Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

(45 S.Ct.)

[blocks in formation]

opinion below, see 89 Okl. 121, 214 P. 131. Mr. Randolph Shirk, of Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Geo. A. Henshaw and A. Carey Hough, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed, upon authority of Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 31 S. Ct. 265, 55 L. Ed. 297, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671, and Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corporation, 248 U. S. 372, 39 S. Ct. 117, 63 L. Ed. 309, 9 A. L. R. 1420.

[blocks in formation]

No. 606. NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, petitioner, v. HUGH D. MACKENZIE COMPANY, Limited, etc.; and

No. 607. NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, petitioner, v. HUGH D. MACKENZIE COMPANY, Limited, etc. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see The Lydia, 1 F. (2d) 18. Messrs. William J. Griffin and John M. Woolsey, both of New York City, for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]

No. 608. LYDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Claimant of THE Steamship LYDIA, etc., et al., petitioners, v. HUGH D. MACKENZIE COMPANY, Limited, etc.; and

Claimant of the Steamship Lydia, etc., et al., No. 609. LYDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, petitioners, v. HUGH D. MACKENZIE COMion below, see 1 F. (2d) 18. Mr. Alvin C. Cass, PANY, Limited, etc. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinof New York City, for petitioners. Petition for cuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit writs of certiorari to the United States Cir

denied.

[blocks in formation]

No. 84. George D. HILE, a Taxpayer, plaintiff in error, v. The CITY OF CLEVELAND. Oct. 27, 1924. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. For opinion below, see 107 Ohio, 144, 141 N. E. 35. Mr. George D. Hile, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon authority of McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 19 S. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 20 S. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 24 S. Ct. 174, 48 L. Ed. 287; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 32 S. Ct. 704, 56 L. Ed. 1205; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 34 S. Ct. $92, 58 L. Ed. 1557; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 36 S. Ct. 97, 60 L. Ed. 186.

[blocks in formation]

No. 621. James C. DAVIS, Agent, petitioner, v. NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL COMPANY. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 144 N. E. 64. Mr. Arthur Willis Blackman, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Suffolk County, State of Massachusetts, denied.

[blocks in formation]

ell, of Lake Charles, La., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

(266 U. S. 617)

No. 626. Benjamin Franklin PURNELL et al., petitioners, v. John W. HANSEL et al. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 1 F. (2d) 266. Messrs. William J. Barnard, of Paw Paw, Mich., and H. T. Dewhirst, of Benton Harbor, Mich., for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(266 U. S. 617)

2

[blocks in formation]

No. 635. George HARRISON, Trustee of the WESTERN ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Bankrupt, petitioner, v. Anna B. CHAMBERLAIN. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 298 F. 926. Messrs. Samuel A. Mitchell, of St. Louis, Mo., and Philip Kates, No. 627. The COMMONWEALTH ATLAN. of Tulsa, Okl., for petitioner. Petition for a TIC NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, peti-writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit tioner. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. 144 N. E. 443. Mr. Charles O. Pengra, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Probate Court of Middlesex County, State of Massachusetts, denied.

[blocks in formation]

8

(266 U. S. 618)

No. 637. Richard H. FIELD, petitioner, v. The KANSAS CITY REFINING COMPANY et al. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 296 F. 800. Mr. Richard H. Field, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]

No. 641. Samuel N. McCLEAN et al., petitioners, v. M. A. BRADLEY et al. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 299 F. 379. Mr. Roscoe M. Ewing, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

No. 633. CONVOY STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Limited, Owner, etc., petitioner, V. CHARLES PFIZER & COMPANY, Inc. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 300 F. 5. Messrs. Francis Rawle and Joseph W. Henderson, both of Philadelphia, Pa., and George Whitefield Betts, Jr., and George C. Sprague, (266 U. S. 598) both of New York City, for petitioner. PeNo. 642. The CHESAPEAKE & OHIO tition for writs of certiorari to the United RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. WESTStates Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third INGHOUSE, CHURCH, KERR & COMPANY, Circuit granted. Inc.; and

12

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

9

(266 U. S. 620)

No. 664. John H. HENDRIKS, petitioner, V. ATLAS LAND COMPANY. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 298 F. 589. Mr. Ed. P. Ingham, of Muscatine, Iowa, for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

10

(266 U. S. 620)

No. 666. MORSE DRY DOCK & REPAIR COMPANY, petitioner, V. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see The Princess Matoika, 1 F. (2d) 233. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

(266 U. S. 621)

No. 682. ROTTERDAMSCHE LLOYD et Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 298 F. al., petitioners, v. GOSHO COMPANY, Inc. 443. Messrs. Nathan H. Frank and Irving H. Frank, both of San Francisco, Cal. (Samuel M. Shortridge, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for petitioners. Messrs. E. J. McCutchen, Allan P. Matthew, John F. Cassell, Joseph B. McKeon, and McCutchen, Olney, Mannon & Greene, 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.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

No. 684. Albert H. QUECK, Executor, etc., petitioner, v. Elmer G. HAWKER, Group Head of the Pittsburgh Federal Prohibition Office. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 1 F.(2d) 77. Messrs. James R. Sheppard and Van A. Barrickman, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United

States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Owner of THE PHILADELPHIA.
Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]

Oct. 27,

1924. For opinion below, see 300 F. 901. Messrs. Francis Shunk Brown and Howard M. Long, both of Philadelphia, Pa., and Harrington Putnam, of New York City, for petitioner Atlantic Refining Co. Messrs. Duncan & Mount, of New York City (Warner Pyne and Dudley C. Smith, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

No. 687. George H. WINN, petitioner, v. Ambrose E. ELLIOTT et al. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 264 S. W. 391. Messrs. I. N. Watson, R. E. Watson, John B. Gage, and Henry N. Ess, all of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioners. Messrs. Alfred N. Gossett, Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler, and Ringolsky, Friedman & Boatright, all of Kansas City, Mo., for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari No. 692. Michael HILSINGER et al., petito the Supreme Court of the State of Mis- tioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America;

souri denied.

(266 U. S. 621)

2

and

3

(266 U. S. 622)

No. 693. Michael HILSINGER et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 27, 1924. For opinion below, see 2 F. (2d) No. 689. ATLANTIC REFINING COMPA- 241. Mr. Michael G. Heintz, of Cincinnati, Ohio NY, Owner of THE Steamer HERBERT L. (Edward J. Dempsey, Frederick Closs, Allen PRATT, petitioner, v. MERRITT & CHAP-Roudebush, and Edward M. Hurley, all of CinMAN DERRICK & WRECKING COMPANY; cinnati, Ohio., of counsel), for petitioners. Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., and Mrs. Mabel

and

No. 690. ATLANTIC REFINING COMPA-Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Átty. Gen., for the NY, Owner of THE Steamer HERBERT L. United States. Petition for writs of certiorari PRATT, petitioner, v. PILOTS' ASSOCIA-to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals TION FOR BAY & RIVER DELAWARE, for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(45 S. Ct.)

(266 U. S. 298)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEX-
AS (UNITED STATES, Intervener.)

(Argued on Motion Nov. 17, 1924. Decided Nov. 18, 1924.)

No. 13.

1. Receivers 153-State held entitled to gross-production tax on oil from wells in receiver's possession pending determination of interstate boundary dispute, computed on full production.

See, also, 265 U. S. 513, 44 S. Ct. 608, 68 L. Ed. 1155.

Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for State of Oklahoma.

Messrs. W. A. Keeling, of Mexia, Tex., Thomas Watt Gregory, of Washington, D. C., C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., and Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for the State of Texas.

Mr. John S. Flannery, of Washington, D. C., for receiver.

*299

*Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered

At the last term the state of Texas pre

*300

Where receiver was appointed for oil wells pending determination of interstate boundary the opinion of the Court. dispute between Oklahoma and Texas, and many of the beneficiaries became insolvent or left state during receivership, the state of Tex-sented a petition for an order requiring the as is entitled to payment, by receiver, of gross-receiver to pay, out of the pro*ceeds from reproduction tax, under Rev. St. Tex. art. 7383, as amended by Acts 38th Leg. 2d Called Sess. ceivership wells found to be south of the interstate boundary, the gross-production tax (1923) c. 45, computed on full production, except where part only of proceeds was impound- which the state law exacts of those who ened and net balance in receiver's hands is not gage in producing crude oil from wells within sufficient to pay full tax, in which case pay- the state. On consideration of the petition ment will be limited to net balance, and where the court issued to the receiver the instructax has already been paid by parties in inter- tions which are set forth in paragraph 4 of est, and in computing tax and making payments the order of June 9, last. 265 U. S. 513, 44 S. each well should be treated as separate unit Ct. 608, 68 L. Ed. 1155. The receiver collected because of difference in ownership. the requisite data and otherwise prepared to make payments of the tax computed on so much of the oil produced from each well as was represented by the proceeds actually impounded in his hands. But the state questioned that mode of computation and insisted that the total production be taken as the basis of the computation; so the receiver withheld payment until the question could be brought to the attention of the court.

2. Receivers 200-Gross-production tax paid by receiver charged against lessees, as between owners and lessees.

Receiver appointed for oil wells, pending determination of interstate boundary dispute between Texas and Oklahoma, required to pay gross-production tax under Rev. St. Tex. art. 7383, as amended by Acts 38th Leg. 2d Called Sess. (1923) c. 45, should charge the amounts paid, as between owners and lessees, against

lessees.

3. Receivers

149-State's petition to require receiver appointed for oil wells pending determination of interstate boundary dispute to pay tax refused because of equitable considerations.

Petition by state of Texas to require receiver, appointed for oil wells pending determination of interstate boundary dispute between Texas and Oklahoma, to pay tax on crude oil under Acts 35th Leg. Tex. (1917) c. 30, § 11 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 7321⁄2j), will be denied, where petition was made so late that to grant it would require a readjustment of many of the receiver's accounts, would delay distribution of proceeds, which in the aggregate reach large figures, and would be distinctly prejudical to many claim

ants.

Suit by the State of Oklahoma against the State of Texas, in which the United States intervened, and in which a receiver was appointed for oil wells. On defendant's sup plemental petition for modification of instructions as to payment of gross production tax, so as to require computation of tax on full production, and to require payment of other tax. Petition granted in part.

There

In other paragraphs of the order of June 9 the receiver was instructed to make necessary preparations for closing up the receivership, to have his books and accounts examined and audited by designated public accountants, to surrender the oil wells to the rightful claimants, and to pay the net proceeds remaining in his hands to the owners, lessees, etc., entitled to them. were pressing reasons why this work should go ahead and not be deferred until the tax question was settled. The receiver accordingly set aside from the impounded proceeds from each well, in so far as they were sufficient, the amount which would be required to pay the tax in respect of that well in the event the computation should be based on the full production, and he then proceeded with the work. That work is now far advanced, some of it being completed. The receiver's books and accounts have been audited; statements of the receipts and expenses pertaining to each well, certified by the public accountants, have been transmitted to the several owners, lessees, etc.; the time allotted for presenting objections has expired, and the checks for the balances shown to be

*301

awaiting disburse*ment, after deducting the

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

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »