act of 1866 and deduces from that that the provision in section 9 requiring under certain circumstances a sale to pre-emptors is applicable to the Southern Pacific. on October 29, 1913, complainant (appellant) | *made under the act of 1871 and not under the tendered the company $800 and demanded of it and the other defendants (appellees) a conveyance of the land, which demand was refused, to the injury and damage of complainant. The land is of the value of $3,000 and complainant has the qualifications entitling him to purchase the land. Complainant offers to pay the $800 in court and alleges that the suit was brought, among other things, for the purpose of having the court interpret and construe the acts of Congress referred to. The other defendants are alleged to have an interest in the land and a construction of the acts of Congress is prayed and of all other acts that have any relation to them; that defendants be decreed to convey to complainant the land and that he have general relief. Sections 9 and 23 of the Act of March 3, 1871, are directly involved; the other sections of the act and other acts only as illustrating sections 9 and 23. By section 9 a land grant is made to the Texas Pacific Railroad of public land in California in the terms and qualifications which are quite familiar and contains the provision set out in the bill which subjects the land unsold within three years after the completion of the road to settlement and preemption at a price not exceeding an average of $2.50 an acre. By section 23 the Southern Pacific Railroad Company of California was authorized to construct a line of railroad from a point at or near Tehachapi Pass, by way of Los Angeles, to the Texas Pacific Railroad at or near the Colorado River, "with the same rights, grants, and privileges, and subject to the same limitations, restrictions, and conditions, as were granted" to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company by the Act of July 27, 1866, c. 278, 14 Stat. 292, with reservations of rights to other railroad companies. [1, 2] Based on this provision complainant puts three questions as involved in the case, but says it is only necessary for this court to answer the following one: "Was this grant of lands to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company under the Act of March 3, 1871, made subject to the rights, grants and privileges of said act, or under the rights. grants and privileges of the Act of July 27, 1866, and subject only to its terms?" Complainant's answer to the question is that the grant to the Southern Pacific was Complainant's argument in support of the answer does not submit easily to succinct statement. Its postulate is that the policy of Congress in regard to the public lands came to have its chief solicitude in the disposition of them to actual settlers at reasonable prices and that this policy was not overlooked even in the grants to railroads. And the policy dictated, it is said, the provision of section 9 of the grants to the Texas Pacific Railroad Company, and determines the insertion of a like provision in section 23 which concerns the grant to the Southern Pacific Company, though it is not inserted therein. We may grant, if a policy exists, that it may be used to resolve the uncertainty of a law, but it cannot be a substitute for a law. However, we do not find the uncertainty in sections 9 or 23 that complainant does, whether jointly or separately considered. Section 23 is complete in itself. The restrictions upon the grant it made that were deemed appropriate were expressed, and their expression excludes any other by a well known rule of construction. Let us repeat: The Southern Pacific Company is authorized to construct a line of railroad in California with the same rights, grants, privileges and subject to the same limitations, restrictions and conditions as were granted to the company by the Act of July 27, 1866. And there could not have been oversight, nor the inadvertence of expressing one thing when another was meant. Yet this is practically the contention of complainant. Not the conditions of the act of 1866 are imposed on the grant, but the conditions imposed by section 9, conditions upon a different grant and a different company, is the contention, though complainant admits that of section 23 segregated from *the act, of which "There is no question but that the language it is a part, and construed alone, supports the contention of the appellees." The language gains, we think, not loses in strength from its location. It makes evident that there was a conscious contrast of provision between the grants and the companies. Decree affirmed. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1918 (248 U. S. 540) No. —, Original. Ex parte In the matter of Jacob FROHWERK, petitioner. Dec. 16, 1918. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus herein denied. No., Original. Ex parte In the matter of James Thompson MUIR, Master, etc., petitioner. Dec. 16, 1918. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus herein granted, and a rule to show cause awarded returnable Monday, January 6, next. Leave granted counsel for the British Embassy to file a printed brief herein and to take part in the oral argument. (248 U. S. 594) (248 U. S. 539) No. 347. John E. READE, appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America et al. Dec. 16, 1918. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona. Mr. O. T. Richey, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of Ex parte Mirzan, 119 U. S. 584, 7 Sup. Ct. 341, 30 L. Ed. 513; Riggins v. United States, 199 U. S. 547, 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 50 L. Ed. 303; In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178, 26 Sup. Ct. 602, 50 L. Ed. 984. See Ex parte Glasgow, 223 U. S. 709, 32 Sup. Ct. 519, 56 L. Ed. 623. (248 U. S. 539) No. 493. H. C. DRAPER, plaintiff in error, No. 81. Truth A. MILNER, Executrix, etc., et al., appellants, v. The UNITED STATES. Dec. 16, 1918. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. For opinion below, see 228 Fed. 431, 143 C. C. A. 13. Messrs. Adrian C. Ellis, Jr., of Salt Lake City, Utah, and William C. Prentiss, PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of juof Washington, D. C., for appellants. Mr. As- risdiction upon the authority of section 237 of sistant Attorney General Kearful, for the the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, United States. Dismissed, pursuant to the six-36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of Septeenth rule, on motion of Mr. Assistant Attor- tember 6, 1916, chapter 448, § 2, 39 Stats. ney General Kearful for the appellee. at L., 726 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1214). (248 U. S. 593) No. 88. D. W. ROUSNEY, plaintiff in error, v. M. L. PATTERSON. Dec. 16, 1918. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, see 159 Pac. 636. Mr. Milton Brown, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff in error. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. (248 U. S. 593) No. 320. Emanual BALTZER et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Dec. 16, 1918. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota. Mr. Joe Kirby, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Solicitor General King, for the United States. Judgment reversed, upon confession of error; and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the defendant in error. (248 U. S. 593) No. 321. William J. HEAD, plaintiff in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Dec. 16, 1918. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota. Mr. Joe Kirby, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Solicitor General King, for the United States. Judgment reversed, upon confession of error; and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the defendant in error. (248 U. S. 540) No. 630. J. W. FERGUSON et al., appellants, v. BABCOCK LUMBER & LAND COMPANY. Dec. 16, 1918. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. For opinion below, see 252 Fed. 705 which affirms decree 243 Fed. 623. See, also, 250 Fed. 1020. Mr. Mark W. Brown, of Asheville, N. C., for appellants. Mr. John Franklin Shields, of Philadelphia, Pa., for ap| pellee. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 128 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1133 [Comp. St. 1916, § 1120]); Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 165, 25 Sup. Ct. 6, 49 L. Ed. 142; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; St. Anthony's Church v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 237 U. S. 575, 577, 35 Sup. Ct. 729, 59 L. Ed. 1119; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439, 444, 35 Sup. Ct. 902, 59 L. Ed. 1397. (248 U. S. 581) Nos. 742 and 743. John J. SHEA, petition. er, v. The UNITED STATES. Dec. 16, 1918. For opinions below, see 251 Fed. 433, 440. Messrs. Edmond H. Moore, of Youngstown, Ohio, and Sherman T. McPherson and Edward P. Moulinier, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Messrs. Alexander C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and Claude R. Porter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. (248 U. S. 581) (248 U. S. 542) No. 60. Herbert M. SEARS, plaintiff in error, v. INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF NAHANT, etc. Dec. 23, 1918. In error to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts. For opinion in Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, see 221 Mass. 437, 109 N. E. 370. Mr. Burton E. Eames, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Arthur D. Hill and Robert G. Dodge, both of Boston, Mass., for defendants in error. No. 747. Henry C. HALL, Administrator, etc., petitioner, v. William A. PAINE et al. Dec. 16, 1918. For opinion in Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, see 119 N. E. 664. Mr. William R. Sears, of Boston, Mass. (Messrs. Britton & Gray, of Washington, D. C., and Sherman L. Whipple and Alexander Lincoln, both of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Robert M. Morse and William P. Evarts, both of Boston, Mass., for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of the State of Massachu-20 Sup. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052; Hull v. Burr, setts denied. (248 U. S. 581) No. 749. Nels O. HULTBERG, petitioner, v. Frideborg A. ANDERSON. Dec. 16, 1918. For opinion below, see 247 Fed. 273, 159 C. C. A. 367. Messrs. Silas H. Strawn, of Chicago, Ill., David Ritchie, of Salina, Kan., and Walter H. Jacobs and Harris F. Williams, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Messrs. Charles Blood Smith, of Topeka, Kan., and Axel Chytraus, John J. Healy, and E. Allen Frost, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (248 U. S. 581) No. 750. Ex parte In the matter of Cloyd H. Duncan, petitioner. Dec. 16, 1918. For opinion below, see 249 Fed. 155. Mr. Cloyd H. Duncan, in pro. per. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (248 U. S. 582) No. 769. RICHLAND STEAMSHIP COMPANY, petitioner, v. BUFFALO DRY DOCK COMPANY. Dec. 16, 1918. Messrs. Harvey D. Goulder and Thomas H. Garry, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. Mr. Thomas C. Burke, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Messrs. Hermon A. Kelley and George W. Cottrell, both of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 668. (248 U. S. 594). PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 181, 19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 243, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 36 Sup. Ct. 97, 60 L. Ed. 186; (2) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; (3) Cou solidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Cuyahoga River Power Company v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 304, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701. (248 U. S. 543) No. 61. Frederick R. SEARS et al., plaintiffs in error, v. INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF NAHANT, etc. Dec. 23, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts. For opinion in Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, see 221 Mass. 435, 109 N. E. 373. Mr. Burton E. Eames, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Robert G. Dodge and Arthur D. Hill, both of Boston, Mass., for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 181, 19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 243, 20 Sup. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 36 Sup. Ct. 97, 60 L. Ed. 186; (2) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire No. 91. The YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VAL State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. LEY RAILROAD COMPANY et al., plaintiffs 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; in error, v. D. A. MCNEILL, as Administrator Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. of W. G. McNeill, deceased. Dec. 17, 1918. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United In error to the Supreme Court of the State of States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L Mississippi. For opinion below, see 72 South. Ed. 544; (3) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. 7. Messrs. Edward Mayes, of Jackson, Miss., Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599, 33 and Charles N. Burch, of Yazoo, Miss., for Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Cuyahoga River plaintiffs in error. Mr. John B. Brunini, of Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. Vicksburg, Miss., for defendant in error. Dis-300, 304, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; missed with costs, on authority of the plaintiffs Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, in error. 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701. (248 U. S. 544) No., Original. Ex parte In the matter of Sam SYLVESTER, petitioner. Dec. 23, 1918. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied. (248 U. S. 540) No. 211. The BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Dec. 23, 1918. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. For opinion below, see 242 Fed. 420, 155 C. C. A. 196. Mr. George Hoadly, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, chapter 448, § 2, 39 Stat. L. 726 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1214). (248 U. S. 542) No. 525. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, appellant, v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY. Dec. 23, 1918. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 207. Mr. William L. Clay, of Savannah, Ga., for appellant. Mr. Henry C. Peeples, of Atlanta, Ga., and Claude Waller, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) a. Section 128 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1133 [Comp. St. 1916, § 1120]); Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 237 U. S. 300, 35 Sup. Ct. 598, 59 L. Ed. 965; b. Equitable Assurance Co. v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 33 Sup. Ct. 80, 57 L. Ed. 140; Consolidated Turnpike v. Nor folk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; (2) Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. Ed. 708; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 20 Sup. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, 25 Sup. Ct. 133, 49 L. Ed. 312, 1 Ann. Cas. 517; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Richmond, 224 U. S. 160, 32 Sup. Ct. 449, 56 L. Ed. 710; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 237 U. S. 300, 35 Sup. Ct. 598, 59 L. Ed. 965. See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 649, 37 Sup. Ct. 743, 61 L. Ed. 1371. See, also, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 248 U. S. 532, 39 Sup. Ct. 18, 63 L. Ed. dismissed per curiam November 4, 1918. (248 U. S. 594) No. 548. Conrad KORNMANN, plaintiff in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Dec. 23, 1918. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota. Mr. Joe Kirby, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Solicitor General King, for the United States. Judgment reversed upon confession of error, and cause remanded for further proceedings, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the defendant in error. (248 U. S. 541) No. 576. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF OPTOMETRY et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Kennon MOTT. Dec. 23, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. For opinion below, see 95 S. E. 867. Mr. James K. Hines, of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, chapter 448, § 2, 39 Stat. L. 726 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1214). See Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250, 34 Sup. Ct. 92, 58 L. Ed. 206; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14, 36 Sup. Ct. 15, 60 L Ed. 120. (248 U. S. 541) No. 634. Ernest E. RICHARDS and Nugent J. Flynn, partners, etc., et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Mina M. OAKLEY. Dec. 23, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. For opinion below, see 204 S. W. 505. Mr. John G. Park, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701; (2) Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 81, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544. (248 U. S. 594) No. 4. The UNITED STATES, plaintiff in error, v. Harvey C. SHAUVER. Jan. 7, 1919. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. For opinion below, see 214 Fed. 154. Mr. Solic itor General King, for the United States. Mr. E. L. Westbrooke, of Jonesboro, Ark., for deDismissed, on motion of Mr. fendant in error. Solicitor General King for the plaintiff in error. (248 U. S. 544) No. 97. F. A. HOOPER, Myron T. Dusinbury, C. C. Hartke, et al., plaintiffs in error in W. S. KINGSBURY, as surveyor general and ex officio register of the State land office of the State of California. Jan. 7, 1919. In error to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District of the State of California. For opinion below, see 25 Cal. App. 192, 143 Pac. 89. Mr. Charles C. Boynton, of Oakland, Cal., for plaintiffs in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Messenger v. Kingsbury, 158 Cal. 611, 112 Pac. 65; People v. California Fish Co., 166 Cal. 576, 138 Pac. 79; People et al. v. Banning Co., 166 Cal. 635, 138 Pac. 101; (2) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137, 34 Sup. Ct. 874, 58 L. Ed. 1245; (3) Campbell v. Wade, 132 U. S. 34, 10 Sup. Ct. 9, 33 L. Ed. 240; Gonzales v. French, 164 U. S. 338, 345, 17 Sup. Ct. 102, 41 L. Ed. 548; Banning Co. v. California, 240 U. S. 142, 154, 36 Sup. Ct. 338, 60 L. Ed. 569. (248 U. S. 544) No. 98. Frank H. AYERS, Norman O. Anderson, William A. Anderson, et al., plaintiffs in error, v. W. S. KINGSBURY, as surveyor general and ex officio register of the State land office of the State of California. Jan. 7, 1919. In error to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District of the State of California. For opinion below, see 25 Cal. App. 183, 143 Pac. 85. Mr. Charles C. Boynton, of Oakland, Cal., for plaintiffs in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Messenger v. Kingsbury, 158 Cal. 611, 112 Pac. 65; People v. California Fish Co., 166 Cal. 576, 138 Pac. 79; People et al. v. Banning Co., 166 Cal. 635, 138 Pac. 101; (2) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137, 34 Sup. Ct. 874, 58 L. Ed. 1245; (3) Campbell v. Wade, 132 U. S. 34, 10 Sup. Ct. 9, 33 L. Ed. 240; Gonzales v. French, 164 U. S. 338, 345, 17 Sup. Ct. 102, 41 L. Ed. 548; Banning Co. v. California, 240 U. S. 142, 154, 36 Sup. Ct. 338, 60 L. Ed. 569. (248 U. S. 545) No. 99. Edward H. CHAVELLE, as trustee in bankruptcy of Washington Steel & Bolt Company, Bankrupt, appellant, v. WASHINGTON TRUST COMPANY. Jan. 7, 1919. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For opinion below, see 226 Fed. 400, 141 C. C. A. 230. Mr. E. C. Hughes, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant. Mr. James B. Murphy, of Seattle, Wash., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 4 of the act of Congress of January 28, 1915, c. 22, 38 Stat. 803, 804 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1120a). See, also, John P. Schmitt and Martin Schmitt, etc., v. John Shadrach, trustee, 248 U. S. 538, 39 Sup. Ct. 67, 63 L. Ed. decided November 25, 1918. (248 U. S. 545) No. 105. J. W. SELSOR, plaintiff in error, v. The STATE of Louisiana. Jan. 7, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. For opinion below, see 73 South. 270. Mr. A. L. Alexander, of Shreveport, La., New Orleans, La., for the State of Louisiana. for plaintiff in error. Mr. Harry P. Gamble, of PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) the act of Congress of March 1, 1913, c. 90, 37 Stat. at L. 699 (Comp. St. 1916, § 8739); (2) Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina, 245 U. S. 298, 303, 38 Sup. Ct. 96, 62 L. Ed. 299; Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 242 U. S. 311, 325, 37 Sup. Ct. 180, 61 L. Ed. 326, L. R. A. 1917B, 1218, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 845. (248 U. S. 546) No. 108. MAGNOLIA BANK, plaintiff in error, v. The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIKE COUNTY, Mississippi. Jan. 7, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. For opinion below, see 111 Miss. 857, 72 South. 697. Messrs. Edward Mayes and Robert B. Mayes, both of Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, chapter 448, § 2, 39 Stat. at L. 726 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1214). (248 U. S. 546, 583) No. 109. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY and James Stone and W. E. Stone, sureties, plaintiffs in error, v. L. A. ANDERSON. Jan. 7, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. For opinion below, see 72 South. 157. Messrs. Blewett Lee and Robert V. Fletcher, both of Chicago, Ill., and Robert B. Mayes, of Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Julian C. Wilson and Walter P. Armstrong, both of Memphis, Tenn., for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, chapter 448, § 2, 39 Stat. at L. 726 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1214). Petition for writ of certiorari denied. (248 U. S. 545) No. 100. Andy SUNDAY, David Sunday, Nicholas Sunday, et al., appellants, v. Sidney T. MALLORY, Ed J. Brennan, Joseph H. Brennan, et al. Jan. 7, 1919. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. For opinion below, see 237 Fed. 526, 150 C. C. A. 408. The Attorney General, for apellants. Mr. J. W. Zevely, of Muskogee, Okl., for appellees. PER CURIAM. Reversed with costs, except as to the one-sixth interest conveyed by Andy Sunday as to which judgment is affirmed, upon the authority of Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88, 38 Sup. Ct. 285, 62 L. Ed. 591; Talley v. Burgess, 246 U. S. 104, 38 Sup. Ct. 287, 62 L. Ed. 600. And see David v. Youngken (C. C. A.) 250 Fed. 208; Harris v. Bell (C. C. A.) 250 Fed. 209. No. 233. Thomas D. ROBINSON, plaintiff in error, v. Wesley STEELE and John C. Kennedy. Jan. 7, 1919.. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. For opinion below, see 95 Wash. 154, 163 Pac. 486, which affirms 91 Wash. 268, 157 Pac. 845, on rehearing, Mr. Julian C. Dowell, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error. Mr. William F. Hall, of Washington, D. C., for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of |