Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

cept such, if any, as may be required to pre-manded to the District Court, with direcserve the security and the rights of the par- tions to dismiss the bill. 232 Fed. 694, 146 ties in statu quo) until, by reason of the C. C. A. 620. restoration of peace between the United States and Austria-Hungary, or otherwise, it may become *possible for the respondent to present its defense adequately. Compare The Kaiser Wilhelm II (C. C. A.) 246 Fed. 786, L. R. A. 1918C, 795; Robinson & Co. v. Continental Insurance Company of Mannheim, [1915] 1 K. B. 155, 161–162.

Reversed.

(248 U. S. 1)

PITTSBURGH MELTING CO. v. TOTTEN,
Inspector of Bureau of Animal Industry.
(Argued April 22, 1918. Decided Nov. 4, 1918.)
No. 28.

--

1. FOOD 3 INSPECTION "MEAT-FOOD
PRODUCTS"-OLEO OIL.
Oleo oil made from slaughtered beeves,
though by itself seldom used as food, being
largely used in oleomargarine, is within Meat
Inspection Acts, requiring as a condition to
interstate or foreign shipment that "meat-food
products" be inspected and passed by Depart-
ment of Agriculture, unless denatured under
its regulations.

2. FOOD1 INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
SHIPMENTS INSPECTION OF FOOD PRODUCTS.
Meat Inspection Acts, requiring meat-food
products to be inspected and passed as a condi-
tion to interstate or foreign shipment, are with-
in the power of Congress.

Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Suit by the Pittsburgh Melting Company against G. E. Totten, Inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture. Decree for complainant was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (232 Fed. 694, 146 C. C. A. 620), and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Messrs. Samuel McClay and David A. Reed, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The case arises under the Meat Inspection Acts. Act June 30, 1906, c. 3913, 34 Stat. 674, and Act March 4, 1907, c. 2907, 34 Stat. 1260, 1265. The act provides an elaborate system of inspection of animals before slaughter, and of carcasses after slaughter and of meat-food products, with a view to prevent the shipment of impure, unwholesome, and *unfit meat and meat-food products in interstate and foreign commerce. The act in part provides:

"That for the purposes hereinbefore set forth the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause to be made by inspectors appointed for that purpose an examination and inspection of all meat-food, products prepared for interstate or foreign commerce in any slaughtering, meat-canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment, and for the purposes of any examination and inspection said inspectors shall have access at all times, by day or night, whether the establishment be operated or not, to every part of said establishment; and said inspectors shall mark, stamp, tag, or label as 'Inspected and Passed' all such products found to be sound, healthful, and wholesome, and which contain no dyes, chemicals, preservatives, or ingredients which render such meat or meat-food products unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or unfit for human food; and said inspectors shall label, mark, stamp, or tag as 'Inspected and Condemned' all such products found unsound, unhealthful, and unwholesome, or which contain dyes, chemicals, preservatives, or ingredients which render such meat or meat-food products unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or unfit for human food, and all such condemned meat-food products shall be destroyed for food purposes, as hereinbefore provided, and the Secretary of Agriculture may remove inspectors from any establishment which fails to so destroy such condemned meat-food products. *

And the act further provides:

"That on and after October first, nineteen hundred and six, no person, firm, or corporation shall transport or offer for transportation, and no carrier of interstate or foreign commerce shall transport or receive for transportaof Columbia, to any state or territory or the tion from one state or territory or the District District of Columbia, or to any place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or to any

**Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of foreign country, any carcasses or parts thereof,

the Court.

The Pittsburgh Melting Company filed a bill in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania

against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and G. E. Totten, Inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture, seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the Railroad Company to receive and carry in interstate and foreign commerce shipments of oil, the manufacture of the Melting Company, and to restrain the government inspector from interfering with the shipments.

A decree in favor of the complainant was rendered in the District Court. 229 Fed. 214. Upon appeal this decree was reversed by the Court of Appeals, and the cause re

meat, or meat-food products thereof, which have not been inspected, examined, and marked as 'Inspected and Passed,' in accordance with the terms of this act and with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agricul

ture.

The facts appearing of record so far as we deem them necessary to the decision of the case are:

The Melting Company has long been engaged in rendering or converting animal fats into various products, including the oil which is the subject-matter of this controversy. At one time the company made oleomargarine, but owing to adverse legislation of the state of Pennsylvania desisted from doing so. Government inspectors were in the works of the Melting Company and inspected and marked the products until 1909 when a controversy

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

arose between the company and the govern- | It is used in cooking for shortening purposes. ment officers as to the purchase of the fats Made as it is by the Melting Company it has used by the company. Upon refusal to com- no quality which prevents its use for such ply with the orders of such officers, inspection food purposes. It is not a tallow oil, distastewas withdrawn. Whether this action was ful and unfit to use in the making of food right or not we do not stop to enquire, since products. Without elaborating the discusthe claim for relief is based upon the allega- sion, we reach the conclusion that this prodtion that complainant's oil is not a meat-food uct was clearly a "meat-food product," within product within the meaning of the statute. the meaning of the statute. It is true that After inspection was withdrawn the com- the Melting Company does not sell it as such, pany continued to ship its oil, but did so and now marks it as "inedible." But that under the then regulations of the Department does not change the fact that a main use of of Agriculture concerning the shipment of fat such oil is in making edible products. The for industrial use, as “inedible,” and so mark- company has no control over the use of the ing the receptacle containing the same and oil after it is shipped, and the record does making the certificate then required by the not disclose what use is made of a large perDepartment of Agriculture that it was ined- centage of its product which was, shipped ible and not intended for food purposes. On abroad at the time this action was begun. November 1, 1914, the Department adopted a new regulation requiring a certificate to accompany the shipment of such fats claimed not to be food products, stating that the same "is not capable of being used as food by man, is suitable only for industrial purposes, is not for food purposes, and is of such character or for such a use that denaturing is impracticable." The regulation permits the shipment of oil for industrial uses after it is "denatured"; that is, treated with a substance which renders it unfit for food, while still fit for use in industrial purposes. The Melting Company refused to make this certificate, which resulted in the notice to the Railroad Company to refuse to carry the oil, and brought about this suit to compel the carrier to receive and transport it.

The District Court found that the oil manufactured and shipped by the Melting Company was not within the terms of the act, as it was not a meat-food product, which is prohibited from shipment without inspection. The reasons for reaching that conclusion are set forth in the opinion of the District Judge. 229 Fed. 214, supra. The Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion upon the testimony adduced. 232 Fed. 694, 146 C. C. A. 620, supra.

[1] An examination of the record satisfies us that the Circuit Court of Appeals reached the right conclusion. The oil here in controversy, the testimony shows, is generally known as "oleo" oil, and is not "tallow" oil as that term is generally understood by the trade. Both oils are made from the fat of slaughtered beeves. Oleo oil by itself is seldom used as a food. It is, however, largely used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. In fact it constitutes a large percentage of that product.

[2] The enactment of the statute was within the power of Congress in order to prevent interstate and foreign shipment of impure or adulterated meat-food products. The statute does not specifically define a meat-food product. In our view the product of the Melting Company is a meat-food product in the sense of the use of those terms in the statute and as such subject to the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. It being such meatfood product the Melting Company could not truthfully claim that it was not capable of being used as food by man, and hence could not make the certificate required.

The theory of the bill is that the product in question was not within the terms of the act; the District Court reached the conclusion that this theory was the correct one, and so rendered a decree which required the Railroad Company to receive the oil for transportation in interstate and foreign commerce, without inspection, when labelled "inedible," and accompanied by the certificate of the Melting Company that such oil is inedible and not intended for food purposes and is of such a character that denaturing is impossible or will render the oil unavailable for the desir ed industrial use. This decree is consistent only with the finding of the District Court that the product was not a meat-food product within the meaning of the statute.

As we have said, we think the record shows, as found by the Circuit Court of Appeals, that the oil made and offered for shipment by the Melting Company was a meat-food product, and hence subject to the regulation of the statute requiring inspection before shipment. The decree requiring such oil to be shipped without inspection was properly reversed. Affirmed.

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1918.

(248 U. S. 587)

No. 236. The UNITED STATES of America, plaintiff in error, v. The FEDERAL PUBLISHING COMPANY; and

No. 237. The UNITED STATES of America, plaintiff in error, v. The BUTTERICK COMPANY. Oct. 8, 1918. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. For opinion below, see 240 Fed. 539. Mr. Attorney General Todd and Mr. Assistant Attorney General, for the United States. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. Assistant to the Attorney General Todd for the plaintiff in error.

(248 U. S. 587)

No. 693. The BRUNSWICK-BALKE-COL LENDER COMPANY, appellant, v. Walter H. EVANS et al. Oct. 8, 1918. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. For opinion below, see 228 Fed. 991. Mr. Frederick S. Tyler, of Washington, D. C., for appellees. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Frederick S. Tyler, for the appellees.

(248 U. S. 532)

No. —, original. Ex parte In the matter of Charles W. COON, petitioner. Oct. 21, 1918. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

No., original. Ex parte In the matter of WHITNEY STEAMBOAT CORPORATION, petitioner. Oct. 21, 1918. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition granted, and rule to show cause awarded returnable Monday, December 9, 1918.

(248 U. S. 587)

No. 5. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY et al., appellants, v. The UNITED STATES. Oct. 21, 1918. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. For opinion below, see 214 Fed. 987. Messrs. John P. Wilson and Edgar A. Bancroft, both of Chicago, Ill., and Wm. D. McHugh, of Omaha, Neb., for appellants. The Attorney General, for the United States. Dismissed and mandate granted, on motion of counsel for the appellants.

(248 U. S.. 588)

No. 39. Joseph HOLT et al., appellants, v. SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS. Oct. 21, 1918. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. For opinion below, see 235 Fed. 885, 149 C. C. A. 197. Messrs. Elmer H. Adams, of Chicago, Ill., and Henry L. Lazarus and David Sessler, both of New Orleans, La., for appellants. Mr. Sol. H. Esarey, of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellants.

(248 U. S. 588)

No. 103. The ANN ARBOR RAILROAD COMPANY, appellant, v. Cassius L. GLASGOW et al. Oct. 21, 1918. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the

Eastern District of Michigan. For opinion below, see 236 Fed. 387. Messrs. Alexander L. Smith, of Toledo, Ohio, Joseph B. Cotton, of New York City, and Chauncey C. Colton, of Duluth, Minn., for appellant. Mr. Grant Fellows, of Hudson, Mich., for appellees. Dismissed without costs to either party per stipulation.

(248 U. S. 588)

No. 110. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAIL ROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. William L. WHITEHURST. Oct. 21, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. For opinion below, see 117 Va. 542, 85 S. E. 458. Mr. James G. Martin, of Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Sigmund M. Brandt, of Norfolk, Va., for defendant in error. Dismissed each party to pay their own costs per stipulation.

(248 U. S. 589)

No. 133. H. S. MCGOWAN et al., plaintiffs in error, v. EAGLE CLIFF FISHING COMPANY. Oct. 21, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. For opinion below, see 70 Or. 1, 137 Pac. 766. Messrs. Franklin T. Griffith and Bert W. Henry, both of Portland, Or., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. C. W. Fulton, of Portland, Or., for defendant in error. Dismissed without costs to either party per stipulation.

(248 U. S. 531)

No. 135. RED JACKET, JR., COAL COMPANY, et al., appellants, v. UNITED THACKER COAL COMPANY. Oct. 21, 1918. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia. See, also, 232 Fed. 49, 146 C. C. A. 241. Messrs. John H. Holt, of Huntington, W. Va., and E. Spencer Miller, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants. Messrs. C. W. Campbell, of Huntington, W. Va., Malcolm Jackson, of Charleston, W. Va., and Arthur S. Dayton, of Philippi, W. Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju risdiction upon the authority of (1) Equitable Life Assurance Soc. 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; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; (2) Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 234 U. S. 369, 34 Sup. Ct. 810, 58 L. Ed. 1356; Male v. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 240 U. S. 97, 36 Sup. Ct. 351, 60 L. Ed. 544; (3) Shapiro v. United States, 235 U. S. 412, 35 Sup. Ct. 122, 59 L. Ed. 291. See Omaha Baum Iron Stove Co. v. Moline Plow Co., 244 U. S. 650, 37 Sup. Ct. 743, 61 L. Ed. 1371.

(248 U. S. 588)

No. 140. Arthur A. BONVILLAIN, petitioner, v. H. B. HOWELL, trustee, etc. Oct. 21, 1918. On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. For decisions below, see 232 Fed. 370; 237 Fed. 1015, 150 C. C. A. 660. Mr. H. Generes Dufour, of New Orleans, La., for pe

titioner. Mr. E. A. O'Sullivan, of New Or-, of New York City, for petitioner. Petitions for leans, La., for respondent. Dismissed with writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit costs per stipulation. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

No. 202. SOUTHERN OREGON COMPANY, appellant, v. The UNITED STATES. Oct. 21, 1918. Mr. John M. Gearin, of Portland, Or., for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States. Joint motion for leave to file petition in United States District Court for an order granting leave to sell certain timber granted.

No. 239. The DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Oresta DA VELLA, Royal Italian consul, as administrator, etc. Oct. 21, 1918. Mr. Elroy N. Clark, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error. Mr. F. W. Sanborn, of Denver, Colo., for defendant in error. Motion for leave to amend points relied on and for leave to print additional parts of the transcript of record herein granted without prejudice.

(248 U. S. 589)

No. 257. Ada T. CUSHING, executrix, etc., plaintiff in error, v. John H. WHALEY et al. Oct. 21, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. See, also, 165 Pac. 135. Mr. D. M. Tibbetts, of Guthrie, Okl., for plaintiff in error. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

(248 U. S. 558)

No. 442. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. Alice Frances BROWN et al.Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 513. Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, of New York City, Francis I. Gowen, of Philadelphia, Pa., Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., and John Hampton Barnes, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Mr. T. R. White, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 558)

(248 U. S. 551)

No. 472. PHILADELPHIA, BALTIMORE & WASHINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. Alfred H. SMITH. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 103 Atl. 945. See, also, 38 Sup. Ct. 582, 63 L. Ed. Messrs. Frederic D. McKenny and John Spalding Flannery, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland granted.

(248 U. S. 558)

No. 477. Stanley POLLUCK, petitioner, v. The MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAIL ROAD COMPANY. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 166 N. W. 641. Mr. Humphrey Barton, of St. Paul, Minn., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota denied.

(248 U. S. 559)

No. 478. BLACK MOUNTAIN RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Leona MUMPOWER, administratrix, etc. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 174 N. C. 742, 94 S. E. 515. Mr. Murray Allen, of Raleigh, N. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina denied.

(248 U. S. 559)

No. 483. UNION TOOL CIMPANY, petitioner, v. Elihu C. WILSON. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 249 Fed. 736. Messrs. S. S. Gregory, of Chicago, Ill., and Frederick S. Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 559)

No. 484. UNION TOOL COMPANY et al., petitioners, v. WILSON & WILLARD MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 249 Fed. 729. Messrs. S. S. Gregory, of Chicago, Ill., and Frederick No. 454. HUBBARD-ZEMURRAY STEAM- S. Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. SHIP COMPANY, petitioner, v. AKTIESEL-Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United SKABET STAVANGEREN. Oct. 21, 1918. States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 67. Mr. Circuit denied. Thomas J. Freeman, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 558)

Nos. 459 and 460. COLUMBIA-KNICKERBOCKER TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. Edwin Hale ABBOT;

Nos. 461 and 462. COLUMBIA-KNICKERBOCKER TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. Preston B. KEITH;

(248 U. S. 552)

No. 485. WILLIAM KINZELL, petitioner, v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 171 Pac. 1136. Mr. John P. Gray, of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho granted.

(248 U. S. 559)

No. 488. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL Nos. 463 and 464. COLUMBIA-KNICKER- RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. WilBOCKER TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. liam P. GALLAGHER, as guardian of Anna L. John S. AMES; Gearrity et al. Oct. 21, 1918. For decision No. 465. COLUMBIA-KNICKERBOCKER below, see 180 App. Div. 88, 167 N. Y. Supp. TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. Maria A. EVANS, executrix;

Nos. 466 and 467. COLUMBIA-KNICKERBOCKER TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. George E. KEITH;

Nos. 468 and 469. COLUMBIA-KNICKERBOCKER TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. Mary O. CORDINGLY; and

480, order affirmed 222 N. Y. 649, 119 N. E. 1044. Mr. Robert E. Whalen, of Albany, N. Y., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied.

(248 U. S. 560)

Nos. 470 and 471. COLUMBIA-KNICKER- No. 489. GULFPORT TOWING COMBOOKER TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, v. F. Lothrop AMES. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 247 Fed. 833. Messrs. Robert M. Morse, of Boston, Mass., and Julien T. Davies,

PANY, Claimant, etc., petitioner, v. The OL-
LINGER & BRUCE DRY DOCK COMPANY.
Oct. 21, 1918. Mr. Palmer Pillans, of Mobile,
Ala., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of

certiorari to the United States Circuit Court | AS. Oct. 28, 1918. In error to the Court of of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

For opinion below, see The Gulfport, 250 Fed. 577, 162 C. C. A. 593.

(248 U. S. 560)

No. 490. Claude A. P. TURNER, petitioner, V. LAUTER PIANO COMPANY et al. Oct. 21. 1918. For opinion below, see 248 Fed. 930. Mr. Frank A. Whiteley, of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 560)

Civil Appeals of the Fifth Supreme Judicial
District of the State of Texas. For opinion
below, see 174 S. W. 636. Messrs. A. P.
Wozencraft and S. P. English, both of Dallas,
Tex., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Horace
Chilton and Royall R. Watkins, both of Dallas,
Tex., for defendant in error. Dismissed, per
stipulation.

(248 U. S. 589)

No. 376. William B. BALES, plaintiff in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 28, 1918. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Attorney General Todd and Mr. Assistant Attorney General, for the United States. Judgment reversed upon confession of error, and cause reMr. Assistant to the Attorney General Todd for the defendant in error.

No. 495. J. Carey KING, petitioner, v. Fred B. RHODES. Oct. 21, 1918. Mr. William Meyer Lewin, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Colum-manded for further proceedings, on motion of bia denied.

(248 U. S. 560)

No. 503. Herbert E. EDWARDS, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion below, see 249 Fed. 686. Messrs. Luther Day, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Rufus S. Day, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 590)

No. 421. CAMP BIRD, Limited, petitioner, v. Frank W. HOWBERT, as Collector, etc. Oct. 28, 1918. On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. For opinion below, see 249 Fed. 27. Mr. William V. Hodges, of Denver, Colo., for petitioner. Mr. Attorney General Todd and Mr. Assistant Attorney General, for the United States. Judgment reversed with No. 518. Lawrence F. CONNOLLY, admin- costs upon confession of error, and cause reistrator, etc., et al., petitioners, v. Celia DIA-manded for further proceedings, on motion of MOND et al. Oct. 21, 1918. For opinion be- Mr. Assistant to the Attorney General Todd low see 251 Fed. 234. Mr. Charles W. Beale, for the respondent. of Wallace, Idaho, for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 561)

(248 U. S. 561)

No. 520. GRAND RAPIDS & INDIANA RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, V. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 21, 1918. See, also, 249 Fed. 646, 650. Messrs. James H. Campbell, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. The Attorney General, for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 531)

No. 544. D. M. PHILLIPS et al., plaintiffs in error, v. W. O. MITCHELL et al. Oct. 21, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, see 172 Pac. 85. Mr. Milton Brown, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs in error.

(248 U. S. 561)

[blocks in formation]

et al.

(248 U. S. 552)

No. 528. B. C. LEE, petitioner, v. CENPER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju-TRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY risdiction upon the authority of 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; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544.

(248 U. S. 589)

No. 9, original. The STATE OF MISSOURI, complainant, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY. Oct. 28, 1918. Messrs. John T. Barker, of Kansas City, Mo., and Frank W. McAllister, of Paris, Mo., for complainant. Judgment entered as per stipulation of counsel.

(248 U. S. 590)

No. 34. The SOUTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. The CITY OF DALLAS, TEX

Oct. 28, 1918. For opinion below, see 95 S. E. 718. Messrs. William W. Osborne and Alexander A. Lawrence, both of Savannah. Ga., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia granted.

(248 U. S. 552)

No. 529. Elizabeth HULL, administratrix, etc., petitioner, v. The PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY. Oct. 28, 1918. For opinion below, see 104 Atl. 274. Mr. Harvey R. Spessard, of Hagerstown, Md., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiora:i to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland granted.

(248 U. S. 561)

No. 530. NORTH MICHIGAN WATER COMPANY, petitioner, v. CITY OF ESCANABA et al. Oct. 28, 1918. For opinion below, see 165 N. W. 847. Mr. Arthur H. Ryall, of

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »