« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
end might be accomplished. The commission | United States intervened. On first report of was directed to act, if it had reason to be- receiver. Order entered instructing receiver. lieve that an "unfair method of competition See, also, 40 Sup. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. —; in commerce has been or is being used." The 40 Sup. Ct. 394, 64 L. Ed. -; 40 Sup. Ct. purpose of Congress was to prevent any un- 580, 64 L. Ed. -; 40 Sup. Ct. 582, 64 L. fair method which may have been used by any concern in competition from becoming its general practice. It was only by stopping its
Order Instructing Receiver.
use before it became a general prac*tice, that PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of the the apprehended effect of an unfair method in first report of Frederic A. Delano, receiver, in suppressing competition by destroying rivals the above-entitled cause, and of the supplecould be averted. As the Circuit Court of Ap- mental report of June 3, 1920, and the varipeals found that the evidence was sufficient ous suggestions of the United States, interto support the facts set forth above, and vener, and of the state of Texas, and of the since on those facts the commission could several motions, applications, exceptions, and reasonably hold that the method of competi- suggestions heretofore filed by parties claimtion in question was unfair under the circum-ing an interest in the subject-matter of this stances, it had power under the act to issue suit, it is this 7th day of June, A. D. 1920, the order complained of.
In my opinion the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be reversed.
adjudged and ordered that the action of said receiver in taking possession of and operating under his own management and control the property described in the order of this court of April 1, 1920, until the further order of this court, including the oil and gas wells and
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEX-plants, toll bridges, water plants, tank wagAS (UNITED STATES, Intervener).
(Decided June 7, 1920.)
Original suit by the State of Oklahoma against the State of Texas, in which the United States intervened. On motions by the Judsonia Developing Association and others for leave to file petitions in intervention. Motions granted.
See, also, 40 Sup. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. —; 40 Sup. Ct. 394, 64 L. Ed.'- -; 253 U. S. 465, 40 Sup. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. -; 40 Sup. Ct. 582, 64 L. Ed.
ons, pipe lines, storage tanks, and other property located thereon and therein; the arrangements made by said receiver for guarding and policing said property; the office and
field organization created by *him for the operation and development of the property and the resources thereof, and for collecting, conserving, and investing the proceeds of the sale of all oil, gas, gasoline, and other products taken therefrom since April 1, 1920, be, and they are hereby, ratified and approved.
2. So much of the land described in the order of this court of April 1, 1920, in range 14 west, as lies between the south edge of the present sand bed of the Red river (marked generally by the border line of vegetation
PER CURIAM. *The motions of the Jud-along the edge of the flood plain) and the foot sonia Developing Association, Burk Divide Oil Company No. 2 and others, Burk Divide Oil Company No. 3 and others, and Mellish Consolidated Placer Oil Company, for leave
of the Texas bluff, as was on the 1st day of April, 1920, in the possession of persons claiming under patents from the state of Texas, and is not included in the river-bed lands, as hereinafter defined, shall be returnto file petitions in intervention herein, are ed by the receiver to the several operators or hereby granted; and similar leave is grant- claimants in possession on April 1, 1920, or ed to any and all other parties claiming any their assigns, together with all wells, tanks, title to or interest in the lands in the pos-pipe lines, structures, equipment, and materisession of the receiver herein by virtue of the orders of April 1, 1920, and June 7, 1920.
(253 U. S. 465)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEX-
Original suit by the State of Oklahoma against the State of Texas, in which the
al, upon condition that such operator, claimant, or assigns account for, pay over to, and impound with the receiver, if not already done, three-sixteenths of the gross proceeds of all oil taken from the respective lands on and since April 1, 1920, and the royalty on commercial gas customary in the Burk-Burnett and Northwest Extension oil fields, and royalty on casing-head gas in accordance with the regulations and schedule of prices promulgated for Indian lands by the Secretary of the Interior August 10, 1917, the proceeds thereof to be either paid in cash, or the pay
eral or office supervision; (2) to refund to those operators or drillers who have drilled and brought into production new wells in said area since April 1, 1920, a fair percentage of the entire actual cost of such work, including a reasonable allowance for
ment thereof within 90 days to be secured [ vision, but excluding any allowance for genby good and sufficient surety to be approved by the receiver, and upon the further condition that said operator or claimant shall enter into an agreement in writing with the receiver, by the terms of which the operator shall develop and operate said properties in a workmanlike and businesslike manner, sub-field supervision, but excluding any allowject to the supervision of the receiver and to the orders of this court, and shall impound with the receiver three-sixteenths of the gross amount of the proceeds from the sale of
ance for general or office supervision; (3) to pay the just claims of mechanics and materialmen for work done and materials furnished on wells in said area brought in since April 1, 1920, and the claims of persons, associations, and corporations for advance
tions upon such wells, provided satisfactory
evidence of the existence of all of such claims be furnished.
5. Said receiver is further authorized and
oil thereafter produced, and the royalty on gas and casing-head gas as hereinbefore spec-ments made in good faith for drilling operaified. This agreement to contain such further stipulations as the receiver may deem proper for regulating the production of gas and oil and to prevent waste or the entrance of water to the oil sands or oil-bearing strata to the destruction or injury of the oil deposits or the damage of wells in the possession of the receiver; and, provided further, that the receiver, in his discretion, may agree with any operator or claimant to operate for his benefit and at his expense the lands in said "Big Bend" area. Until the several operators or claimants comply with the foregoing conditions, the receiver shall retain possession of the respective properties and shall operate the same in accordance with the order of this court of April 1, 1920, as modified by this order.
directed to release and surrender to the law-
In the event of failure or refusal of any operator to operate the property as directed by the receiver, or if any operator shall vio-evidence satisfactory to the receiver to have late his agreement with the receiver, the receiver is authorized to take possession of and operate such property, impound three-sixteenths of the proceeds as provided by this order, and pay out of said proceeds the expenses of operation, keeping a separate account of the expense of production of each well as nearly as practicable.
3. The river-bed lands, for the purposes of this order, shall comprise all lands not hereinbefore excepted, being more specifically that part covered by the receivership of all the broad and approximately flat sandy stretch which extends from the foot of the bluff or the edge of the flood plain, as the case may be, on the south side of the river, to the midchannel of the river as defined in said or
der of April 1, 1920, and as it then existed including everything within the bounds just
been produced by operations outside of the receivership area, but which were mingled and stored with similar products produced within said area on and subsequent to April 1, 1920.
6. Said receiver is further authorized and directed (1) to arrange for the sale and dis
position of all oil, gas, gasoline, water, and other products of said property; (2) to take toll bridges within the receivership area, and possession and license the operation of all thereon; (3) to sell at the best price obtain to regulate and limit the tolls chargeable able, properly credit and account for, such derricks, tanks, pipe lines, tools, appliances and materials not claimed by the owners thereof and not required for the receiver's operations; (4) to purchase at the best price obtainable such tanks, machinery, appliances, tools, motor cars, and equipment, as may be development of the property in his charge; necessary for the operation, protection, and (5) to retain and employ whatever technical production of any well in the river-bed *area or other assistants he may require or may paid to him since April 1, 1920: (1) To pay deem necessary to satisfactorily operate, deto the operator or operators of any such well velop and protect the property in his charge, the actual cost of operating the same since fix the terms of employment and the rate of April 1, 1920, inclusive, including in such compensation; (6) to make such banking arcost a reasonable allowance for field super-rangements as he may deem necessary to
4. It is further ordered that said receiver be and he is hereby authorized and directed, out of the gross proceeds derived from the #468
(253 U. S. 490)
No. 863. Samuel L. SNEIERSON, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 264 Fed. 268. Messrs. Wm. Shaw McCallum, David Stoneman, and Wm. H. Garland, all of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Franklin G. Wixson, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit denied.
(253 U. S. 491)
No. 907. Arnold Jacob UHL, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 79. Mr. William Augustus Denson, of Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Pe
(253 U. S. 492)
No. 880. F. H. ORCUTT & SON COM-tition for a writ of certiorari to the United PANY et al., petitioners, V. NATIONAL States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth TRUST & CREDIT COMPANY. June 1, Circuit denied. 1920. For opinion below, see 265 Fed. 267. Messrs. Harrison Musgrave and William S. Oppenheim, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Messrs. James W. Hyde, John W. Creekmur, and Donald J. De Wolfe, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
(253 U. S. 491)
No. 885. The CHESAPEAKE STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, owner, etc., et al., petitioners, v. Frank HAND, master, etc. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 266 Fed. 641. Messrs. Hughes, Vandeventer & Eggleston, of Norfolk, Va. (Mr. Floyd Hughes, of Norfolk, Va., of counsel), for petitioners. Messrs. Hughes, Little & Sewaell, of Norfolk, Va. (Mr. R. M. Hughes, of Norfolk, Va., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
No. 914. CURACAO TRADING COMPANY (Curacaosche Handel Mattschappij), petitioner, v. Carl BJORGE, master and claimant, etc., et al. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 693. Messrs. J. Blanc Monroe and Monte M. Lemann, both of New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Messrs. Terriberry, Rice & Young, of New Orleans, La. (Mr. W. W. Young, of New Orleans, La., of counsel), for to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 891. Anthony PHILLIPS, petitioner, v.
1920. Motion for leave to file petition for af for complainant. writ of prohibition or mandamus granted, and a rule to show cause awarded returnable Monday, October 4 next.
No. 7, Original. The STATE OF ARKANSAS, complainant, v. The STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. June 7, 1920. See, also, 252 U. S. 344, 40 Sup. Ct. 333, 64 L. Ed. 605. Messrs. Walter P. Armstrong and J. M. Moore, of Little Rock, Ark., and Herbert Pope, of Chicago, Ill., for complainant. Messrs. Garner W. Green, of Jackson, Miss., Gerald Fitz Gerald, of Clarksdale, Miss., and Ross A. Collins, of Jackson, Miss., for respondent. Motion to stay further proceedings in this cause denied.
(253 U. S. 477)
No. 22, Original. The STATE OF GEORGIA, complainant, v. The STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. June 7, 1920. See, also, 39 Sup. Ct. 258, 64 L. Ed. -. Mr. Clifford Walker, of Monroe, Ga., for complainant. Messrs. A. M. Lumpkin, of Columbia, S. C., and Sam M. Wolfe, Atty. Gen., for respondent. Motion for the appointment of a special master to take such testimony as may be necessary and to receive in evidence such exhibits as may be offered by the parties hereto, granted, and, on the suggestion of counsel for both parties, Mr. Charles S. Douglas, of Washington, D. C., appointed as such special master and directed to report the testimony and exhibits to the court without conclusions of law or findings of fact.
(253 U. S. 478)
No. 3. The UNITED STATES of America, appellant, v. READING COMPANY et al.; and No. 4. READING COMPANY et al., appellants, v. The UNITED STATES of America. June 7, 1920. For former opinion, see 253 U. S. 26, 40 Sup. Ct. 425, 64 L. Ed. The Attorney General, for the United States. Messrs. Henry S. Drinker, Jr., Charles Heebner, Abraham M. Beitler and William Jay Turner, all of Philadelphia, Pa., and Jackson E. Reynolds, of New York City, and William Clarke Mason, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents. Motions to modify the decree in these cases denied.
No. 27, Original. The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, complainant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS. June 7, 1920. See, also, 40 Sup. Ct. 585, 64 L. Ed. Messrs. W. A. Ledbetter and H. L. Stuart, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for complainant. Ordered that this cause be set down for hearing on the 15th day of November, 1920, upon certain questions, and that the parties be permitted to take and present testimony, and Ernest Knaebel, Esq., of the District of Columbia, appointed commissioner to take said evidence and report the same to the court without findings or conclusions.
Leave granted to file in
tervening petitions on behalf of Judsonia Developing Association, the Burke Divide Oil Company Nos. 2 and 3, and Mellish Consolidated Placer Oil Mining Association; and similar leave is granted to any and all other parties claiming any title to or interest in the lands in the possession of the receiver herein by virtue of the orders of April 1, 1920, and June 7, 1920.
No. 298. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al., plaintiffs in error, v. W. H. JENKINS et al. June 7, 1920. See, also, 252 U. S. 589, 40 Sup. Ct. 393, 64 L. Ed. Messrs. Charles H. Sloan, of Geneva, Neb., and William E. Flynn, of No. Platte, Neb., for plaintiffs in error. Motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal and restore this cause to the docket denied.
No. 411. Morris ZUCKER, plaintiff in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. June
7, 1920. Mr. Louis B. Boudin, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. Motion to vacate the stay order in this cause granted.
No. 489. SILVER KING COALITION MINES COMPANY, petitioner, v. CONKLING MINING COMPANY. June 7, 1920. See, also, 250 U. S. 655, 40 Sup. Ct. 13, 63 L. Ed. 1192. Messrs. Curtis H. Lindley, of San Francisco. Cal., W. H. Dickson, A. C. Ellis, Jr., and Thomas Marioneaux, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner. Motion to vacate the order allowing a writ of certiorari in this case denied.
(253 U. S. 492)
No. 730. BOSTON WEST AFRICA TRADING COMPANY, petitioner, V. QUAKER CITY MOROCCO COMPANY. June 7, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 665. Messrs. all of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Lee M. Friedman and Friedman & Atherton, William L. Putnam, Joseph B. Jacobs, Putnam, Putnam & Bell, and Jacobs & Jacobs, all of Boston, Mass., for respondent. tion for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 734. The UNITED STATES, appellant, v. L. P. & J. A. SMITH. June 7, 1920. For remand this cause to the Court of Claims for Motion to opinion below, see 54 Ct. Cl. 119. additional findings granted.
(253 U. S. 477)
No. 810. LINCOLN GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, appellant, v. The CITY OF LINCOLN et al. June 7, 1920, Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Messrs. Charles A. Frueauff, of New York City, Max V. Beghtol, of Lincoln, Neb., and Frueauff, Robinson & Sloan of New York City (Mr. Robert Burns, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Mr. C. Petrus Peterson, of Lincoln, Neb., for appellees.
Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477, 485, 29 Sup. Ct. 186, 53 L. Ed. 290. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 287, 26 L. Ed. 735. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 239, 10 Sup. Ct. 533, 535, 33 L. Ed. 892. .115, 230, 562, 563 Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 10, 11, 12, 25 Sup. Ct. 569, 49 L. Ed. 919...
Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340, 36 Sup. Ct. 561, 60 L. Ed. 1034, Ann. Cas. 1017C, 522.. 306 Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289, 14 Sup. Ct. 829, 38 L. Ed. 719..
Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U. S. 145, 20 Sup. Ct. 585, 44 L. Ed. 701.. Brolan v. U. S., 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544....55, 56, 207, 346, 391, 395, 484, 583 Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission of Louisiana, 251 U. S. 396, 40 Sup. Ct. 183, 64 L. Ed.
Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 325, 332-334, 32 Sup. Ct. 156, 56 L. Ed. 221..
Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Co., 225 U. S. 111, 132, 32 Sup. Ct. 641, 56 L. Ed. 1009, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 875; 74 N. J. Eq. 457, 500, 71 Atl. 153
89 Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701.. ..178, 343, 346 Billings v. Sitner, 228 Fed. 315, 142 C. C. A. 607.. 349 Billings v. U. S., 232 U. S. 261, 282, 34 Sup. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 596....
Birge Forbes Co. v. Heye, 234 U. S. 759, 34 Sup. Ct. 676, 58 L. Ed. 1580; 248 Fed. 636, 160 C. C. A. 536..
Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 446, 6 L. Ed. 678 199, 202 Brown v. State, 17 Ariz. 314, 152 Pac. 578... 144 Brown v. United Button Co., 149 Fed. 48, 52, 53, 79 C. C. A. 70, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 961, 9 Ann. Cas. 455...
Bishop v. State, 149 Ind. 223, 230, 48 N. E. 1038, 1040, 39 L. R. A. 278, 63 Am. St. Rep. 270... 204 Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 471, 26 Sup. Ct. 427, 50 L. Ed. 801..
136 Black Heath, The, 195 U. S. 361, 365, 366, 367, 25 Sup. Ct. 46, 47, 49 L. Ed. 236.. .66, 440 Mlackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 205, 206, 207, 23 Sup. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439.. ..6, 7, 418 Alake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 247, 248, 19 Sup. Ct. 165, 43 L. Ed. 432; 176 U. S. 59, 67, 20 Sup. Ct. 307, 44 L. Ed. 371.. .231, 403, 404 Blake v. U. S., 103 U. S. 227, 26 L. Ed. 462..... Blood v. Morrin (C. C.) 140 Fed. 918... Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Pub. Co., 252 U. S. 436, 40 Sup. Ct. 385, 64 L. Ed.-
Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 19, 38 Sup. Ct. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123.... ...55, 218, 343, 484 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 17-19, 25, 26, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493, Ann. Cas. 1917 B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414..110, 193, 554, 556 Buell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 Wis. R. Com. 324....