Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

titioner. March 8, 1920. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition herein denied.

(252 U. S. 576)

No. 697. John P. GALBRAITH, petitioner, v. John VALLELY, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 670. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.

(252 U. S. 576)

No. 712. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, petitioner, V. Addie SPEIGHT. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Speight v. Western Union Tel. Co., 100 S. E. 351. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina granted.

(252 U. S. 576)

ent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 578)

No. 703. Rome LANE, on behair of himself and others, petitioner, v. The EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 918. Messrs. Wells H. Blodgett and Clifford B. Allen, both of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Messrs. George Welwood Murray and Lawrence Greer, both of New York City, and Theodore Rassieur, 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.

(252 U. S. 578) No. 704. Maria Eloisa ROCHA, petitioner, v. Emilia TUASON y Patino et al. March 8, 1920. Mr. W. A. Kincaid, of Manila, P. I., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands

No. 746. Henry KRICHMAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 538. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United | denied. States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.

(252 U. S. 577)

(252 U. S. 578)

No. 711. HUDSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, petitioner, v. J. ARON & COMPANY (Inc.) et al. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see The St. Paul, 262 Fed. 1021. Mr. Stulant. Messrs. Charles R. Hickox and T. Catesby Jones, both of New York City, for J. Aron & Co. Mr. George H. Mitchell, of New York City, for Hamilton-Beers Corporation. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

No. 678. The CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, petition-art G. Gibboney, of New York City, for appeler, v. O. C. SWAIM. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Swain v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 170 N. W. 296, 174 N. W. 384. Messrs. J. G. Gamble and Fred W. Sargent, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Harriet B. Evans, and C. H. Howell, C. H. Elgin, and M. M. Howell, all of Centerville, Iowa, for defendant in error. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa denied.

[blocks in formation]

(252 U. S. 579)

No. 718. CAMP BIRD, Limited, petitioner, v. Frank W. HOWBERT, as collector of internal revenue, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 114. Messrs. William Story, Jr., of Ouray, Colo., and William V. Alex C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and Hodges, of Denver, Colo., for petitioner. Mr. Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 579)

No. 721. The PHILLIPS COMPANY, petitioner, v. Byron F. EVERITT, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 341. Messrs. William L. Carpenter, of Detroit, Mich., Thomas H. Gill, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Thomas G. Long, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Messrs. Clarence A. Lightner and Walter E. Oxtoby, both of Detroit, Mich., for defendant. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 579)

No. 722. Alfred R. SWANN, petitioner, v. W. W. AUSTELL, executor, etc., et al. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 465. Messrs. Daniel W. Rountree and Clifford L. Anderson, both of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. Messrs. Jack J. Spalding and Chas. T. Hop

(252 U. S. 579)

(40 Sup.Ct.)

kins, both of Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Order. Application for leave to file bill grantPetition for a writ of certiorari to the United ed and process ordered; but should the AtStates Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth torney General be advised to move to dismiss, Circuit denied. a motion to advance the hearing on the motion to dismiss to the earliest practicable day will be entertained, in order that the issues arising from such motion may be considered in connection with the controversies now under advisement resulting from the original bill filed by the State of Rhode Island and other causes involving kindred questions which are now also under submission.

No. 732. William F. HANRAHAN, petitioner, v. PACIFIC TRANPSORT COMPANY (Ltd.). March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 951. Mr. Silas B. Axtell, of New York City, for petitioner. Messrs. Kirlin, Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City (Messrs. Robert S. Ersking and L. De Grove Potter, 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.

(252 U. S. 580)

No. 748. E. B. CAPPS, administrator, etc., petitioner, v. The ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 101 S. E. 216. Mr. James S. Manning and Jas. H. Pou, both of Raleigh, N. C., for petitioner. Messrs. F. D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., P. A. Willcox, of Florence, S. C., C. H. Davis, of Wilmington, N. C., and F. S. Spruill, of Rocky Mount, N. C., for respondent. Petition for a

(252 U. S. 569)

No. 230. C. C. TAFT COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. The STATE OF IOWA. March 15, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. For opinion below, see, State v. C. C. Taft Co., 183 Iowa, 548, 167 N. W. 467. Mr. Fred P. Carr, of Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 6, 39 Stat. 726, 727 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(252 U. S. 570) No. 236. James P. PARSONS, plaintiff in

writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the error, v. William H. MOOR et al. March 15,

State of North Carolina denied.

(252 U. S. 580)

No. 749. J. W. ATKINS, petitioner, v. L. G. GARRETT. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Garrett v. Atkins, 261 Fed. 587. Messrs. Kirlin, Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City (Mr. Cletus Keating, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner. Mr. Silas B. Axtell, of New York City, for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 580)

No. 750. MARYANNE SHIPPING COMPANY, Claimant of The steamship MARYANNE, petitioner, V. RAMBERG IRON WORKS. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 129. Messrs. Horace L. Cheyney and Ralph J. M. Bullowa, both of New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Francis Martin, of New York City (Mr. George V. A. McCloskey, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]

1920. For opinion below, see Moor v. Parsons, 98 Ohio St. 233, 120 N. E. 305. Mr. Charles F. Carusi, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(252 U. S. 569) No. 262. VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIA COAL COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Green CHARLES. March 15, 1920. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 379, 165 C. C. A. 599. Mr. S. B. Avis, of Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiff in error. Mr. William H. Werth, of Tazewell, Va., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) section 128 of the Judicial Code Comp. St. 1120; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 568, 569, 32 Sup. Ct. 704, 56 L. Ed. 1205; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; St. Anthony's Church v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 237 U. S. 575, 577, 35 Sup. Ct. 729, 59 L. Ed. 1119; Delaware, LackU. S. 439, 444, 35 Sup. Ct. 902, 59 L. Ed. awanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 1397; (2) Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 530, 24 Sup. Ct. 174, 48 L. Ed. 287; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 333, 26 Sup. Ct. 652, 50 L. Ed. 1046.

(252 U. B. 589) No. 293. The UNITED STATES of America, plaintiff in error, v. H. L. SPRINKLE. March 15, 1920. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Solicitor General King, for

plaintiff in error. N. P. Bryan, of Jacksonville, | plaintiff in error.
Fla., for defendant in error. Dismissed, on case denied.
motion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the
plaintiff in error.

(252 U. S. 568)

No. 312. John M. TANANEVICZ, plaintiff in error, v. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. March 15, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. For opinion below, see People v. Tananevicz, 285 Ill. 376, 120 N. E. 766. Mr. Emory J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Edward J. Brundage, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.

Motion to retax costs in this

(252 U. S. 580)

No. 709. Walter F. BRITTON, trustee, etc., petitioner, v. UNION INVESTMENT COMPANY. March 15, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 111. Messrs. Kay Todd, Walter Fosnes and Charles W. Sterling, all of St. Paul, Minn. (Mr. Harrison L. Schmitt, of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Wm. A. Lancaster, David F. Simpson, and R. G. Patton, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Ap

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju-peals for the Eighth Circuit denied. risdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241, 36 Sup. Ct. 274, 60 L. Ed. 622; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701; (2) Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Produce Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142, 35 Sup. Ct. 828, 59 L. Ed. 1238; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550; (3) section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stats. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(252 U. S. 581) No. 725. Walter M. REEDER et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 15, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 36. Mr. John W. Scothorn, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioners. Mr. R. P. Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, and W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

No. 328. KANSAS CITY, plaintiff in error, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI et al. March 15, 1920. See, also, 250 U. S. 652, 40 Sup. Ct. 54, 63 L. Ed. 1190. Mr. Matthew A. Fyke, of Kansas City, Mo., for

(252 U. S. 581)

No. 739. ATCHAFALAYA LAND COMPANY, petitioner, v. Paul CAPDEVIELLE, auditor, et al. March 15, 1920. For opinion below, see State ex rel. Board of Com'rs of Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. v. Capdeville, 83 South. 421. Messrs. George Janvier, of New Orleans, La., Burke & Smith, Walter J. Burke. Ventress J. Smith and F. E. Delahoussaye, all of New Iberia, La., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana denied.

(252 U. S. 364)

(40 Sup.Ct.)

COLLINS v. MILLER, U. S. Marshal.

CARLISLE, British Consul General, v.

COLLINS.

8. APPEAL AND ERROR ~76 (1)—JudgMENT
TO BE APPEALABLE TO FEDERAL SUPREME
COURT MUST BE FINAL AS TO ALL MATTERS
INVOLVED.

A judgment to be appealable to federal Supreme Court should be final, not only as to all

(Argued Dec. 9, 1919. Decided March 29, 1920.) parties, but as to the whole subject-matter and

Nos. 350 and 351.

1. COURTS 385 (6)—QUESTIONS AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF TREATY REVIEWABLE BY SUPREME COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL.

Questions as to the construction of a treaty are reviewable by the Supreme Court on direct appeal from District Court, under Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215).

2. APPEAL AND ERROR

66-DIRECT APPEAL OR WRIT OF ERROR LIES TO FEDERAL SUPREME COURT ONLY FROM FINAL JUDGMENT.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction on direct writ of error and appeal under Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215), as under other sections, only from final judgments.

3. HABEAS CORPUS 113(3) — JURISDICTION

OF DIRECT APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS PRO-
CEEDINGS LIMITED TO FINAL JUDGMENTS.

all the causes of action involved.

[blocks in formation]

Habeas corpus and certiorari by Charles Glen Collins against Frank M. Miller, United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Missouri. From a judgment denying the application for habeas corpus in part, and The rule that final judgments only are re-granting the writs in part, the petitioner and viewable by direct appeal under Judicial Code, Tom F. Carlisle, British Consul General, 238 (Comp. St. § 1215), applies to habeas corpus proceedings. bring separate appeals. Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR 23-FEDERAL SU-
PREME COURT MUST DETERMINE QUESTION AS
TO FINALITY OF JUDGMENT ON ITS OWN MO-
TION.

When the question whether the judgment appealed from is a final one suggests itself to the Supreme Court, it must be answered, though not raised by either party.

5. HABEAS CORPUS

113(3)—JUDGMENT ON HAREAS CORPUS TO REVIEW EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS NOT FINAL.

Where, in a habeas corpus proceeding to review extradition proceedings instituted on three separate affidavits, the court denied or rather dismissed the writ as to the commitment on one of the affidavits, but granted the writ as to the commitments on the other affidavits, remanded the case for further hearing before the judge making the commitments, and remanded the petitioner to the house of detention to await further proceedings on such affidavits, the judgment was not final, so as to support an appeal, as the writ had not been disposed of so far as concerned the detention on two of the affidavits.

6. EXTRADITION 17-PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMITTING MAGISTRATE NOT REVIEWABLE BY APPEAL.

Proceedings before a committing magistrate in international extradition are not subject to correction by appeal.

7. HABEAS CORPUS 30 (1)—Errors NOT OBDINARILY CORRECTIBLE.

It is ordinarily beyond the scope of the review afforded by a writ of habeas corpus to correct error in the proceedings.

*365

*Messrs. J. Zach Spearing, of New Orleans, La., and Guion Miller and J. Kemp Bartlett, both of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.

Messrs. Charles Fox and Donelson Caffery, of New Orleans, La., for marshal and consul general.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

[1-4] These are appeals from a single judgment entered by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana on a petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. The relator had been arrested on extradition proceedings. Each party asks to have reviewed the construction given below to provisions of our treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed August 9, 1842 (8 Stat. 572, 576), and of the supplementary treaty proclaimed April 22, 1901 (32 Stat. 1864). The questions presented are therefore of a character which may be reviewed upon direct appeal under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215) Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 Sup. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397. But this court has jurisdiction on writ of error and appeal under that section, as under others, only from final judgments. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. 118, 35 L. Ed. 893; Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423, 30 Sup. Ct. 539, 54 L. Ed. 821. And the rule applies to habeas corpus proceedings. Hark

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

rader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 162, 19 Sup.er with a copy of the record in all the proCt. 119, 43 L. Ed. 399. The fundamental ques- ceedings was transmitted to the Secretary of State.

366

tion whether the judgment appealed from *is a final one within the meaning of the rule has suggested itself to the court; and it must be answered, although it was not raised by either party. Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 194, 24 Sup. Ct. 63, 48 L. Ed. 140. In order to answer the question it is necessary to describe the proceedings before the committing magistrate as well as those in the District Court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In October and November, 1918, the British consul general at New Orleans filed with the Honorable Rufus E. Foster, District Judge of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, three separate affidavits, each charging that Charles Glen Collins, who was then within the jurisdiction of that court, had committed at Bombay, India, the crime therein described as obtaining property under false pretenses, and that he stood charged therewith in the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court at Bombay, and asking that he be committed as a fugitive from justice for the purpose of having him returned to India for trial. Warrants of arrest issued, and Collins moved, as to each affidavit, to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, contending that the transactions in question were commercial dealings in which he had merely failed to pay debts incurred. Hearings, entitled "In the Matter of Extradition Proceedings of Charles Glen Collins," were had before Judge Foster, at which the consul general and Collins appeared by counsel. Evidence in support of each of the three affidavits was introduced by the consul general. Then Collins, who was sworn at his request, admitted his identity and that he had been present in India at the times each of the alleged crimes were committed. As to one of the charges, that of obtaining a pearl button from Mohamed Alli Zaimel ali Raza, he was allowed to testify further. But he was not permitted to testify as to matters concerning the other two which had been consolidated. And he was not permitted to introduce other witness

+367

This petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari was filed by Collins, in said District Court, on January 8, 1919. It set forth the proceedings before Judge Foster on the three affidavits, and alleged that his detention was illegal and in violation of rights secured to him by the treaty; among other reasons because he was refused permission to introduce evidence as above mentioned. District Judge Grubb ordered that the writs issue; and the marshal made return setting forth in substance the facts above recited. The case was heard before Judge Grubb on February 21, 1919, the record before Judge Foster being introduced. On the same day Judge Grubb, without delivering an opinion, entered an order which declared that "relator's application for habeas corpus is denied" so far as concerned the charge of obtaining the pearl button from Mohamed Alli Zaimel ali Raza, and that "the writs of habeas corpus are granted" so far as the detention was based on the other two charges, but that the relator be remanded to the House of Detention to await further proceedings in said last two named affidavits.

"And it is further ordered that, as to the said two affidavits last mentioned, this cause be and

*368

is hereby re*manded to the Honorable Rufus E. Foster, judge, to the end that relator be given the opportunity of introducing such evidence as he might offer at a preliminary examination un

der the law of Louisiana.

Neither party took any action in respect to such further proceedings before Judge Foster. On March 3, 1919, Collins petitioned for leave to appeal, contending that he should have been discharged on all three affidavits and his appeal was allowed. This is case No. 350 on the docket of this court. Later the British consul general petitioned for leave to appeal on the ground that Collins' application should have been definitely denied also as to the commitment on the other two affidavits. His appeal, being No. 351 on the docket of this court, was allowed March 28, 1919.

es in defense of any of the three *affidavits. [5-7] First. Was the judgment appealed After the hearings were concluded Judge Fos- from a final one? A single petition for a ter made two orders or judgments signed by writ of habeas corpus thus sets forth detenhim as Judge of said United States District tion of the relator on three separate affidaCourt and entitled in said court. In these vits. As to the commitment on one of these, orders he found, as to each of the affidavits, the judgment entered by Judge Grubb directthat he deemed the evidence sufficient to sus-ed that the writ be "denied." Such denial, tain the charge under the law and the treaty, or more appropriately dismissal, of the writ and as to each he ordered Collins recommitted to the House of Detention in the custody of the United States marshal for that district to await the order of the President of the United States. The two proceedings (which included the three affidavits) were then consolidated. Under date of November 27, 1918, a certificate setting forth his findings togeth

would obviously have been a final judgment, if it had stood alone. McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 520, 523, 33 Sup. Ct. 146, 57 L. Ed. 330. But the judgment appealed from dealt also with the detention on the other two affidavits. It declared that "the writs of habeas corpus are granted" as to the commitments on the other two affidavits, and ordered that

« ForrigeFortsett »