(40 Sup.Ct.) led equally upon all interests passing from nonresident testators or intestates. The tax is not upon property, but upon the privilege of succession, which the state may grant or withhold. It may deny it to some and give it to others. The state is dealing in this instance not with the transfer of the entire estate, but only with certain classes of property that are subject to the jurisdiction of the state. It must find some rule which will adequately deal with this situation. It has adopted that of the proportion of the local estate in certain property to the entire estate of the decedent. In making classification, which has been uniformly held to be within the power of the state, inequalities necessarily arise, for some classes are reached, and others omitted; but this has never been held to render such statutes unconstitutional. Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477, 29 Sup. Ct. 186, 53 L. Ed. 290. This principle has been recognized in a series of cases in Board of Education v. Illinois, 203 U. S. 553, 27 Sup. Ct. 171, 51 L. Ed. 314, 8 Ann. Cas. 157; Campbell v. California, 200 this court. U. S. 87, 26 Sup. Ct. 182, 50 L. Ed. 382; Keeney v. Comptroller of the State of New York, 222 U. S. 525, 32 Sup. Ct. 105, 56 L. Ed. 299, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1139. It has been uniformly held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not leprive the states of the right to determine the limitations and restrictions upon the right to inherit property, but "at the most can only be held to restrain such an #542 exercise of power as would *exclude the conception of judgment and discretion, and which would be so obviously arbitrary and unreasonable as to be beyond the pale of governmental authority." Campbell v. California, 200 U. S. 95, 26 Sup. Ct. 185, 50 L. Ed. 382. In upholding the validity of a graduated tax upon the transfer of personal property, to take effect upon the grantor's death, we said in Keeney v. Comptroller of New York, supra, 222 U. S. page 535, 32 Sup. Ct. 107, 56 L. Ed. 299, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1139: "The validity of the tax must be determined by the laws of New York. The Fourteenth Amendment does not diminish the taxing power of the state, but only requires that in its exercise the citizen must be afforded an opportunity to be heard on all questions of liability and value, and shall not, by arbitrary and discriminatory provisions, be denied equal protection. It does not deprive the state of the power to select the subjects of taxation. But it does not follow that because it can tax any transfer (Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 159 [27 Sup. Ct. 188, 51 L. Ed. 415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736]), that it must tax all transfers, or that all must be treated alike." mate authority of the state. We are not prepared so to declare. The resident testator or intestate stands in a different relation to the state than does the nonresident. The resident's property is usually within the ready control of the state, and easily open to inspection and discovery for taxation purposes, by means quite different from those afforded in cases of local holdings of nonresident testators or intestates. As to the resident, his entire intangible, and usually most of his tangible property, pay tribute to the state when transferred by will or intestacy; the transfer of the nonresident's estate is taxed only so far as his estate is located within the jurisdiction and only so far as it comes within the description of "real proper543 state." ty within this state, or of goods, wares, *and of stock of corporations of this state, or of merchandise within this state, or of shares national banking associations located in this Simple contract debts owing by New Jersey debtors to nonresidents and some other kinds of property of nonresidents the purpose of founding administration, simare exempt, although it is settled that, for ple contract debts are assets at the domicile of the debtor (Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U. and that the state of the debtor's domicile S. 654, 656, 3 Sup. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 1068), may impose a succession tax (Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 205, 23 Sup. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439; Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S. 394, 401, 37 Sup. Ct. 152, 61 L. Ed. 386). The question of equal protection must be decided as between resident and nonresident decedents as classes, rather than by the incidence of the tax upon the particular estates whose representatives are here complaining. Absolute equality is impracticable in taxation, and is not required by the equal protection clause. And inequalities that result not from hostile discrimination, but occasion ally and incidentally in the application of a system that is not arbitrary in its classification, are not sufficient to defeat the law. In our opinion, there are substantial differences which within the rules settled by this court permit the classification which St. has been accomplished by this statute. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 367, 35 Sup. Ct. 99, 59 L. Ed. 265, and cases cited. Finding no error in the judgments of the Court of Errors and Appeals of the state of New Jersey, the same are Affirmed. Mr. Justice HOLMES (dissenting). Many things that a legislature may do if it does them with no ulterior purpose, it cannot do In order to invalidate this tax it must be as a means to reach what is beyond its conheld that the difference in the manner of stitutional power. That I understand to be assessing transmission of property by testa- the principle of Western Union Telegraph Co. tors or intestates, as between resident and v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 30 Sup. Ct. 190, 54 L. nonresident decedents, is so wholly arbitrary | Ed. 355, Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. and unreasonable as to be beyond the legiti. 56, 30 Sup. Ct. 232, 54 L. Ed. 378, and other 544 as to secure equality between residents in New Jersey and those in other States. cases *in 216 U. S. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U. S. 105, 114, 38 Sup. Ct. New Jersey could not deny to residents in 438, 62 L. Ed. 1006, 1 A. L. R. 1278. New other States the right to take legacies which Jersey cannot tax the property of Hill or it granted to its own citizens, and therefore McDonald outside the State and cannot use its power to prohibit all legacies cannot be her power over property within it to accom-invoked in aid of a principle that affects the plish by indirection what she cannot do di rectly. It seems to me that that is what she foreign residents alone. In Kansas City, Ft. is trying to do and therefore that the judg-Scott & Memphis Ry. Co. v. Kansás, 240 U. S. ment of the Court of Errors and Appeals 227, 235, 36 Sup. Ct. 261, 60 L. Ed. 617, the State could have refused incorporation altogether and therefore could impose the carefully limited condition that was upheld. should be reversed. It seems to me that when property outside the State is taken into account for the purpose of increasing the tax upon property within it, the property outside is taxed in effect, no matter what form of words may be used. It appears to me that this cannot be done, even if it should be done in such a way The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER and Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS concur in the opinion that I express (40 Sup.Ct.) Wynn Green, both of Jackson, Miss., W. J. No. 305. The NORTHWESTERN MUTULamb, of Corinth, Miss., and N. Vick Rob- AL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Isabel bins, of Vicksburg, Miss., for defendant in er- H. JOHNSON; and ror. Writ of error and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed, per stipulation. No. 306. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MONTPELIER, VERMONT, v. A. M. MILLER, administrator, etc. Oct. 13, 1919. Messrs. George Lines, of Milwaukee, Wis., and George B. Young, of Montpelier, Vt., for petitioners. Motion to bring up the entire records and cases denied. No. Original. The STATE OF NEW MEXICO, complainant, v. The STATE OF COLORADO. Oct. 13, 1919. Motion for leave to file bill of complaint herein granted, and process ordered to issue returnable on Monday, March 1 next. No. 73. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, appellant, v. The UNITED STATES. Oct. 13, 1919. Messrs. A. R. Serven and Burt E. Barlow, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. Motion to remand this cause for further findings of fact granted. No. 85. Sue Erskine NEWMAN, administratrix, etc., et al., appellants, v. Ida M. MOYERS et al., etc.; and No. 86. William G. McADO0, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., appellants, v. De Forest L. ORMES, administrator, etc. Oct. 13, 1919. The Attorney General, for appellants. Motion to substitute as one of the appellants Carter Glass, present Secretary of the Treasury, in place of William G. McAdoo, former Secretary of the Treasury, submitted by Mr. Solicitor General King for the appellants, and motion granted. No. 168. Joseph W. NICHOLS, appellant, v. The UNITED STATES. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 53 Ct. Cl. 463. Messrs. L. T. Michener, of Washington, D. C., and William E. Russell, of New York City, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. Motion to remand this cause for further findings of fact granted, and the Court of Claims is directed to set aside its judgment and reopen the case for further testimony and additional findings of fact. No. 260. George C. BEIDLER, appellant, v. The UNITED STATES. Oct. 13, 1919. Mr. Frank S. Appleman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. Motion for a writ of certiorari or to remand this cause for further findings of fact denied. (250 U. S. 658) No. 371. Daniel Curry CAMPBELL, petitioner, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 255 Fed. 437, 166 C. C. A. 513. Messrs. A. H. & Roswell King and H. L. Anderson, all of Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioner. Messrs. F. P. Fleming, of Jacksonville, Fla., Walter L. Clark, of Baltimore, Md., and William C. Prentiss, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 659) No. 381. HOUSTON OIL COMPANY OF TEXAS, petitioner, v. Mrs. M. J. BROWN. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 202 S. W. 102. Messrs. H. O. Head, of Sherman, Tex., and Thomas M. Kennerly, of Houston, Tex. (Messrs. Jesse J. Lee and Kennerly, Williams, Lee & Hill, all of Houston, of counsel), for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas denied. (250 U. S. 659) No. 383. James B. ROBERTS, administrator, etc., petitioner, v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 255 Fed. 469, 166 C. C. A. 545. Mr. W. A. Denson, of Birmingham, Ala. (Mr. Hannis Taylor, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 659) No. 384. D. M. HARDY et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 256 Fed. 284. Messrs. William H. Atwell, of Dallas, Tex., and J. H. Barwise, Jr., of Ft. Worth, Tex., for petitioners. The Attorney General and Mr. La Rue Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 659) No. 389. Isidore S. WORKIN et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13. 1919. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 137. Mr. Lawrence B. Cohen, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error. The Attorney Gen (250 U S. 651) No. 276, October term, 1918. Richard H. DANA, individually, plaintiff in error, v. Rich-eral, for the United States. Petition for a writ ard H. DANA, executor, etc., et al. Oct. 13, of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. 1919. See, also, 250 U. S. 220, 39 Sup. Ct. 449, 63 L. Ed. 947. Mr. Hollis R. Bailey, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Wm. Harold Hitchcock, of Boston, Mass., for defendants in error. Motion to stay mandate and to amend proceedings into proceedings as on writ of certiorari denied. (250 U. S. 677) No. 392. Frederick SCHREIBER et al., etc., petitioners, v. The GERMAN EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CONGREGATION OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY GHOST et al. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 209 S. W. 914. Mr. Lon O. Hocker, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri dismissed, on motion of counsel for the petitioner. (250 U. S. 659) No. 396. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. Timothy KIRBY. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 172 N. Y. Supp. 901. Messrs. Moot, Sprague, Brownell & Marcy, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Mr. Adelbert Moot, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioner. Mr. Thomas Burke, of Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, State of New York, denied. (250 U. S. 660) No. 403. NORDYKE and MARMON COMPANY, petitioner, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. Oct. 13, 1919. Messrs. Clarence E. Weir and Charles W. Richards, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner. Messrs. Samuel Ashby, Thomas D. Stevenson, Harry E. Yockey, and Dixson H. Bynum, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Marion County, State of Indiana, denied. (250 U. S. 660) No. 404. H. LAUTER COMPANY, petitioner, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. Oct. 13, 1919. Messrs. Clarence E. Weir and Charles W. Richards, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Marion County, State of Indiana, denied. (250 U. S. 660) No. 414. William DODGE, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 300. Messrs. Irving M. Weiss and Eustace Reynolds, both of Buffalo, N. Y., for petitioner. The Attorney General and Messrs. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 660) No. 417. The VIRGINIAN RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Vernon HALSTED, who sues by Nora Halsted, his next friend. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 428. Mr. Walter H. Taylor, of Norfolk, Va., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 655) Oct. No. 419. E. Hilton JACKSON, receiver, etc., petitioner, v. John Lewis SMITH et al. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 48 App. D. C. 565. Mr. W. W. Millan, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. (250 U. S. 661) No. 420. James A. KEOWN, petitioner, v. A. Francis HAYDEN, administrator. etc. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 232 Mass. 259, Mr. James A. Keown, of Lynn, Mass., pro se. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts denied. 122 N. E. 264. (250 U. S. 655) No. 421. AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES, petitioner, v. James T. NEWTON, Commissioner of Patents. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 160. Mr. George L. Wilkinson, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. (250 U. S. 661) No. 423. CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Herman VAN DE ZANDE. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 168 Wis. 628, 170 N. W. 259. Mr. R. N. Van Doren, of Merrill, Wis., for Petition for a writ of cerplaintiff in error. tiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin denied. (250 U. S. 661) No. 429. Joseph M. COLDWELL, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 256 Fed. 805. Mr. Walter Nelles, of New York City (Messrs. Anthony V. Pettine and Luigi De Pasquale, both of Providence, R. I., of counsel), for petitioner. The Attorney General and Messrs. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 661) No. 430. Wilhelm SCHUMANN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 233. Mr. C. H. Van Law, of Marshalltown, Iowa, for petitioner. The Attorney General and Messrs. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 661) No. 431. The CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, v. J. Robert SOMMERVILLE. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 147. Mr. Henry B. Macfarland, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Mr. George E. Sullivan, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. (250 U. S. 662) No. 432. Clarence W. TURNER, petitioner, v. Fred E. TURNER. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinDavidson and Preston C. West, both of Tulsa, ion below, see 180 Pac. 248. Messrs. A. A. for petitioner. Messrs. Richard W. Stout, of Asbury Park, N. J., and James W. Zevely and James M. Givens, both of Muskogee, Okl., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. (250 U. S. 662) No. 433. Catherine NEIDLEIN, as administratrix, etc., petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1919. For opin (40 Sup.Ct.) ion below, see 179 Pac. 191. See, also, 40 Sup. Ct. 11, 64 L. Ed. Mr. Theodore A. Bell, of San Francisco, Cal. (Mr. Stanley D. Willis, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Robt. T. Devlin and Wm. H. Devlin, both of Sacramento, Cal., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California denied. No. 433. Catherine NEIDLEIN, as administratrix of the estate of Francis J. Neidlein, deceased, petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1919. See, also, 250 U. S. 662, 40 Sup. Ct. 10, 63 L. Ed. 1195. Mr. Theodore A. Bell, of San Francisco, Cal. (Mr. Stanley D. Willis, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Robt. T. Devlin and Wm. H. Devlin, both of Sacramento, Cal., for respondent. Motion for an order directing the clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari as of June 27, 1919, denied. (250 U. S. 662) No. 436. INTERSTATE BUSINESS MEN'S ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION, petitioner, v. Edith A. LESTER. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 225. Messrs. R. M. Haines, F. S. Dunshee, and J. L. Brody, all of Des Moines, Iowa (Messrs. S. D. Bishop, of Lawrence, Kan., and Fred P. Carr, of Des Moines, Iowa, of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. M. A. Gorrill and Henry H. Asher, both of Lawrence, Kan., and Leonard S. Ferry, of Topeka, Kan., for 'respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 662) No. 439. NATIONAL CAN COMPANY, petitioner, v. Olin S. FELLOWS. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 970. Mr. Clement R. Stickney, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Mr. William E. Moss, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 663) No. 440. Mrs. Donie MORRISION, administratrix, etc., petitioner, v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1919. Messrs. Jno. J. Vertrees, of Nashville, Tenn., and H. N. Leech, of Clarksville, Tenn., for petitioner. Messrs. Michael Savage, of Clarksville, Tenn., and Jno. B. Keeble and Ed. T. Seay, both of Nashville, Tenn., for defendant. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee denied. (250 U. S. €63) No. 442. STANDARD SILK DYEING COMPANY, petitioner, v. The ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 777, 166 C. C. A. 223. Mr. Hugh Gordon Miller, of New York City (Mr. Homer S. Cummings, of Stamford, Conn., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Creevey & Rogers, of New York City (Messrs. Garrard Glenn and William B. Walsh, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 663) No. 443. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Saropia ROCHA. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 297. Messrs. M. F. Watts, Wm. R. Gentry and Edwin W. Lee, all of St. Louis, Mo. (Messrs. G. A. Orth, of New York City, and John O. H. Pitney and John R. Hardin, both of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Thomas Bond, Edward W. Foristel and Jesse T. Friday, all of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 663) UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13, 1919. No. 447. G. A. VEDIN, petitioner, v. The For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 550. Messrs. Wm. H. Chapman, of San Francisco, Cal., Leroy Tozier, of Fairbanks, Alaska, and De Journel & De Journel, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. The Attorney General and Messrs. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Harry S. Ridgely, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 663) No. 448. Edward D. STEGER et al., composing the firm of Steger & Company, petitioners, v. Mountford S. ORTH. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 619. Messrs. Joseph W. Bailey and William J. Hughes, both of Washington, D. C., and Addison S. Pratt, of New York City, for petitioners. Messrs. Thomas N. Rhinelander, Origen S. Seymour, and Alfred S. Barnard, all of New York City, for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 664) No. 450. James A. KEOWN, petitioner, v. James A. Keown, of Lynn, Mass., pro se. Julia E. TRUDO et al. Oct. 13, 1919. Mr. tition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior PeCourt of the State of Massachusetts denied. (250 U. S. 664) No. 453. Parker STENNICK, trustee, etc., petitioner, v. Willard N. JONES et al. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinions below, see 252 Fed. 345, 164 C. C. A. 269; 256 Fed. 354; 258 Fed. 990. Messrs. Thomas Mannix and Guy L. Wallace, both of Portland, Or., for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 664) No. 454. Sarah Chandler SHAPLEY, petitioner, v. George M. KLINE et al. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 232 Mass. 500, 122 N. E. 641. Sarah Chandler Shapley, pro se. Mr. Henry A. Wyman, Atty. Gen. (Mr. Arthur respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari Thad Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts denied. (250 U. S. 664) No. 459. CONCRETE STEEL COMPANY, petitioner, v. George E. VANDENBURGH. Oct. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 143. Mr. Thomas J. Johnston, of New York |
