« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
No. Original. Ex parte In the matter of Robert H. THORBURN, petitioner. Nov. 18, 1918. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus granted, and rule_to show cause awarded returnable Monday, December 9 next.
(248 U. S. 536)
No. 41. G. L. HENDERSON et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Helen R. RESSOR, or Helen R. Henderson, et al. Nov. 18, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. For opinion below, see 265 Mo. 718, 178 S. W. 175. Mr. Daniel V. Howell, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. H. M. Langworthy, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants in error.
(248 U. S. 536)
No. 42. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Mary O'CONNOR, as administratrix, etc. Nov. 18, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin. For opinion below, see 163 Wis. 653, 158 N. W. 343. Messrs. C. H. Van Alstine and H. J. Killilea, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Victor I. Minahan and Eben R. Minahan, both of Green Bay, Wis., for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Affirmed with costs upon the authority of Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668. 673, 35 Sup. Ct. 481. 59 L. Ed. 777: Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464, 466, 36 Sup. Ct. 399, 60 L. Ed. 745; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571, 574, 37 Sup. Ct. 703, 61 L. Ed. 1321, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 69.
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L Ed. 101: Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. yiff in error. Hanley. 205 U. S. 225, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; (2) Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 51, 52, 30 Sup. Ct. 676, 54 L. Ed. 921, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 84; Eastern Building & Loan Association v. Ebaugh, 185 U. S. 114, 22 Sup. Ct. 566, 46 L. Ed. 830; Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., 243 U. S. 93, 96, 37 Sup. Ct. 344, 61 L. Ed. 610; Texas & New Orleans R. R.
Co. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408, 416, 31 Sup. Ct.
534, 55 L. Ed. 789.
(248 U. S. 537)
No. 46. Edmund PENFOLD et al., executors. etc.. et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Eugene M. TRAVIS, as Comptroller of the State of New York. Nov. 18, 1918. In error to the Surrogate's Court, New York County, State of New York. For opinion below, see 216 N. Y. 171, 110 N. E. 499. Mr. William Mitchell, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. John B. Gleason, of New York City, for defendant in error.
(248 U. S. 591) No. 55. Paul APPENZELLAR, plaintiff in error, v. Henry C. CONRAD, associate judge, etc., et al. Nov. 18, 1918. For opinion below, see 6 Boyce (Del.) 225, 99 Atl. 31. Messrs. Josiah Marvel and David T. Marvel, both of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Robert H. Richards, of Wilmington, Del., for defendant in error. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation.
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701; Municipal Securities Corporation v. Kansas City, 246 U. S. 63, 69, 38 Sup. Ct. 224, 62 L. Ed. 579; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; (2) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544.
(248 U. S. 592) No. 229. The CLEVELAND CLIFFS IRON COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. TOWNFor SHIP OF REPUBLIC. Nov. 18, 1918. opinion below, see 196 Mich. 189, 163 N. W. 90. Mr. Wm. P. Belden, of Ishpeming, Mich., for plaintiff in error. In error to the Supreme Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plainCourt of the State of Michigan.
(248 U. S. 537)
No. 246. The CINCINNATI TRACTION COMPANY et al., plaintiffs in error, v. the CITY OF CINCINNATI. Nov. 18, 1918. In Ohio. For opinion below, see 96 Ohio St. 602, error to the Supreme Court of the State of 118 N. E. 1082. Messrs. Ellis G. Kinkead and Joseph Wilby, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for Mr. Charles A. Groom, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant in error. plaintiffs in error. risdiction upon the authority of Consolidated Dismissed for want of juTurnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Railway Co., 228 Ú. S. 596, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701; Municipal Securities Corporation v. Kansas City, 246 U. S. 63, 69, 38 Sup. Ct. 224, 62 L. Ed. 579; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern_Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153.
No. 571. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Mrs. Lessie HORTON, administratrix, etc. Nov. 18, 1918. See, also, 248 U. S. 553, 39 Sup. Ct. 8, 63 L. Ed. Messrs. Thaddeus A. Adams, of Charlotte, N. C., and E. Marvin Underwood, of Norfolk, Va., for petitioner. Motion for supersedeas submitted by Mr. E. Marvin Underwood for the petitioner and motion granted, a bond for $25,000 to be given within ten days, to be approved by clerk of this court.
(248 U. S. 579) No. 713. The BRENNAN CONSTRUCCOMPANY, petitioner,_v. TION John L. NEWBOLD. Nov. 18, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied.
(248 U. S. 579) No. 720. Thomas J. MOONEY, petitioner, v. The PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFOR NIA. Nov. 18, 1918. For opinion below, see 174 Pac. 325. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California denied.
(248 U. S. 592) No. 57. Joseph FENSTERWALD, plaintiff in error, v. Selma R. BURK. Nov. 19, 1918. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. For opinion below, see 129 Md. 131, 98 Atl. 358. Mr. Samuel Want, of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. J. Kent Rawley, of Richmond, Va., and Edward M. Hammond, of Baltimore, Md., for defendant in error. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 16th rule (32 Sup. Ct. ix) on motion of Mr. J. Kent Rawley for the defendant in error.
(248 U. S. 593)
No. 16. The UNITED STATES, appellant, | v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 37 Sup. ▼. E. W. BLISS COMPANY. Nov. 20, 1918. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; Bilby et al. v. StewAppeal from the United States Circuit Court art, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38, Sup. Ct. 264, 62 of Appeals for the Second Circuit. For opin- L. Ed. 701; (2) Empire State-Idaho Mining ions below, see 224 Fed. 325, 139 C. C. A. 633, Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, and 229 Fed. 376, 143 C. C. A. 496. The At- 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. torney General, for the United States. Dis- 71, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. missed on motion of Mr. Assistant to the At- United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, torney General Todd for the appellant. 59 L. Ed. 544.
(248 U. S. 592)
COMPANY. Nov. 25, 1918. In error to the
No. 71. NEW ORLEANS, MOBILE & CHI-
Original. Ex parte In the matter of William F. HUDGINGS, petitioner. Nov. 25, 1918. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of habeas corpus granted, and a writ of habeas corpus awarded as prayed, returnable Monday, December 9, next.
(248 U. S. 537)
No. 69. Mills W. BARSE, plaintiff in error, V. George W. SAUL. Nov. 25, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. For opinion below, see 158 App. Div. 560, 143 N. Y. Supp. 830. Mr. Max J. Kohler, of New York City, for plaintiff in
(248 U. S. 538)
of Nathan W. Going, deceased, plaintiff in erNo. 77. Willie M. GOING, administratrix ror, v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Stewart v. City of Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14, 36 Sup. Ct. 15, 60 L. Ed. 120; Cuyahoga River Power Co.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668, 673, 35 Sup. Ct. 481, 59 L. Ed. 777; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464, 466, 36 Sup. Ct. 399, 60 L. Ed. 745; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571, 574, 37 Sup. Ct. 703, 61 L. Ed. 1321, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 69. See, also, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, administratrix, etc., 248 Ü. S. 536, 39 Sup. Ct. 21, 63 L. Ed. - decided November 18, 1918.
(248 U. S. 580)
No. 723. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR., COMPANY, petitioner, v. L. P. LARSON, JR., COMPANY. Nov. 25, 1918. For opinion below, see 253 Fed. 914. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
(248 U. S. 113)
315, 29 Sup. Ct. 383, 53 L. Ed. 528; McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Ass'n, 245 U. De- S. 352, 38 Sup. Ct. 129, 62 L. Ed. 342. The judgment below is affirmed.
NICOULIN v. O'BRIEN.
(Submitted Under Rule 20 Oct. 21, 1918.
1. STATES 12(2)-EXTENT AND BOUNDARIES
Territorial limits of Kentucky extend across Ohio river to low-water mark on northerly shore.
Action by Frank Nicoulin against John J. O'Brien, a Justice of the Peace, to restrain him from enforcing a judgment. From judgment denying writ of prohibition, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which affirmed (172 Ky. 473, 189 S. W. 724), and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
2. FISH 8- PROTECTION BY STATE - OHIO RIVER.
No limitation on power of Kentucky to 1. COURTS 366(1)-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF protect fish within her boundaries, including Ohio river across to low-water mark on northerly shore, by proper legislation, resulted from mere establishment of concurrent jurisdiction with Indiana by Virginia Compact (13 Hening's Stat. at L. c. 14, pp. 17, 19).
STATE STATUTE-STATE DECISIONS.
A basic contention of plaintiff appellant, seeking injunction against enforcement of state drainage statute, which assumes that the statute has a significance which Supreme Court of state has expressly decided it has not, also that
In Error to the Court of Appeals of the Constitution of state forbids exertion of legislaState of Kentucky. tive power which same court has expressly held 2. COURTS 107 - CONSTRUCTION OF DECILegislature possesses, cannot be sustained.
*Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS.
(248 U. S. 35)
ORR v. ALLEN et al.
(Submitted Oct. 14, 1918.
Plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the prohibition of a Kentucky statute by seining for fish in the Ohio river
south of low-water mark on the Indiana side. 172 Ky. 473, 189 S. W. 724. We are asked to hold that by reason of the Virginia Compact (13 Hening's St. at Large, c. 14, pp. 17, 19) Kentucky had no power to regulate fishing in the river at that point without Indiana's concurrence. The provision relied upon is
A basic contention of plaintiff appellant, seeking to restrain enforcement of state draindecisions of Supreme Court of the United States age statute, which disregards line of conclusive by separating expressions in opinions from their context in order to give them a meaning which the opinions do not sanction, and which it has
Mr. Augustus E. Willson, of Louisville, Ky., been repeatedly declared would be inconsistent for plaintiff in error. with decided cases, cannot be sustained.
Mr. David A. Sachs, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant in error.
"Seventh, that the use and navigation of the river Ohio, so far as the territory of the proposed state, or the territory which shall remain within the limits of this commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States, and the respective jurisdictions of this commonwealth and of the proposed state on the river as aforesaid, shall be concurrent only with the states which may possess the opposite shores of the said river."
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
Suit by Louis H. Orr against Henry M. Allen and others. From judgment of the District Court refusing writ of injunction (245 Fed. 486), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Mr. Robert J. Smith, of Piqua, Ohio, for appellant.
Mr. Oren Britt Brown, of Dayton, Ohio, for appellees.
Memorandum opinion by the CHIEF JUS
The "Conservancy Act of Ohio" is the name given the statute by its first section. Its seventy-nine sections are thus epitomized in the title:
"To prevent floods, to protect cities, villages, farms and highways from inundation, and to authorize the organization of drainage and conservation districts." Ohio Gen. Code, $$ 68281 to 6828-79; Laws of Ohio, vol. 104, p. 13.
The statute was admittedly designed to [1, 2] The territorial limits of Kentucky prevent the recurrence of the unprecedented extend across the river to low-water mark and disastrous flood which invaded the Mion the northerly shore. Indiana v. Kentucky, ami Valley in 1913. Briefly, there was pro136 U. S. 479, 519, 10 Sup. Ct. 1051, 34 L. Ed. vision for drainage districts, for boards to 329. And we think it clear that no limita-plan, construct and maintain the works contion upon the power of that commonwealth templated, with the right to exert eminent to protect fish within her own boundaries domain, and to raise money by taxation, by by proper legislation resulted from the mere assessments for benefits, and, in some cases, establishment of concurrent jurisdiction by by issue of bonds. Every person affected the Virginia Compact. See Wedding v. Mey- who was aggrieved was undoubtedly given ler, 192 U. S. 573, 24 Sup. Ct. 322, 48 L. Ed. ample means by the statute to test judicially 570, 66 L. R. A. 833; Central R. R. Co. v. his grievance. Jersey City, 209 U. S. 473, 28 Sup. Ct. 592, 52 L. Ed. 896; Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S.
A district was organized embracing land along each side of the Miami river which had
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
been flooded in 1913 or which was required 2. COURTS 391(1) - SUPREME COURT OF for reservoir sites or for furnishing material. UNITED STATES DUTY TO DETERMINE WAIVER OF FEDERAL RIGHT.
The appellant, a citizen of California owning property within this district, filed his 1 bill to enjoin the enforcement of the statute on the ground that it was repugnant to both the Constitution of the state and that of the United States. The court, organized under section 266 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1162 [Comp. St. 1916,
It is the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States to examine for itself whether there is any basis in the admitted facts, or in the evidence, when the facts are in dispute, for finding that the federal right involved has been waived by the party complaining of the judg
ment of a state court.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 43(2)-RIGHT TO RAISE QUESTION-ESTOPPEL-DURESS.
1243]), in a careful and clear opinion dis- Commission of Missouri for certificate authorApplication by railroad to Public Service posed adversely of every proposition upon izing bond issue, and acceptance of certificate, which the contention was based. The in for which fee was charged unlawfully interferjunction was refused. This direct appealing with interstate commerce, held made under duress, so that railroad was not estopped to attack statute of Missouri, if applicable, purporting to impose penalties for failure to procure certificate and to recover fee; certificate of commission being a commercial necessity for is
sue of bonds.
[1, 2] All the contentions rest upon one or the other, or both of two propositions: (1) That the statute is unconstitutional because of some particular provision relied upon; and (2) because of the inherent want of constitutional authority by government to exert the powers which the statute gave. The first assumes that the statute has a significance which the Supreme Court of Ohio has expressly decided it has not, and, in addition, that the Constitution of the state forbids the exertion of a legislative power which the same court has expressly held the Legislature possessed. The second disregards a line of conclusive decisions of this court which leave nothing open for controversy, or, which is tantamount thereto, separates expressions in opinions of this court from their context in order to give to them a meaning which the opinions do not sanction and which it has been repeatedly declared would be inconsistent with the decided cases.
Thus concluding, we think nothing is required to dis*pose of the controversy but to cite the two lines of cases referred to. (1)
Snyder v. Deeds, 91 Ohio St. 407, 110 N. E. 1068; Miami Co. v. Dayton et al., 92 Ohio St. 215, 110 N. E. 726; Com'rs v. Gates, 83 Ohio St. 20, 34, 93 N. E. 255; State ex rel. Franklin Co. Conservancy District v. Valentine, 94 Ohio St. 440, 114 N. E. 947;
(2) Houck v. Little River District, 239 U. S. 254, 262, 36 Sup. Ct. 58, 60 L. Ed. 266, and
(248 U. S. 67)
UNION PAC. R. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE
69-INTERFERENCE BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-FEE FOR BOND ISSUE.
A fee based on a percentage of total bond issue in accordance with Missouri statute, exacted by Public Service Commission of Missouri for certificate authorizing railroad bond issue of $31,848,900, only $3,000,000 worth of railroad's total property of $281,000,000, and six-tenths of one mile of main track out of 3,500 miles, being in Missouri, was an unlawful interference with commerce among states.
In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Company against the Public Service Commis-
Messrs. N. H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb., H.
Mr. A. Z. Patterson, of Jefferson City, Mo.,
*Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the validity of a charge
whole line of the Union Pacific road. The
Moreover the bonds would be unmarketable
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
ing was denied and thereupon the Railroad, | issue of the bonds. The statutes, if applicapursuant to State Law, applied to a local ble, purported to invalidate the bonds and Court for a certiorari to set *the Commission's threatened grave penalties if the certificate judgment aside as an interference with in- was not obtained. The Railroad Company terstate commerce and as bad under the and its officials were not bound to take the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court decided risk of these threats being verified. Of that the charge was unreasonable and that course, it was for the interest of the Comthe minimum statutory fee of $250 should pany to get the certificate. It always is for have been charged. On appeal by the Com- the interest of a party under duress to mission the Supreme Court held the Railroad choose the lesser of two evils. But the fact estopped by its application, reversed the that a choice was made according to interCourt below and upheld the charge. 268 Mo. est does not exclude duress. It is the char641, 187 S. W. 827. acteristic of duress properly so called. The Eliza Lines, 199 U. S. 119, 130, 131, 26 Sup. Ct. 8, 50 L. Ed. 115, 4 Ann. Cas. 406. If, as may be, the Supreme Court of the State regards or will regard this statute as inapplicable, Public Service Commission v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 271 Mo. 258, 197 S. W. 39, probably the State would not wish to retain the charge, but we repeat, the Railroad Company was not bound to take the risk of the decision, and no proceeding has been pointed out to us by which it adequately could have avoided evils that made it practically impossible not to comply with the terms of the law. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé R. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U. S. 280, 286, 32 Sup. Ct. 216, 56 L. Ed. 436, Ann. Cas. 19130, 1050.
 The Railroad Company is a Utah corporation having a line over thirty-five hundred miles long, extending through several States, from Kansas City, Missouri, and else where, to Ogden, Utah. It has only about six-tenths of one mile of main track in Missouri, and its total property there is valued at a little more than three million dollars, out of a total valuation of over two hundred and eighty-one millions. The bonds were to reimburse the Company for expenditures of which again less than one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars had been made in Missouri. The business done by the Railroad in Missouri is wholly interstate. On these facts it is plain, on principles now established, that the charge, which in accordance with the letter of the Missouri statutes, was fixed by a percentage on the total issue contemplated, was an unlawful interference with commerce among the States. Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U. S. 178, 188, 38 Sup. Ct. 85, 62 L. Ed. 230; International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. (Argued Nov. 19, 1918. Decided Dec. 9, 1918.) 135, 38 Sup. Ct. 292, 62 L. Ed. 624, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617.
 On the facts we can have no doubt that the application for a certificate and the acceptance of it were made under duress. The certificate was a commercial necessity for the
(248 U. S. 154) PETRIE et al. v. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRR. DIST.
1. COURTS 394(10) ERROR TO STATE  The Supreme Court of the State avoidCOURT-FEDERAL QUESTION-DUE PROCESS. ed this question by holding that the appli- A federal question was presented in procation to the Commission was voluntary and ceeding in a state court by an irrigation district for confirmation of contract for the furhence that the Railroad Company was estop-nishing of water by the United States to the ped to decline to pay the statutory compen- district, by answer and cross-complaint of ownsation. It is argued that a decision on this ers of property within the district, alleging the ground excludes the jurisdiction of this contract would oblige them to pay an assessCourt. But the later decisions show that ment for water rights which they did not require, because they had sufficient water, that such is not the law and that on the conthere was no authority under the laws of the trary it is the duty of this Court to ex- United States for, the contract, and that for amine for itself whether there is any basis these reasons it, if approved, would deprive in the admitted facts, or in the evidence out compensation, in contravention of the them of property without due process and withwhen the facts are in dispute, for a finding Fourteenth Amendment. that the federal right has been waived. Creswill v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 32 Sup. Ct. 822, 56 L. Ed. 1074. Were it otherwise, as conduct under duress involves a choice, it always would be possible for a State to impose an unconstitutional burden by the threat of penalties worse than it in case of a failure to accept it, and then to declare the acceptance voluntary, as was attempted in Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U. S. 280, 32 Sup. Ct. 216, 56 L. Ed. 436, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1050.
2. COURTS 391(4)-Error to State Court -FEDERAL QUESTION.
Even if the state Supreme Court decided a federal question adversely to plaintiffs in error, it will not be considered, but writ of error to that court will be dismissed; it having also decided against them on an independent ground broad enough to support the judgment, and based wholly on state statutes and procedure, that the cross-complaint presenting the federal question was premature, and immaterial to the question presented by the petition, and should have been stricken.
In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.
Proceeding by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District against James G. Petrie and others. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Idaho (28 Idaho,