum, 284 U.S. 593; South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Comm’n, 286 U.S. 525; Ogden & Moffett Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities Comm’n, 286 U.S. 525. Mr. P. 0. Sathre, with whom Mr. William Langer, Governor of North Dakota, and Mr. J. A. Heder were on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. Herbert F. Horner, Alan E. Gray, and John F. Sullivan were on the brief for appellees. Reported below: 5 F.Supp. 425.
No. 843. Gyps y Oil Co . v . Oklahom a Tax Comm ’n et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Argued May 4, 1934. Decided May 7, 1934. Per Curiam: The decree dismissing the bill of complaint is affirmed upon the ground that the District Court was without jurisdiction because the requisite jurisdictional amount was not involved. Healy v. Ratta, ante, p. 263. Mr. James B. p. 606Diggs, with whom Messrs. Russell G. Lowe, Wm. C. Liedtke, Redmond S. Cole, and C. L. Billings were on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. C. W. King, George W. Selinger, and W. D. Humphrey were on the brief for appellees. Reported below: 6 F.Supp. 6. See post, p. 611.
No. 874. Ass iniboine Indian Trib e v . Unite d Stat es . Appeal from and on writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims. Jurisdictional statement submitted April 28,1934. Decided May 7,1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed. Colgate v. United States, 280 U.S. 43. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Messrs. Everett Sanders and Joseph E. Davies for appellant. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Blair, and Messrs. Charles Bunn and George T. Stormont for the United States. Reported below: 77 Ct.Cls. 347.
No. 968. Smith v . New York . Appeal from the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York. Jurisdictional statement submitted April 28, 1934. Decided May 7,1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 144; Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 123; Sproles v. Binjord, 286 U.S. 374, 396. Mr. Albert E. Kane for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Reported below: 263 N.Y. 255; 188 N.E. 745.
No. 990. Northw est Bancor pora tion v . Benson , Commis sio ner of Banks of Minnesota , et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Motion submitted May 3, 1934. Decided May 7, 1934. Per curiam: The motion for p. 607immediate consideration of the jurisdictional statement is granted. The order denying interlocutory injunction is affirmed. United Fuel Gas Co, N. Railroad Commission, 278 U,S. 300, 326; Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 338; United Drug Co. v. Washbum, 284 U.S. 593; South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Comm’n, 286 U.S. 525; Ogden & Moffett Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities Comm’n, 286 U.S. 525. Mr . Justi ce Butler took no part in the consideration and decision of this appeal. Messrs. G. A. Youngquist, F. H. Stinchfield, and Claude G. Krause for appellant. Mr. Harry H. Peterson for appellees. Reported below: 6 F.Supp. 704.
No. 731. Healy v . Ratta . May 7,1934. Ordered that the words “ hawkers or peddlers ” be substituted for the words “itinerant vendors of merchandise” in the sixth line from the bottom of the first page of the opinion as delivered. Opinion reported as amended, ante, p. 263.
No. 505. Manhatt an Properties , Inc . v . Irvi ng Trust Co ., Truste e ; and
No. 506. Brown et al . v . Same . May 7, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See 291 U.S. 320.
No. 905. New York ex rel . Blagden v . Lynch et al . May 7, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 602.
No. 867. India n Valley R. Co . v . United States et al . Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Submitted May 7, 1934. Decided May 14, 1934. Per Curiam: The decree herein is affirmed. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 273, 277; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 35, 42; Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382, 392; Interstate Commerce Common v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co., 288 U.S. 14, 36, 37; Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 663; Georgia Commission v. United States, 283 U.S. 765, 775; New York Central Securities Co. v. United States, 287 U.S. 12, 29. Messrs. John L. McNab, John E. Truman, and 8. C. Wright were on the brief, for appellant. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Stephens, and Messrs. Carl McFarland, M. S. Huberman, Mac Asbill, Daniel W. Knowlton, and Edward M. Reidy were on the brief for the United States et al. Reported below: 52 F. (2d) 485.
No. 975. Robert s et al . v . Washi ngton Trust Co . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Motion submitted May 5, 1934. Decided May 14, 1934. Per Curiam: The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a) Judicial Code as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) Judicial Code as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is denied. Mr. Robert H. Locke for appellants.
No. 815. O’Ryan et al . v . Mills Novelty Co . On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argued May 1, 1934. Decided May 21, 1934. Per Curiam: In view of the effect of Chapter 317, Laws of New York of 1934, upon the decree of injunction herein, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with direction to dismiss the bill of complaint without prejudice and without costs to either party. Board of Public Utility Comm’rs v. Compania General, 249 U.S. 425¡United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U.S. 466, 477, 478; United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116, 117; Railroad Copimission v. MacMillan, 287 U.S. 576; Coyne v. Prouty, 289 U.S. 704. Mr. Paxton Blair, with whom Messrs. Paul Windels and Alvin McKinley Sylvester were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Howard Ellis, with whom Messrs. Weymouth Kirkland, Emil Weitzner, and Marion B. Stahl were on the brief, for appellee. By leave of Court, Messrs. Nat W. Bond and Henry B. Curtis filed a brief on behalf of the City of New Orleans as amicus curiae. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 1009. See also 3 F.Supp. 968.
No. 991. Dill v . Colorado . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Colorado. Jurisdictional statement submitted May 12, 1934. Decided May 21, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeaL herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Rosenberg v. Wisconsin, 290 U.S. 600, 601; Mueller v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 711; Leach v. California, 287 U.S. 579, 590; Lavine v. California, 286 U.S. 528; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393; Bandini v.
Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 18; Hygrade Provision Co. n . Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 501-503. Insofar as the papers whereon the appeal was allowed seek review in respect of asserted denial of rights under the Federal Constitution by rulings of the Supreme Court of Colorado not involving the validity of any statute of the state, such papers are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari (§ 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 938), and certiorari is denied. Mr. Charles Ginsberg for appellant. Mr. Paul P. Prosser for appellee. Reported below: 94 Colo. 230; 29 P. (2d) 1035.
No. 1004. Ex parte Steckler et al . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Jurisdictional statement submitted May 12, 1934. Decided May 21, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the reason that the decision of the state court sought here to be reviewed was based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U.S. 18, 38, 39; Cross Lake Club v. Louisiana, 224 U.S. 632, 639, 640; Long Sault Development Co. v. Call, 242 U.S. 272, 277, 278; Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Co. v. Upper Sandusky, 251 U.S. 173, 178, 179; Girard. Trust Co. v. Ocean cfc Lake Realty Co., 286 U.S. 523; Real Estate-Land Title & Trust Co. v. Springfield, 287 U.S. 577. Mr. Thomas Gilmore for appellants. Reported below: 179 La. 410; 154 So. 41.
No. 1025. Comer v . Washingt on . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Washington. Jurisdictional statement submitted May 12, 1934. Decided May 21, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Fisher n . New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 440; Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231
U.S. 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165, 166; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316,317; American Ry. Express Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U.S. 269, 272, 273. Mr. Ewing D. Colvin for appellant. Mr. John J. Sullivan for appellee. Reported below: 176 Wash. 257 ; 28 P. (2d) 1027.
No. 843. Gypsy Oil Co . v . Oklahoma Tax Comm ’n et al . May 21, 1934. Order: It is ordered that the per curiam opinion of this Court, delivered May 7, 1934, in this cause, be and it is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Per curiam: The decree dismissing the bill of complaint is modified so as to provide that the complaint is dismissed upon the ground that the District Court was without jurisdiction because the requisite jurisdictional amount was not involved. Healy v. Ratta, ante, p. 263. As so modified, the decree is affirmed.” See ante, p. 605.
No. 978. U.S. Fidel ity & Guaran ty Co . v . Tole do ET AL. ;
No. 979. Standard Surety & Casua lty Co . v . Same ; No. 980. National Surety Co . v . Same ; No. 981. Guardia n Casu alty Co . v . Same ; and No. 982. Van Schaick , Superi ntendent of Insur - ance of the State of New York , et al . v . Same . Appeals from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Jurisdictional statement submitted May 5, 1934. Decided May 28, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeals herein are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 440; Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U.S: 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165, 166; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flannagan, 263 U.S. 444, 451; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 317; American Ry. Express Co. v. p. 612Kentucky, 273 U.S. 269, 272, 273; Comer v. Washington, ante, p. 610. Mr. Ray Martin for appellants in Nos. 978, 979, and 980. Mr. Harold W. Fraser for appellant in No. 981. Mr. U. G. Denman for appellants in No. 982. Messrs. Ralph W. Doty and Earl F. Boxell for appellees. Reported below: 127 Ohio St. 403; 188 N.E. 755.
No. 18. Helverin g , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue , v . Northern Coal Co .;
No . 19. Same v . C. H. Spragu e & Son Co .;
No. 20. Same v . U.S. Refrac tories Corp .; and
No. 21. Same v . Osw ego & Syracus e Railroad Co . May 28,1934. The petition for rehearing in these cases is entertained, and the cases are set for hearing on the questions raised in the petition for rehearing and the answers thereto, including the question of the construction and effect of the provisions of § 1005 of the Revenue Act of 1926, on October 8, 1934, after the cases heretofore assigned for that day, and will then be heard with the same effect as though the hearing on said petition had taken place at this term of Court. See 290 U.S. 591.
No. —, original. Pores ky v . Brews ter , Judge . May 28,1934. Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied. Mr. Joseph Poresky, pro se.
No. —. Illino is ex rel . Cobine v . Angst en et al . May 28, 1934. The application for allowance of appeal, having been considered by the whole Court, is denied.
No. 597. Mc Knett v . St . Louis & San Franci sco Ry . Co. May 28, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 230.
No. 660. Sauder , Admin istra trix , et al . v . Mid -Con - tin ent Petro leum Corp . May 28, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 272.
Nos. 727 and 728. Spri ng City Foundry Co. v. Com - miss ioner of Internal Reve nue . May 28, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 182.
No. 975. Robert s et al . v . Wash ingt on Trus t Co . May 28, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 608.
No. 657 (October Term, 1932). Federal Radio
Comm ’n v . Nelson Brothers Bond & Mort gag e Co . (Station WIBO);
No. 658 (October Term, 1932). Fede ral Radio Comm ’n v . North Shore Church (Stati on WPCC);
No. 659 (October Term, 1932). Federal Radio Comm ’n et al . v . Nelso n Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. (Stat ion WIBO); and
No. 660 (October Term, 1932). Federal Radio Comm ’n et al . v . North Shore Church (Station WPCC). May 28, 1934. Motions for leave to file petition for rehearing out of time; for leave to file cross petition for writs of certiorari; for leave to appoint and refer causes to special master; for rule on Federal Radio Commission to show cause why it took appeals; to vacate mandates prematurely issued; for temporary injunction restraining Johnson-Kennedy Corporation (Station WJKS) from using 560 KC; and for rule on Clerk of this Court p. 614to show cause why he refuses to enter appearance of August Swarz in these cases, submitted by Mr. August Swarz, and motions denied. See 289 U.S. 266.
No. 1064. Catter lin v . Ohio . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Jurisdictional statement submitted May 26, 1934. Decided June 4, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 88-91; Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 418; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 674. Messrs. Frank L. Johnson and Daniel W. Iddings for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Reported below: 128 Ohio St. 110; 190 N.E. 578.
No. 1075. Hall v . Calif ornia . Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. Jurisdictional statement submitted May 26, 1934. Decided June 4, 1934. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed (1) for the want of a properly presented federal question, Hiawassee Power Co. v. Carolina-Tenn. Co., 252 U.S. 341, 343, 344; Appleby n , Buffalo, 221 U.S. 524, 529; White River Co. v. Arkansas, 279 U.S. 692, 700; and (2) for the reason that the decision of the state court sought here to be reviewed was based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims, 242 U.S. 532, 535; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291, 308; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 U.S. 490, 493. Mr. Marshall B. Woodworth for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Reported below: 220 Cal. 166; 30 P. (2d) 23, 996.
No. 964. Helve ring , Commis si oner of Internal Reve nue , v . Wies e . On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
June 4, 1934. Per Curiam: Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment reversed on authority of Helvering n . Newport Company, 291 U.S. 485. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 878.
No. 578. Aschenbr enner v . United State s Fidel ity & Guaranty Co. June 4, 1934. Leave granted to file petition for rehearing. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 80.
No. 565. Lough ran v . Lough ran et al . June 4, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See ante, p. 216.
No. 941. Continent al Casualt y Co . v . United States ex rel . Ainsw orth , Truste e . June 4, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See post, p. 641.
No. 942. Wahlgren v . Bausch & Lomb Opti cal Co . et al . June 4, 1934. Petition for rehearing denied. See post, p. 639.
DECISIONS GRANTING CERTIORARI, FROM MARCH 20 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 4, 1934.
No. 815. O’Ryan , Commis sio ner of Police , et al . v . Mills Novelty Co . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Messrs. Paxton Blair, F. H. LaGuardia, and Paul Windels for petitioners. Messrs. Weymouth Kirkland, Howard Ellis, Emil Weitzner, and Marion B. Stahl for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 1009.
Decisions Granting Certiorari. 292 US.
No. 734. Reynolds v . United Stat es . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Mr. Francis W. Hill, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Mahlon D. Kiefer and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 78 Ct.Cls. —.
No. 831. Lynch et al . v . New York ex rel . Pierson . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York granted. Mr. Henry Epstein for petitioners. Mr. Charles W. Pierson for respondent. Reported below: 237 App. Div. 763; 189 N.E. 684.
No. 834. United Stat es v . Creek Nation . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted. Solicitor General Biggs for the United States. Messrs. E. J. Van Court and Paul M. Niebell for respondent. Reported below: 77 Ct.Cls. 159.
No. 873. Helverin g , Commis si oner of Internal Revenue , v . New York Trust Co ., Truste e ;'and
No. 899. New York Trust Co ., Truste e , v . Helver - ing , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue . April 9, 1934. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biggs for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Messrs. J. Du Pratt White and Chauncey Newlin for New York Trust Co., Trustee. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 19.
No. 855. Lynch v . Unite d States . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Messrs. Arthur E. Fixel, Rowland W. Fixei, M. F. Barbour, and John J. McCreary for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs for the United States. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 490.
No. 861. Wilner v. Unite d Stat es . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Mr. Edward H. S. Martin for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Will G. Beardslee, Randolph C. Shaw, and Charles Bunn for the United States. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 442.
No. 870. Warne r , Admini st ratrix , v . Goltra . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri granted. Messrs. Samuel W. Fordyce, C. Powell Fordyce, and Henry J. Richardson for petitioner. Mr. Joseph T. Davis for respondent. Reported below: 334 Mo. 396; 67 S.W. (2d) 47.
No. 901. Mc Candless , Receive r , v . Furlaud et al . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted, limited to the questions pertaining to the validity of the appointment of the petitioner as ancillary receiver, and his right as-such to maintain this suit. Mr. Ralph Royall for petitioner. Mr. Louis B. Eppstein for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 925.
No. 887. Helve ring , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue , v . Bliss . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. Mr. James McKinley Rose for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 890.
No. 888. Helverin g , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue , v . Harbison ; and
No. 889. Same v . Colgate . April 30,1934. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for
Decisions Granting Certiorari. 292 U.S.
the Second Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. Messrs. Hugh Satterlee and J. E. Mac-Closkey, Jr., for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 1004.
No. 895. Helver ing , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue , v . Stockholms Enskilda Bank . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. Mr. Truman Henson for respondent. Reported below: 62 App.D.C. 360; 68 F. (2d) 407.
No. 904. Helve ring , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue , v - Morgan ’s , Inc ., et al . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. Mr. Haskell Cohn for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 325.
No. 892. Rowley et al . v . Chicago & Northw est - ern Ry . Co . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted. Messrs. Ray E. Lee and James A. Greenwood for petitioners. Messrs. Samuel H. Cady and William T. Faricy for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 527.
No. 883. Waco v . United States Fidel ity & Guar - anty Co. et al . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Mr. J. Walter Cocke for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 785.
No. 909. Detroit Trust Co ., Trustee , v . The Thomas Barlum et al . ; and
No. 910. Same v . The John J. Barlum et al . April 30, 1934. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Messrs. Ferris D. Stone, Ray M. Stanley, and Ellis H. Gidley for petitioner. Messrs. George E. Brand and Thomas C. Burke for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 946.
No. 914. Mc Nally v . Hill , Warden . May 7, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. John S. Wise, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Harry S. Ridgely and W. Marvin Smith for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 38.
No. 924. Virginia v . Imp erial Coal Sales Co ., Inc . May 7, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia granted. Messrs. Henry R. Miller, Jr., and W. W. Martin for petitioner. Mr. James R. Caskie for respondent. Reported below: 161 Va. 718; 167 S.E. 268.
No. 954. Long v . Ansel l . May 7, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Messrs. Seth W. Richardson, Joseph E. Davies, Adrien F. Busick, and Raymond N. Beebe for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 63 App.D.C. 68; 69 F. (2d) 386.
No. 977. British -America n Tobacco Co ., Ltd . v . Helvering , Commi ss ioner of Internal Reve nue . May 7, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr.
Decisions Granting Certiorari. 292 U.S.
H. H. Shelton for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 528.
No. 946. Helvering , Commis si oner of Inte rnal Revenue , v . Powers , Execu tor , et al . May 14, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. Mr. J. Colby Bassett for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 634.
No. 969. Irvi ng Trus t Co ., Trust ee in Bankruptcy , v. A. W. Perr y , Inc . May 14, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Messrs. Charles K. Beekman and Edward K. Hanlon for petitioner. Messrs. John M. Perry and Thos. F. Dougherty for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 90.
No. 962. Metropolita n Casualt y Insur ance Co . v . Brownell , Recei ver . May 21, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Mr. James W. Noel for petitioner. Messrs. Sidney S. Miller and Samuel D. Miller for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 481.
No. 973. Ickes , Secreta ry of the Interior , v . Ntr - gini a -Colorado Develop ment Corp . May 21, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 63 App.D.C. 47; 69 F. (2d) 123.
No. 994. Gillis , Recei ver , v . Calif ornia . May 28, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court p. 621of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Mr. Ernest C. Carman for petitioner. Messrs. U. S. Webb and H. H. Linney for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 746.
No. 1037. Nation al Paper Produ cts Co . v . Helver - ing , Commi ss ioner of Inte rnal Revenue ; and
No. 1038. Zell erb ach Paper Co . v . Same . June 4, 1934. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. John Francis Neylan and J. Paul Miller for petitioners. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Erwin N. Griswold and James W. Morris for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 857.
No. 1039. Zellerbach Paper Co . v . Helve ring , Comm is si oner of Inte rnal Revenue ;
No. 1040. Zellerbach Paper Co ., Trans fere e , v . Same ; and
No. 1041. National Paper Products Co . v . Same . June 4, 1934. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. Messrs. John Francis Neylan and J. Paul Miller for petitioners. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Erwin N. Griswold and James W. Morris for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 852.
No. 1033. Brotherhood of Locomoti ve Firemen & Enginemen et al . v . Pinkston . June 4, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. Thomas Stevenson for p. 622petitioners. Mr. James R. Garfield for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 600.
DECISIONS DENYING CERTIORARI, FROM
MARCH 20 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 4, 1934.
No. 860. Fine v . United Stat es . April 2, 1934. Petition, for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Lawrence M. Fine, pro se. No appearance for the United States. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 591.
No. 872. Marsh all v . New York . April 2,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. John Marshall, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 679. Rubio v . Sotto . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Elizabeth Rubio, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 884. Preve tte , Admini str ator , et al . v . Unite d States . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and p. 623motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Robert H. McNeill ior petitioners. No appearance for the United States. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 112.
No. 790. W. J. Savag e Co . v . Knoxvil le et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee denied. Mr. Norman B. Morrell for petitioner. Messrs. Charles H. Smith and W. H. Peters, Jr., for respondents.
No. 821. Findlay et al . v . Florida East Coast Ry . Co. et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Sam R. Marks and Francis M. Holt for petitioners. Messrs Jesse E. Waid, John C. Cooper, Jr., N. P. Adair, Martin H. Long, Robert H. Anderson, E. J. UEngle, J. W. Shands, and Cloyd LaPorte for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 540.
No. 789. Genera l Pain t Corp . v . Kramer . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Messrs. W. H. Orrick, A. A. Davidson, Preston C. West, and Charles E. Townsend for petitioner. Messrs. A. J. Biddison, Harry Campbell, and John H. Cantrell for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 40.
No. 803. Dinuba Ass ociates , Ltd . v . Killef er Man - ufacturi ng Co. April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. S. Hodges for petitioner. Messrs. Frederick S. Lyon and Leonard S. Lyon for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 362.
No. 806. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co . et al . v . Mc Combs et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied. Mr. 8. Lasker Ehrman for petitioners. Mr. Robert E. Wiley for respondents. Reported below: 188 Ark. 52; 64 S.W. (2d) 333. _________
No. 811. Harpers Ferry & Potomac Bridge Co . v . Publi c Service Commiss ion . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied., Mr. Carlyle Barton for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 114 W.Va. —; 171 S.E. 760.
No. 813. Ulme n v . National Surety Co. April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. H. Lowndes Maury for petitioner. Mr. John G. Brown for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 330.
No. 817. West Shore R. Co. et al . v . Board of Pub - lic Utility Commi ssi oners . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey denied. Mr. John A. Hartpence for petitioners. Mr. Frank H. Sommer for respondent. Reported below: 112 N.J.L. 83; 169 Atl. 829.
Nos. 818 and 819. Terre Haute Electric Co., Inc ., v . Helvering , Commi ssi oner of Internal Revenu e . April 2, 1934. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. A. E. James for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Sewall Key, John MacC. Hudson, and H. Brian Holland for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 697.
No. 822. Indemnit y Insur ance Co . v . Sloan . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Messrs. Roscoe R. Koch, Walter C. Capper, and Edward M. Biddle for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 222.
No. 825. New York Trust Co., Truste e , v . Cargile et al . April 2,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Messrs. Joseph W. House, James G. Martin, George B. Rose, and A. W. Dobyns for petitioner. Messrs. Hal L. Norwood and Walter L. Pope for respondents. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 585.
No. 828. New England News pap er Publis hing Co. v. Bonner ; and
No. 846. Bonner v . New England News pap er Pub - lishing Co. April 2, 1934. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Francis P. Garland for New England Newspaper Publishing Co. Messrs. Richard W. Hale and John W. Guider for Bonner. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 880. _________
No. 829. New Engla nd News pap er Publis hing Co. v. Griff ith . April 2,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. Francis P. Garland for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 1005.
No. 835. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Stringfe l - low . April 2,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
61745°—34------40
Messrs. McKinney Barton, James R. Bussey, and W. E. Kay for petitioner. Messrs. Doyle Campbell and Wm. C. McLean for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 1012.
No. 836. Missou ri Pacif ic R. Co . et al . v . Treece . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied. Messrs. Thomas B. Pryor, William L. Curtis, Joseph M. Hill, and Henry L. Fitzhugh for petitioners. Mr. David S. Partain for respondent. Reported below: 188 Ark. 68; 64 S.W. (2d) 561.
No. 837. Hill v . Brewer et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied. Messrs. Elias Goldstein, Leon O’Quin, and H. C. Walker, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. John B. Files for respondents. Reported below: 178 La. 533; 152 So. 75.
No. 845. Willis v . Firs t Real Esta te & Investm ent Co. et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Messrs. Sydney Smith, Fred C. Knollenberg, H. R. Gamble, and J. U. Sweeney for petitioner. Messrs. Wm. H. Burges and A. H. Culwell for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 671.
No. 853. Helveri ng , Commi ss ioner of Intern al Reve nue , v . St . Louis Southwes tern Ry . Co . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Solicitor General Biggs for petitioner. Messrs. B. F. Batts, and Claude W. Dudley for respondent. Reported below: 66 F. (2d) 633.
No. 816. Continental Oil Co . v . Helvering , Com - miss ioner of Inte rnal Revenue . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Arthur B. Hyman for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Sewall Key and John H. McEvers for respondent. Reported below: 63 App.D.C. 5; 68 F. (2d) 750.
No. 841. PoSSELIUS ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. FlRST NATIONAL Bank -Detro it et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied. Messrs. Arthur E. Fixel, Clarence J. McLeod, and Rowland W. Fixel for petitioners. Messrs. Robert X. Marx and Rockwell T. Gust for respondents. Reported below: 264 Mich. 687; 251 N.W. 429.
No. 842. Huteson v . United States . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Wm. F. Waugh for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Harry S. Ridgely and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 731.
No. 850. Northw estern Mutual Life Insur ance Co. v. West . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Paul F. Myers for petitioner. Messrs. Leon Tobriner and Selig C. Brez for respondent. Reported below: 62 App.D.C. 381; 68 F. (2d) 428.
No. 812. Commerci al Standa rd Insurance Co . v . Davis et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of p. 628certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Robert Price for petitioner. Mr. W. J. Rutledge, Jr., for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 108.
No. 826. Irving Trus t Co ., Trust ee in Bank - ruptcy , v. Bank of Amer ica Nation al Assn . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert C. Morris, Martin Saxe, and Robert C. Beatty for petitioner. Mr. Moses Cohen for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 887.
No. 844. Bondh olders ’ Commi tte e et al . v . Realty Associate s Securi ties Corp , et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Archibald Palmer for petitioners. Mr. Alfred T. Davison for respondents. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 41.
No. 849. Title Guarante e & Trust Co . v . Bowers , Executor . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Graham Sumner for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Erwin N. Griswold, Sewall Key, and Lucius A. Buck for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 892.
No. 852. Noakes v . Standa rd Oil Co. et al . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Messrs. Cleon K. Calvert and George R. Hunt for petitioner. Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt and John E. Tarrant for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 1011.
No. 876. Nashvi lle , Chatt anoog a & St . Louis Ry . v . Byars . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied. Messrs. Fitzgerald Hall and Wm. A. Miller for petitioner. Mr. Virgil F. Moore for respondent. Reported below: 252 Ky. 507; 67 S.W. (2d) 497.
No. 775. Myers , Admin ist rator , v . United Stat es . April 2, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied. The motion to remand is also denied. Messrs. Newton D. Baker, T. G. Thompson, Thaddeus G. Benson, and John L. McMaster for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Mr. Charles Bunn for the United States. Reported below: 77 Ct.Cls. 429; 2 F.Supp. 1000.
No. 897. Keys v . Keets et al . ; and
No. 898. Same v . Hansborough et al . April 9, 1934. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. John 0. Keys, pro se. No appearance for respondents. Reported below: 62 App.D.C. 362; 68 F. (2d) 409.
No. 911. Boden hei mer v . Confe derate Memoria l Assn . April 9,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Robert H. McNeill for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 507.
No. 823. Burnham v . Arcola Sugar Mills Co . April 9,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Robert H. Kelley for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 981.
No. 830. Rossm oore v . Anderson , Colle ctor of In - ternal Revenue . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Charles Bunn and James W. Morris for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 1009.
No. 839. Kans as City Struc tural Steel Co . et al . v. Daggett et al . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied. Messrs. Stanley H. Fischer, Norman Fischer, and Cyrus Crane for petitioners. Messrs. I. N. Watson, Henry N. Ess, and C. V. Garnett for respondents. Reported below: 334 Mo. 207; 65 S.W. (2d) 1036.
No. 851. May v . Distri ct of Columb ia . April 9,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Dewey S. Edwards for petitioner. Messrs. E. Barrett Prettyman and Elwood H. Seal for respondent. Reported below: 63 App.D.C. 10; 68 F. (2d) 755.
No. 877. St . Paul Bridge & Terminal Ry . Co . v . Genova , Admin istra trix . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota p. 631denied. Mr. Morton Barrows for petitioner. Mr. Samuel A. Anderson for respondent. Reported below: 189 Minn. 555; 250 N.W. 190.
No. 878. St . Paul Bridg e & Terminal Ry . Co . v . Natalin o . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied. Mr. Morton Barrows for petitioner. Mr. Samuel A. Anderson for re-respondent. Reported below: 190 Minn. 124; 251 N.W. 669.
No. 690. Apartment Corpor ation v . Helve ring , Commiss ioner of Internal Reve nue . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Theodore B. Benson for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. Sewall Key and J. P. Jackson for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 3.
No. 696. Standard Oil Co . et al . v . Thompson . April 9,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. George L. Buist for petitioners. Mr. Sam M. Wolfe for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 644.
No. 848. Stand ard Oil Co . v . Mc Laughlin , Col - lect or of Internal Revenue . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Messrs. F. D. Madison, Alfred Sutro, Felix T. Smith, and Claude R. Branch for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. James W. Morris and Lucius p. 632A. Buck for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 111.
No. 875. Bauman et al . v . Chicago & North West - ern Ry . Co . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Paul F. Good for petitioners. Messrs. Wymer Dressier, Robert D. Neely, Wm. T. Farley, and Samuel H. Cady for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 171.
No. 858. Perry et al ., Truste es , v . Page , Colle ctor of Inte rnal Revenue . April 9,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. James F. Armstrong for petitioners. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. James W. Morris, S. E. Blackham, and H. Brian Holland for respondent. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 635.
No. 799. Price v . United States . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. W. P. McLean for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. James W. Morris and John H. McEvers for the United States. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 133.
No. 833. United Stat es ex rel . Wilkinson et al . v . Hines , Admini strator of Veteran s ’ Affai rs . April 9, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Wm. Wolff Smith for petitioners. Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Will G. Beardslee and W. Marvin Smith for respondent.
No. 866. Blume nthal v . Greenf ield . April 9,1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Messrs. Robert T. McCracken and Ralph S. Harris for petitioner. Messrs. Stanley Folz and George Wharton Pepper for respondent. Reported below: 69 F. (2d) 294.
No. 918. Beale v . New York . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Grant 0. Beale, pro se. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 239 App. Div. 261.
No. 927. Lee v . Aderho ld , Warden . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Parker H. Lee, pro se. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 824.
No. 931. Upton v . Harrison , Executor , et al . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Messrs. Robert H. McNeill and Leland Stanford for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 232.
No. 943. Bridges v . Alabama . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Alabama, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Messrs. G. Ernest Jones and Benjamin F. Ray for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 152 So. 51.
No. 935. Perkin s et al . v . Harris on , Judge . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Cephas F. Perkins, pro se. No appearance for respondent.
No. 971. Lew is , Executor , v . Simon , Judge . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Agnes E. Lewis, pro se. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 178 La. 227; 151 So. 189.
No. 984. Small v . New York . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Messrs. George Small and Samuel Rubinton for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 989. United States ex rel . Nerbonne v . Hill , Warden . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied. Mr. Alfred R. Nerbonne, pro se. No appearance for respondent. Reported below: 70 F. (2d) 1006.
No. 854. George v . United Stat es . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Will E. Orgain for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 513.
No. 864. Ames v . Helve ring , Commi ss ioner of In - ternal Revenue . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Messrs. Burton E. Eames and R. Gaynor Wellings for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. James W. Morris, John MacC. Hudson, and H. Brian Holland for respondent. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 301.
No. 871. Ows ley v . Unite d Stat es . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Edgar Wright for petitioner. Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Harry S. Ridgely and W. Marvin Smith for the United States. Reported below: 68 F. (2d) 162.
No. 893. The Gilders leeve No . 325 v. Howa rd ; and No. 894. Northwe ste rn Fire & Marine Insu ranc e Co. v. Seaboard Sand & Gravel Co . April 30, 1934. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. William F. Purdy for petitioners. Messrs. Anthony V. Lynch and Horace L. Cheyney for respondents. Reported below: 67 F. (2d) 997.
No. 865. Pome roy et al . v . Helverin g , Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue . April 30, 1934. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Messrs. Samuel F. Beach, Robert M. Heth, and Morgan H. Beach for petitioners. Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Wideman, and Messrs. James W. Morris and John H. McEvers for respondent. Reported below: 62 App.D.C. 364; 68 F. (2d) 411.