No. 1085. MIDDLETON S. BORLAND, Trustee, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. April 27, 1925. For opinion below, see In re Gubelman, 6 F. (2d) 1020. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals granted; and cause advanced and assigned for argument with cases Nos. 786 and 787 heretofore assigned for Monday, May 4 next. The case to be submitted on printed briefs on that date, with the alternative to counsel to present this case on oral argument on Monday, November 2 next, after the cases heretofore assigned for that day. No. 404. LOUISIANA RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Mrs. Alice S. DUPUIS. May 4, 1925. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. For opinion below, see 155 La. 953, 99 So. 709. Mr. E. H. Randolph, of Shreveport, La., for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju risdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 1214); Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6, 40 S. Ct. 255, 64 L. Ed. 421. No. 800. The CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. A. N. MURPHY et al., Partners, etc. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 104 Okl. 34, 229 P. 210. Messrs. M. L. Bell and W. F. Dickinson, both of Chicago, Ill., W. R. Bleakmore and A. T. Boys, both of El Reno, Okl., and Thomas P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. 10 No. 881. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY et al. v. CENTRAL UNION TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK U. S. 588, 44 S. Ct. 402, 68 L. Ed. 863. Messrs. et al. May 4, 1925. See, also, 294 F. 32; 264 Edward J. White, of St. Louis, Mo., N. H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb., and Bruce Scott, of Chicago, Ill., Gardiner Lathrop, of Chicago, Ill., and Samuel W. Sawyer, of Kansas City, Mo., for Kansas City Terminal Railway. Motion to bring up the whole record and cause herein denied. (268 U. S. 708) No. 888. Patrick J. O'SHAUGHNESSY et error, V. The UNITED al., plaintiffs in STATES of America. May 4, 1925. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama. See, also, 267 U. S. 610, 45 S. Ct. 353, 69 L. Ed. Mr. Harry H. Smith, of Mobile, Ala., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Writ of error dismissed as to plaintiff in error John McEvoy, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Beck in behalf of counsel for the plaintiffs in error. (268 U. S. 694) (45 S. Ct.) 7 (268 U. S. 695) No. 1015. Morris ORSATTI, petitioner, v. No. 1058. NEW YORK DOCK COMPANY, The UNITED STATES of America. May petitioner, v. Steamship CAPITAINE FAURE, 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 3 F. (2d) 778. etc., et al. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, Mr. Marshall B. Woodworth, of San Francisco, see 7 F. (2d) 133. Messrs. Joseph S. AuerCal., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of bach, of New York City (Charles H. Tuttle and certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Alexander J. Feild, both of New York City, of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (Roscoe H. Hupper and William J. Dean, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. (268 U. S. 694) 2 No. 1023. Clarence T. PARKER, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 3 F.(2d) 903. Messrs. Earl W. Wood, of Rock Island, Ill., and Leland G. McArthur, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. James Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and Ira Lloyd Letts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. No. 1040. LYNN STORAGE WAREHOUSE COMPANY, petitioner, v. Mordka SENATOR. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 3 F. (2d) 558. Messrs. Benjamin N. Johnson, Hugh W. Ogden, and Edwin H. Abbot, Jr., all of Boston, Mass., and Hiram E. Miller, of Lynn, Mass., for petitioner. Messrs. Lee M. Friedman, Paul D. Turner, and Friedman, Atherton, King & Turner, all of Boston, Mass., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. No. 1047. KELLY-SPRINGFIELD COMPANY, petitioner, v. L. A. BOBO et al. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 4 F. (2d) 71. Messrs. John W. Preston and Robert Duncan, both of San Francisco, for petitioner. Messrs. Olen L. Everts, G. L. Aynesworth, and L. N. Barber, all of Fresno, Cal., for respond-granted. ents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. No. 1048. BLANCHARD LUMBER COMPANY, petitioner, v. Jesse H. METCALF. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 3 F. (2d) 768. Mr. Fred. T. Field, of Boston, Mass. (Robert E. Goodwin and Robert R. Duncan, both of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for petitioner. Mr. Foye M. Murphy, of Boston, Mass., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. 45 S.CT.-33 37. May 4, 1925. For opinion below, see 6 F. (2d) | Adam C. Carson, of New York City, for peti784. Messrs. Allan McCulloh and Clifton P. tioner. Dismissed, pursuant to section 4, rule Williamson, both of New York City, for petitioner. Messrs. John C. Robinson, of New York City (Morris A. Wainger, 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. No. 449. Walter Ray SIMMONS, petitioner, v. William R. FENTON, Warden, etc.; and No. 450. Walter Ray SIMMONS, petitioner, v. The STATE OF NEBRASKA. May 11, 1925. For opinion below, see 111 Neb. 644, 197 N. W. 398. Mr. E. P. Holmes, of Lincoln, Neb., for petitioner. Mr. Thos. P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for respondent Fenton. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska denied; and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis No. 783. James C. DAVIS, Agent, etc., plaintiff in error, v. DEXTER & CARPENTER, Inc., etc. May 11, 1925. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. For opinion below, see 2 F. (2d) 59. See, also, 264 U. S. 575, 44 S. Ct. 452, 68 L. Ed. 857. Mr. Duncan Brent, of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Otto A. Schlobohm, of Washington, D. C., and William B. Symmes, Jr., of New York City, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of Davis, Agent, v. Newton Coal Co.; and United States v. Archibald McNeil & Sons, 267 U. S. 302, 45 S. Ct. 258, 69 L. Ed. 620. No. 885. James C. DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, etc., petitioner, v. Frank GRIFFITH and L. D. Alexander. May 11, 1925. For opinion below, see 230 P. 262. Messrs. M. L. Bell, of Chicago, Ill., Thos. P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., W. F. Dickinson, of Chicago, Ill., and W. R. Bleakmore and A. T. Boys, both of El Reno, Okl., for petitioner. Mr. Fred E. Suits, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. 6 (268 U. S. 708) No. 970. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY et al., petitioners, v. K. KISHI et al. May 11, 1925. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. For opinion below, see 298 F. 218. Mr. R. L. Batts, of Austin, Tex., for petitioners. Dismissed pursuant to section 4, rule 37. No. 986. William PARMENTER, petitioner, No. 989. James QUICK, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. May 11, 1925. For opinion below, see 2 F. (2d) 945. Mr. W. F. Connolly, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioners Parmenter, Baker and Corrigan. Messrs. W. F. Connolly and Wm. Henry Gallagher, both of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner Quick. The Attorney General, for the United States. Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. (45 S.Ct.) petitioners. Mr. George B. Gordon, of Pitts- | bell, Jr., of New York City, for Kellogg Strucburga, Pa., for respondents. Petition for a writ tural Steel Company. Messrs. King & Vogt, of of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court Morristown, N. J., for respondent Wharton & of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. N. R. Co. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. (268 U. S. 697) No. 1071. JOHN T. PORTER COMPANY et al., petitioners, v. JAVA COCOANUT OIL COMPANY, Limited. May 11, 1925. For opinion below, see 4 F. (2d) 476. Mr. Warren Olney, Jr., of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners. Messrs. Alfred Sutro, F. D. Madison, H. D. Pillsbury, and Oscar Sutro, all of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (268 U. S. 698) 6 9 No. 1165. Frank WHITE, as Treasurer of the United States, et al.. appellants, v. The MECHANICS SECURITIES CORPORATION; No. 1167. Frank WHITE, Treasurer of the United States, et al., appellants, v. SECURITIES CORPORATION GENERAL; No. 1169. Frank WHITE, Treasurer of the United States, et al., appellants, v. Middleton S. BORLAND, Trustee; No. 1171. Thomas W. MILLER, as Alien Property Custodian, et al., appellants, 'v. C. I. STRALEM et al.; No. 1173. Thomas Woodnutt MILLER, Alien Property Custodian, et al., appellants, v. The EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; No. 1187. Frank WHITE, Treasurer of the United States, et al., appellants, v. August HECKSHER. May 11, 1925. See, also, 4 F. No. 1131. Henry MANDEL et al., petition- (2d) 619, 624. Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of ers, v. The UNITED STATES of America to Washington, D. C., for appellants. Retirement the Use of WHARTON & NORTHERN RAIL- of Thomas W. Miller as Alien Property CusROAD COMPANY. May 11, 1925. For opin- todian suggested; and Frederick C. Hicks, presion below, see 4 F. (2d) 629. Messrs. Mc-ent Alien Property Custodian, ordered substiDermott, Enright & Carpenter, of Jersey City, tuted as a party appellant herein, on motion of N. J., for petitioners. Mr. Charles Camp- Mr. Solicitor General Beck for the appellants. (268 U. S. 366) (Submitted April 21, 1925. Decided May 25, No. 329. Carriers 177(4)-Railroad held liable as delivering carrier for loss of portion of shipment while car was in hands of switching carrier. Railroad, designated in through bill of lading as the last of the connecting carriers, held liable, as delivering carrier, for loss of a portion of the goods sustained while car was in possession of switching carrier employed by last connecting carrier to switch car from point on its line within city designated in bill of lading, as point of destination, to consignee's warehouse within such city, since such switching carrier was not named in bill of lading, did not receive any part of joint through rate, and was simply agent of other carrier for purpose of delivery. plaintiff; and the judgment entered on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. 161 Ark. 579, 257 S. W. 70. This court granted a writ of certiorari, 265 U. S. 577, 44 S. Ct. 636, 68 L. Ed. 1188. *369 The Joint through rate covered delivery at the warehouse of the consignee. The bill of lading named Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company as the initial carrier and the route designated therein named the Missouri Pacific as the last of the connecting carriers. Its lines enter Fort Smith but do not extend to the consignee's warehouse. It employed the *St. Louis-San Francisco to perform the necessary switching service. And it paid therefor $6.30, the charge fixed by the tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The switching carrier was not named in the bill of lading and did not receive any part of the joint through rate. It was simply the agent of the Missouri Pacific for the purpose of delivery. The Missouri Pacific was the delivering Affirmed. On Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ar- carrier and is liable as such. kansas. Action by the Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas (161 Ark. 579, 257 S. W. 70), and defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed. Messrs. Thomas B. Pryor and Vincent M. Miles, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for petitioner. *368 *Messrs. Joseph M. Hill, John P. Woods, and Harry P. Daily, all of Fort Smith, Ark., for respondent. Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. (268 U. S. 390) UNITED STATES ex rel. RUTZ v. LEVY, (Submitted on Motion to Dismiss or Affirm Nos. 935-938. 1. Criminal law 242 (9)-Discharge of accused in proceeding before commissioner for removal to other district for trial did not bar subsequent similar proceeding before District Court. Discharge of accused for want of probable removal to other federal district for trial uncause in proceeding before commissioner for der Rev. St. § 1014 (Comp. St. § 1674), did not bar subsequent similar proceeding before District Court; such proceeding not constituting This action was brought in a state court of Arkansas by Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company against the Missouri Pacific Railroad to recover for the loss of part of a carload of sugar shipped from Raceland, La., to Fort Smith, Ark., on a through bill of lading. The loss occurred within the city of Fort Smith while the car was in the possession a trial within rule as to jeopardy. of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad. This carrier had been employed by the Missouri Pacific to switch the car from a point on its lines within the city to the consignee's warehouse, which lay within the city on the lines of the switching carrier. The Missouri Pacific, relying upon Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. McGinn, 258 U. S. 409, 42 S. Ct. 332, 66 L. Ed. 689, requested the trial court to rule that, as the bill of lading provided that no connecting carrier should be liable for any damage which did not occur on its own lines, and delivery at the consignee's warehouse was part of an interstate shipment, the defendant was not liable, because it was neither the initial nor the delivering carrier. The court refused to rule as requested; the jury found for the 2. Criminal law 242 (9)-Decision of commissioner favorable to accused in removal proceedings persuasive, but not controlling on subsequent application. Decision of United States commissioner favorable to accused in proceeding for removal to other district for trial under Rev. St. § 1014 (Comp. St. § 1674), is persuasive and may be sufficient to justify like action upon a second application, but is not controlling. Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Habeas corpus proceedings by the United States, on the relation of F. C. Rutz, of R. R. Fauntleroy, of J. R. Steneck, and of Harry C. Wanner, against Robert R. Levy, United |