Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

FECT APPEAL STATED.

FORE APPEAL.

(40 Sup.Ct.) 3. APPEAL AND ERROR Om784, 1125—REME

+184 DIES WHEN JOINT APPELLANT DOES NOT PER- | for 20 per cent. thereof to *the attorneys and

another for the balance to her. Moyers & Where one of several joint appellants fails Consaul insisted that the provision of the act to perfect his appeal, the appellee may have limiting fees of attorneys to 20 per cent. was appellant called and dismiss the appeal or open invalid; and they brought this suit in the the record and pray for an affirmance.

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 4. APPEAL AND ERROR OM1159—COURT ON ITS against Mrs. Erskine, the Secretary of the

OWN MOTION MAY OPEN RECORD AND REVERSE, Treasury, and the Treasurer of the United THOUGH APPELLANT DOES NOT PERFECT AP- States to recover the full 50 per cent. As in PEAL.

McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 35 Sup. Though one of several joint appellants failed Ct. 543, 59 L. Ed. 955, the plaintiffs prayed to appear in the Supreme Court, and took no that they be declared entitled to recover from part in the proceedings, the court may on its own motion open the record, and, if it perceives Mrs. Erskine the amount claimed; that the that the suit is for an illegal purpose, reverse issuance to and the collection by her of any the decree and remand, with instructions to dis- amount from the government be enjoined; miss the bill.

and that either the whole amount be paid in5. APPEAL AND ERROB 803—DISMISSAL FOB to the registry of the court, or that a receiver WANT OF PROSECUTION LEAVES CASE AS BE be appointed who should collect from the gov

ernment the whole amount and pay thereA dismissal for want of prosecution remands from to plaintiffs an amount equal to 50 per the case to the lower court in the same condition cent of the collection. Mrs. Erskine died as before the appeal was taken.

soon after the filing of the bill, whereupon Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the Sue Erskine Newman, the administratrix of District of Columbia.

her estate, was made defendant.

The Secretary of the Treasury and the Suit by Ida M. Moyers and another, part- Treasurer moved to dismiss the bill of comners, trading as Moyers & Consaul, against plaint, among other reasons, on the ground Ursula Ragland Erskine, and others, in that collection of more than 20 per cent. was which Sue Erskine Newman, administratris prohibited by section 4, and that the limitaof the defendant named, was made a defend- tion thereby imposed was a valid exercise of ant. A decree for plaintiff was affirmed by congressional power. Sue Erskine Newman, the Court of Appeals of the District of Co

as administratrix, moved to dismiss on the lumbia (47 App. D. C. 102, Ann. Cas. 1918E,

same ground, among others. The motions 528), and defendants appeal. Appeal by the were overruled; and the court entered a deadministratrix dismissed for want of prose- cree directing payment of the money into cution, and case remanded; and decree re court, ordering that plaintiff recover from versed as to the other defendants, and cause the administratrix an amount equal to 50 remanded, with directions.

per cent. of the collection from the govern*183 *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, ment, and directing that this sum be paid

out of the funds to be so paid into court. for appellants.

Mr. Charles F. Consaul, of Washington, D. From the decree for plaintiffs entered by the C., for appellees.

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,

all the defendants appealed to the Court of Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opin- Appeals for the District of Columbia; and ion of the Court.

when the latter affirmed the decree of the By Omnibus Claims Act March 4, 1915, c. lower court, all the defendants joined in the 140, 38 Stat. 962, 963, discussed in Calhoun V. Massie, 253 U. S. 170, 40 Sup. Ct. 474, 64 appeal to this court. The Honor*able Carter L. Ed. decided this day, Ursula Ragland Glass, upon becoming Secretary of the TreasErskine became entitled to receive from the ury, was substituted for the Honorable WilSecretary of the Treasury the sum of $1,836.- liam G. McAdoo; and the further substitu66. Long before that date she and the firm tion of the Honorable David F. Houston was of Moyers & Consaul, attorneys, had entered made when he became Secretary of the into a contract for the prosecution of her Treasury. The appellees now move to disclaim against the government. The contract miss the appeals of the Secretary of the provided that the attorneys should receive an Treasury and the Treasurer of the United amount equal to 50 per cent. of the sum col- States on the ground that neither they nor lected. Its terms and the services rendered the government have any pecuniary or other were, in substance, identical with those set | interest in the suit. They also move to disforth in Calhoun v. Massie. In reliance upon miss the appeal of the administratrix on the section 4 of the above act, Mrs. Erskine re- ground that she did not formally enter her fused to pay or assent to the payment to the appearance in this court nor take any part in attorneys of an amount greater than 20 per the proceedings here. cent. of the appropriation; and the treasury [1, 2] The merits of the former motion we officials were proposing to issue a warrant have no occasion to consider, for the following reason: Section 4 of the act limited the appeal. Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 compensation which the attorneys may col-U. S. 158, 166, 181, 27 Sup. Ct. 638, 51 L. Ed. lect or receive to 20 per cent. The act is 1002. valid. Capital Trust Co. v. Calhoun, 250 U. [4, 5] If the appellee had asked for an afS. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. 486, 63 L. Ed. 942; Cal- firmance it is clear that it must have been houn v. Massie, supra. The plaintiffs were denied because of the illegal purpose of the seeking the aid of the courts to recover mon- suit. But the court go further. Since eys which an act of Congress prohibited them of its own motion it might dismiss this apfrom collecting or receiving. If the bill had peal (Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, 168, not alleged that this act was invalid, it would 2 Sup. Ct. 424, 27 L Ed. 688), and since on have been the duty of the lower court to dis- dismissing it a mandate to the lower court miss the bill even if none of the defendants might issue (United States v. Gomez, 23 How. had raised any objection to the maintenance / 326, 330, 16 L. Ed. 552), this court might also of the suit. Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. of its own motion entertain the alternative to 261, 267, 26 L. Ed. 539; Lee v. Johnson, 116 dismissal spoken of by Mr. Chief Justice U. S. 48, 52, 6 Sup. Ct. 249, 29 L. Ed. 570; Marshall—i. e., open the record. If it did Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wall. 542, 558, 19 L. Ed. so and perceived that the court was being 244. The Secretary of the Treasury and the used to attain an illegal result, there would Treasurer of the United States did make such be power to reverse the decree and remand objection. The overruling of it in the courts the cause, with instructions to dismiss the bill. below was error. The judgment must be re- But in the present case such a course is not versed, and the cause remanded, with direc- necessary. The appellees have asked, not for tions to dismiss the bill as to them.

*185

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

an affirmance, but for a dismissal, of the ap [3] The fact that the administratrix did peal of the administratrix. A dismissal for not persist in her appeal should not result in want of prosecution will remit the case to affirmance of the judgment as to her. In the lower court in the same condition as beMontalet v. Murray, 3 Cranch, 249, 2 L. Ed. fore the appeal was taken; and the lower 429, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall "stated the court will then be free to take appropriate practice of the court to be that, where there action to prevent itself from being used as an is no appearance for the plaintiff in error, instrument in illegality. United States v. the defendant may have the plaintiff called, Pacheco, 20 How. 261, 15 L. Ed. 390; Unitand *dismiss the writ of error, or may open ed States v. Gomez, 23 How. 326, 339 340, the record, and pray for an affirmance." | 16 L. Ed. 552. This practice is still in force under rules 9 Decree reversed as to appellants Houston and 16 of this court (32 Sup. Ct. vii, ix). and Burke, and cause remanded, with direcTodd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521, 10 L. Ed. 1054; tions to dismiss the bill as to them. Hurley v. Jones, 97 U. S. 318, 24 L. Ed. 1008; Appeal of Newman, administratrix, dismissThe S. S. Osborne, 105 U. S. 447, 450, 451, 26 ed for want of prosecution, and case reL. Ed. 1065. It is applicable to one of sever- manded for further proceedings in conformi. al joint appellants who fails to perfect his I ty with this opinion.

*186

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1919

[ocr errors]

(252 U. S. 588)

for the Western District of Oklahoma. Messrs. No. 237. The GLOBE WORKS, appellant, S. P. Freeling and John B. Harrison, both of v. The UNITED STATES. March 11, 1920. Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant. Dismissed Appeal from the Court of Claims. For opinion with costs, on motion of counsel for the apbelow, see 53 Ct. Cl. 532. Mr. John S. Blair, pellant. of Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis, for the United

(251 U. S. 547) States. Dismissed, pursuant to the sixteenth No. KOSTA KISIN, petitioner, v. rule (32 Sup. Ct. ix), on motion of Mr. Assistant The STATE OF CALIFORNIA. March 1, Attorney General Davis for the appellee.

1920. On petition for a writ of certiorari to

the Superior Court of the State of California in (252 U. S. 589)

and for the County of Contra Costa. No. 267. E. B. HOWARD, State Auditor PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to of the State of Oklahoma, appellant, v. H. v. proceed in forma pauperis in this case and that FOSTER et al., etc. March 19, 1920. Appeal the clerk of this court be directed to file the from the District Court of the United States petition for a writ of certiorari herein is denied.

v.

(40 Sup.Ct.) (25: U, S. 646)

(253 U. S. 484) No. original. Ex parte; In the matter No. 786. E. A. KING (and those who wish of the UNITED STATES, petitioner. March also to intervene for their benefit), petitioner, 1, 1920. Motion for leave to file petition for v. Robert H. BARR et al. April 26, 1920. writs of mandamus and prohibition denied. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 56. Mr. Wil

liam C. Bristol, of Portland, Or. (Mr. Levi

Cooke, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for (253 U. S. 473)

petitioner. Messrs. C. E. S. Wood, of Portland, No. -, original. Ex parte In the matter of Or., Eugene A. Cox, of Lewiston, Idaho, and James J. O'BRIEN, petitioner. April 26, 1920. Wood, Montague & Matthiessen, of Portland, Motion for leave to file petition for writ of Or., for respondents. Petition for writ of cer. mandamus or prohibition denied.

tiorari to the United States Circuit Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. No. — Alice HOLBERT and John H. Holbert, plaintiffs in error, v. Ed R. PATRICK

(253 U. S. 485) and Mrs. T. C. Galbraith. April 26, 1920. No. 797. CUYAMEL FRUIT COMPANY,

Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis petitioner, v. JOHNSON IRON WORKS, Limdenied.

ited. April 26, 1920. For opinion below, see

262 Fed. 387. Messrs. Walter S. Penfield, of (253 U. S. 473)

Washington, D. C., and Solomon Wolff, of New No. 493. CITY TRUST COMPANY, plain- Orleans, La., for petitioner. Messrs. Joseph W. tiff in error,

BANKERS MORTGAGE Montgomery and Hall, Monroe & Lemann, all LOAN COMPANY. April 26, 1920. In error of New Orleans, La., for respondent. Petition to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. for a writ of certiorari to the United States See, also, 102 Neb. 532, 167 N. W. 785. Mr. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Sylvester R. Rush, of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff denied. in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju

(253 U. S. 485)

No. 798. GERHARDT WESSELS, petition. risdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, er, vi The UNITED STATES of America. 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of Sep: April 26, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 tember 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. Fed. 389. Mr. R. H. Ward, of Wichita Falls, St. § 1214).

Tex., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart,

Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely, (253 U, S. 484)

of Washington, D. C., for the United States. No. 615. David G. WINE,' petitioner, v. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United The UNITED STATES of America. April 26, States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth 1920. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 911. Circuit denied. Messrs. C. C. Flansburg and T. J. Doyle, both of Lincoln, Neb., for petitioner. Mr. T. S.

(253 U. S. 485) Allen, of Lincoln, Neb., for the United States.

No. 800. DUNKLEY COMPANY and Mich:Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United gan Canning & Machinery Company, petitioners, States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth : PASADENA CANNING COMPANY and Circuit denied.

George E. Grier. April 26, 1920. For opinion

below, see 261 Fed. 386. Messrs. Fred L. Chap(253 U. S. 484)

pell, of Kalamazoo, Mich., and Drury W. CoopNo. 767. The STATE OF LOUISIANA, pe- er, of New York City, for petitioners. Messrs. titioner, v. WILLIAM T. JOYCE COMPANY Kemper B. Campbell, Francis J. Heney, Fredet al. April 26, 1920. For opinion below, see

erick S. Lyon, and William J. Carr, all of 261 Fed. 128. Mr. Mathew J. Allen, Dist. Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents. Petition for Atty., of Amite, La. (Messrs. Wm. Winans a writ of certiorari to the United States CirWall, of New Orleans, La., and Bolivar E. cuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kemp, of Amite, La., of counsel), for the State denied. of Louisiana. Messrs. Robert R. Reid, of Amite, La., and Henry Fitts, of Chicago, Ill.

(253 U. S. 478) (Messrs. Barthell, Fitts & Rundall, of Chicago,

No. 802. The NEW YORK CENTRAL & Ill., and R. C. & S. Reid, of Amite, La., oť HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, counsel), for respondents. Petition for a writ plaintiff in error, v. YORK & WHITNEY COMof certiorari to the United States Circuit Court PANY. April 26, 1920. Petition for a writ of of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

certiorari to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts granted.

(253 U. S. 484)
No. 782. Herman BLOCH, petitioner, v.

(253 U. S. 478) The UNITED STATES of America. April 26,

No. 803. YORK & WHITNEY COMPANY, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 321. plaintiff in error, v. The NEW YORK CENMessrs. C. B. Hudspeth, Geo. E. Wallace, and TRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD

Petition for a A. J. Harper, all of El Paso, Tex., and St. COMPANY. April 26, 1920. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, La., for plain writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of the tiff in error. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. State of Massachusetts granted. Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petition for

(253 U. S. 479) a writ of certiorari to the United States Cir- No. 805. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, cuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit de petitioner, v. R. P. ANDREWS PAPER COMbied.

PANY. April 26, 1920. For opinion below, 40 SUP.CT.-31

see 263 Fed. 1017. Petition for a writ of cer

(253 U. S. 483) tiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District Nos. 819 to 830. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILof Columbia granted.

ROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. ROYAL IN-
DEMNITY COMPANY and others. April 26,

1920. For opinion below, see 109 Atl. 745. (253 U. S. 479)

Messrs. Lindley M. Garrison, Edgar H. Boles, No. 806. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and Richard W. Barrett, all of New York City, petitioner, v. SAKS & COMPANY. __April 26, and Geo. S. Hobart, of Jersey City, N. J., for 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 1020. petitioner. Petition for writs of certiorari to Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. of New Jersey denied.

(253 U. S. 479)

(253 U. S. 479) No. 807. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

No. 831. Archie J. McLAREN, administrapetitioner, v. Abraham LISNER. April 26, tor, etc., petitioner, v. L. G. FLEISCHER. 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 1020. April 26, 1920. For opinion below, see 185 Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court Pac. 967. Petition for a writ of certiorari to of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. the Supreme Court of the State of California

granted.

(253 U. S. 485)

(253 U. S. 480) No. 812. Herman THEDEN and Anna The

No. 832. Robert L. CULPEPPER, petitionden, petitioners, v. The UNION PACIFIC er, v. James M. OCHELTREE. April 26, 1920. RAILROAD COMPANY. April 26, 1920. For For opinion below, see 185 Pac. 971. Petition opinions below, see 106 Kan. 40, 186 Pac. 752; for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court 104 Kan. 289, 178 Pac. 441. Messrs. L. w. of the State of California granted. Keplinger, of Kansas City, Kan. (C. W. Trickett, of Kansas City, Kan., of counsel), for pe

(253 U. S. 480) titioners. Messrs. N. H. Loomis, of Omaha, No. 833. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH Neb., and R. W. Blair and T. M. Lillard, both COMPANY, petitioner, v. S. B. POSTON. of Topeka, Kan., for respondent. Petition for April 26, 1920. Petition for a writ of certioa writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of rari to the Supreme Court of the State of South the State of Kansas denied.

Carolina granted.

(253 U. S. 480) (253 U. S. 485)

No. 842. PHILADELPHIA & READING No. 816. Albert F. HOUGHTON et al., peti- RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Maria tioners, v. Eugene F. ENSLEN et al. April 26, Domenica DI DONATO. April 26, 1920. For 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 113. opinion below, see 109 Atl. 627. Petition for a Messrs. 2. T. Rudulph and James A. Mitchell, writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of both of Birmingham, Ala., for petitioners. Pe- the State of Pennsylvania granted. tition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth

(253 U. S. 486) Circuit denied.

No. 843. PHILADELPHIA & READING

RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Annie (253 U. S. 479)

REYNOLDS. April 26, 1920. For opinion beNo. 817. Anna LANG, as administratrix, low, see 109 Atl. 660. Mr. George Gowen Paretc., petitioner, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL ry, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Mr. RAILROAD COMPANY. April 26, 1920. For Francis M. McAdams, of Philadelphia, Pa., for opinion below, see 227 N. Y. 507, 125 N. E. respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari 081, which reversed 187 App. Div. 967, 175 to the Supreme Court of the State of PennN. Y. Supp. 308, which affirmed 104 Misc. Rep. sylvania denied. 634, 172 N. Y. Supp. 196. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State

(253 U, S. 480) of New York granted.

No. 844. PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Marie E. POLK. April 26, 1920. For opinion below.

see 109 Atl. 627. Petition for a writ of cer(253 U. S. 482)

tiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of No. 818. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD

Pennsylvania granted.
COMPANY, petitioner, v. Frederick W. HOW-
ELL et al., as firm of B. H. Howell, Son &
Company, et al. April 26, 1920. For opinion

(253 U. S. 499) below, see 109 Atl. 309. Messrs. Lindley M.

No. 846. INTER-URBAN RAILWAY COMGarrison, Edgar H. Boles, and Richard W. Bar- PANY and London Guarantee & Accident Com. rett, all of New York City, and Geo. S. Ho- pany, petitioners, v. Mrs. Fred SMITH. April bart, of Jersey City, N. J., for petitioner. 26, 1920. On petition for writ of certiorari to Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Skinner, of Newark, the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. See, N. J., and Butler, Wyckoff & Campbell, of New also, 171 N. W. 134. Dismissed on motion of York City (Messrs. Alfred F. Skinner, of New counsel for the petitioners. ark, N. J., and Frederick B. Campbell, Paul C. Whipp, and Thomas R. Rutler, all of New York

(253 U. S. 485) City, of counsel), for respondents. Petition No. 852. FREEMAN-SWEET COMPANY, for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Errors petitioner, v. LUMINOUS UNIT COMPANY. and Appeals of the State of New Jersey denied. April 26, 1920. For opinion below, see 264

er,

v.

(40 Sup.Ct.) Fed. 107. Mr. Paul Bakewell, of St. Louis, States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Mo., for petitioner. Messrs. Dodson & Roe, Circuit denied. of Chicago, Ill. (Harry Lea Dodson, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for

(253 U. S. 481) a writ of certiorari to the United States Cir

No. 847. MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILcuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- ROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. MARK OWcuit denied.

EN & COMPANY. May 3, 1920. For opinion

below, see 291 III. 149, 125 N. E. 767. Petition (253 U. S. 486)

for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court No. 856. D. W. RYAN TOWBOAT COMPA- of the State of Illinois granted. NY (Inc.), petitioner, v. Carrie S. DRAPER et al. April 26, 1920. For opinion below, see

(253 U. S. 487) 263 Fed. 31. Mr. John Charles Harris, of

No. 853. C. T. DOREMUS, petitioner, v. The Galveston, Tex., for petitioner. Petition for UNITED STATES of America. May 3, 1920. a writ of certiorari to the United States Cir: For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 849. Messrs. cuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit C. A. Davies, of San Antonio, Tex., R. L. denied.

Neal, of Waco, Tex., and Ed. Haltom, of San

Antonio, Tex., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. (253 U. S. 486) No. 857. BOWERS SOUTHERN DREDG- Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. C. Herron,

of Washington, D. C., for the United States. ING COMPANY, petitioner, v. Carrie S. DRAPER et al. April 26, 1920. For opinion States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United below, see 263 Fed. 31. Messrs. John Neethe

Circuit denied. and J. W. Terry, both of Galveston, Tex., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari

(253 U. S. 487) to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals

No. 875. Grace McMillan GIBSON, petitionfor the Fifth Circuit denied.

Ethel M. GERNAT. May 3, 1920.

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, John Spalding (253 U. S. 499)

Flannery, and G. Bowdoin Craighill, all of No. 625. Lillian B. PEMBLETON, petition- Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Messrs. er, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCIAL MEN'S AS- Thomas P. Littlepage and Sidney F. TaliaferSOCIATION. April 29, 1920. On writ of cer- ro, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent. tiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Illinois. For opinion below, see 289 m. 99, Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. 124 N. E. 355. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the petitioner.

No. 1. The UNITED STATES of America,

appellant, v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD (253 U. S. 486)

COMPANY. May 17, 1920. See, also, 38 Sup. No. 781. Thomas D. THOMAS, petitioner, v. Ct. 580. The Attorney General, for the United SOUTH BUTTE MINING COMPANY. May States. Messrs. John G. Johnson, of Oneonta, 3, 1920. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 814. N. Y., Edgar H. Boles, of New York City, Messrs. Charles A. Beardsley and Fry & Wood, Everett Warren, of Scranton, Pa., John Hampall of Oakland, Cal., for petitioner. Mr. John ton Barnes, of Philadelphia, Pa., Allan McCulA. Shelton, of Butte, Mont., for respondent. loh and Elihu Root, Jr., both of New York Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United City, Frank W. Wheaton, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Nicholas W. Hacker, of New York City, Circuit denied.

for respondent. Ordered that this case be re

stored to the docket for oral argument. (253 U. S. 481)

No. 789. WEBER ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, v. E. H. FREEMAN ELECTRIC No. 34. Franklin K. LANE, Secretary of the COMPANY. May 3, 1920. For opinion below, Interior, et al., appellants, v. CENTRAL PAsee 262 Fed. 769. Petition for a writ of cer- CIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. May 17, 1920. tiorari to the United States Circuit Court of For opinion below, see 46 App. D. C. 374, Ann. Appeals for the Third Circuit granted.

Cas. 1918C, 1002. Messrs. Charles D. Ma

haffie and C. Edward Wright, both of Wash(253 U. S. 481)

ington, D. C., for appellants. Messrs. A. A. No. 841. The UNITED STATES of Ameri- Hoebling, Jr., and C. F. R. Ogilby, both of ca, petitioner, v. ÆTNA EXPLOSIVES COM- Washington, D. C., for respondent. Leave PANY. May 3, 1920. Petition for a writ of granted to substitute as one of the appellants certiorari to the United States Court of Cus- John Barton Payne, present Secretary of the toms Appeals granted.

Interior, in the place of Franklin K. Lane, former Secretary thereof, on motion of Mr. So

licitor General King for the appellants. (253 U. S. 487)

No. 845. Ephraim LEDERER, collector of internal revenue, petitioner, v. NORTHERN No. 35. The NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILTRUST COMPANY and Henry R. Zesinger, WAY COMPANY, appellant, v. Franklin K. executors, etc. May 3, 1920. For opinion be- LANE, Secretary of the Interior. May 17, low, see 262 Fed. 52. Mr. Alex C. King, 1920. For opinion below, see 46 App. D. c. Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and William L. Frier- | 434. Messrs. Alex. Britton and F. W. Clements, son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner. Messrs. both of Washington, D. C., and Charles DonWm. Henry Snyder and Wm. M. Stewart, Jr., nelly, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellant. Leave both of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents. Pe- granted to substitute as party appellee John tition for a writ of certiorari to the United Barton Payne, present Secretary of the In

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »