Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY et al., Trus- EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS

tees, etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. ADOLPH WELSH, Petitioner. [No.-, Original.] H. EILERS et al. (No. 345.]

Motion for leave to file petition for a Error to district court-jurisdiction be- Writ of Mandamus herein. low,

Mr. Martin Conboy for petitioner. In Error to the District Court of the No appearance for respondent. United States for the District of Oregon. [608] October 11, 1920. Denied.

Mr. John Taylor Booz for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Ralph R. Duniway for defendants Mary L. GREER CONKLIN, Appellant, v. in error.

GEORGE H. CONKLIN et al. [No. 192.] October 11, 1920. Per Curiam: Dis- Appeal—from district court--frivolous missed for want of jurisdiction upon the

Federal question. authority of Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. Appeal from the District Court of the 89, 91, 49 L. ed. 398, 399, 25 Sup. Ct. United States for the Southern District Rep. 208; Farrugia v. Philadelphia & R. of Georgia. R. Co. 233 U. S. 352, 353, 58 L. ed. 996,

Mrs. Mary L. Greer Conklin, appellant, 997, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 591; Louisville & pro se. N. R. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 234

Messrs. William H. Barrett, Bryan U. S. 369, 371, 372, 58 L. ed. 1356, 1358, Cumming, C. Henry Cohen, W. G. Brant34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 810; Male v. Atchison, ley, Wm. E. Howard, and A. F. Purdy T. & S. F. R. Co. 240 U. S. 97, 99, 60 for appellees. L. ed. 544, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 351. October 18, 1920. Per Curiam: Dis

missed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien (O’Cal

laghan v. O'Brien) 199 U. S. 89, 100, 50 VOGT BROTHERS MANUFACTURING COM- L. ed. 101, 107, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 727;

PANY, Petitioner, v. Ellicott Machine Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 53 CORPORATION. [No. 426.]

L. ed. 914, 917, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Error to circuit of appeals-jurisdiction. United Surety Co. v. American Fruit

Petition for Writ of Error to the Unit- Produce Co. 238 U. S. 140, 142, 59 L. ed. ed States Circuit Court of Appeals for 1238, 1239, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 828; Sugarthe Sixth Circuit.

man v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, See same case below, C. C. A. 63 L. ed. 550, 551, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 191. 267 Fed. 945.

Messrs. Helm Bruce and Alexander Galt Barret for petitioner.

MARY L. GREER CONKLIN, Appellant, v. Messrs. Edward P. Humphrey, James AUGUSTA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPiper, Alex. P. Humphrey, and William PANY. (No. 353.] W. Crawford for respondent.

Appeal--from district court-frivolous October 11, 1920. Per Curiam: The Federal question. petition for writ of error is denied. See § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended

1 Death of Turner C. Vason, one of the by the Act of September 6, 1916 (39 appellees herein, suggested, and appearance Stat. at L. 726, chap. 448, Comp. Stat. the said Turner C. Vason, deceased, as a

of Anthony J. Salinas, administrator of § 1214, Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 411), party appellee, filed and entered October § 2. Petition for a writ of certiorari and 12, 1920, on motion of counsel in that befor a writ of mandamus denied.

half.

[graphic]

Mr. W. W. Scott for appellant.

November 8, 1920. Per Curiam: DisAssistant Attorney General Davis for missed for want of jurisdiction upon the appellee.

authority of November 8, 1920. Per Curiam: Af- (1) Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, firmed upon the authority of Jackson v. 508, 47 L. ed. 563, 566, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. United States, 230 U. S. 1, 57 L. ed. 1363, 390; United States v. Heinze, 218 U. S. 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1011; Hughes v. Unit- 532, 545, 546, 54 L. ed. 1139, 1145, 31 ed States, 230 V. S. 24, 57 L. ed. 1374, Sup. Ct. Rep. 98, 21 Ann. Cas. 884; 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 624, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. Lott v. Pittman, 243 U. S. 588, 591, 61 1019; Cubbins v. Mississippi River Com- L. ed. 915, 916, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 473; mission, 241 U. S. 351, 60 L. ed. 1041, Ex parte Abdu, 247 U. S. 27, 30, 62 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671.

L. ed. 966, 967, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 447.

(2) Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 683, 42 L. ed. 622, 625, 18 Sup. Ct.

Rep. 229; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, AUGLAIZE Box BOARD COMPANY, Plain- 224 U. S. 270, 281, 56 L. ed. 760, 767,

tiff in Error, v. BESSIE Hinton, etc., 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 406, Ann. Cas. 1913D, et al. [No. 217.]

936; McDona!d v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. Error to state court-Federal question. 233 U. S. 665, 669, 670, 58 L. ed. 1145,

In Error to the Supreme Court of the 1148, 1149, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 772; GasState of Ohio.

quet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 370, See same case below, 100 Ohio St. 505, 61 L. ed. 367, 370, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165. 126 N. E. 881.

Mr. Earl H. Turner for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. J. H. Goeke and T. T. Ans- JESSE 0. Starr et al., Plaintiffs in Erberry for defendants in error. November 8, 1920. Per Curiam: Dis

ror, v. STATE OF NEw MEXICO. (No. missed for want of jurisdiction upon the Error to state court-Federal question.

80.] anthority of (1) California Powder Works v: Da- State of New Mexico.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the vis, 151 U. S. 389, 393, 38 L. ed. 206, 207, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Cuyahoga River

See same case below, 24 N. M.180, 173

Pac. 674. Power Co, v. Northern Realty Co. 244 U.

[612] Mr. H. B. Holt for plaintiffs in S. 303, 61 L. ed. 1157, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 643; [611] Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S.

Messrs. H. S. Bowman and A. B. Ren255, 257, 62 L. ed. 701, 702, 38 Sup. Ct.

ehan for defendant in error. Rep. 264; Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271, 63 L. ed. 233, 235, 39 Sup. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon

November 15, 1920. Per Curiam : Ct. Rep. 111. (2) Farrell v. O'Brien (O'Callaghan Co. 191 U. Š. 526, 530, 48 L. ed. 287, 290,

the authority of Spencer v. Duplan Silk v. O'Brien) 199 U. S. 89, 100, 50 L. ed. 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Hull v. Burr, 234 101, 107, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 727; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 53 L. ed. u. s. 712, 720, 58 L. ed. 1557, 1561, 34 914, 917, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Chicago, al, 225 U. S. 561, 569, 56 L. ed. 1205,

Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Shulthis v. McDougR. Í. & P. R. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U. S. 1210, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704; Norton v. 359, 362, 63 L. ed. 294, 296, 39. Sup. Ct. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 60 L. ed. Rep. 108; Berkman v. United States, 250 u. s. 114, 118, 63 L. ed. 877, 881, 39 186, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97. Sup. Ct. Rep. 411.

error.

STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL. THOMAS J. SHELDON DOLE LEMAN et al., Executors, DUGGAN, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. A.

etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. SIDNEY C. W. CRANDELL, Register of the State EASTMAN, Trustee, etc., et al. [No. Land Office. [No. 81.7 306.]

Error to state court-Federal question. Error to state court-Federal question. In Error to the Supreme Court of the

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. State of Illinois.

See same case below, 144 La. 22, 80 Mr. Henry W. Leman for plaintiffs in So. 185. error.

Mr. Henry H. Glassie for plaintiff in Messrs. Salmon 0. Levinson, Sidney error. C. Eastman, Benjamin V. Becker, and Mr. Paul A. Sompayrac for defendant Car! V. Wisner for defendants in error. in error.

November 15, 1920. Per Curiam : (1) California Powder Works v. DaDismissed for want of jurisdiction upon vis, 151 U. S. 389, 393, 38 L. ed. 206, the authority of

207, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Gaar, S. & (1) Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co. 191 Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 470, 56 U. S. 526, 530, 48 L. ed. 287, 290, 24 L. ed. 510, 512, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236; Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern s. 712, 720, 58 L. ed. 1557, 1561, 34 Sup. Realty Co. 244 U, S. 300, 303, 61 L. ed. Ct. Rep. 892; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 1153, 1157, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 643; Bilby U. S. 561, 569, 56 L. ed. 1205, 1210, 32 v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 62 L. ed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 704; Norton v. Whiteside, 701, 702, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 264; Farson, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 60 L. ed. 186, 187, 36 Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271, Sup. Ct. Rep. 97.

63 L. ed. 233, 235, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111 (2) California Powder Works v. Da- (and see Northern P. R. Co. v. Meese, vis, 151 U. S. 389, 393, 38 L. ed. 206, 239 U. S. 614, 619, 60 L. ed. 467, 468, 36 207, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Gaar, S. & Sup. Ct. Rep. 223, 10 N. C. C. A. 939). Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 470, 56 (2) Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. L. ed. 510, 512, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236; Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 47 L. ed. 190, Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern 193, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123; Consolidated Realty Co. 244 U. S. 300, 303, 61 L. ed. Turnp. Co. v. Norfolk & 0. V. R. Co. 1153, 1157, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 643; Bilby 228 U. S. 596, 600, 57 L. ed. 982, 983, 33 v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 62 L. ed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 605; G. & C. Merriam Co. 701, 702, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 264; Farson, v. Syndicate Pub. Co. 237 U. S. 618, 621, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271, 59 L. ed. 1148, 1149, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63 L. ed. 233, 235, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111. 708; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadel

phia, 245 U. S. 20, 24, 62 L. ed. 124, 128, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35.

(3) New York C. R. Co. v. White, 243 BENJAMIN BOND, Plaintiff in Error, v. U. S. 188, 198, 61 L. ed. 667, 672, L.R.A. AUGUSTA E. WALTERS. [No. 83.]

1917D, 1, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, Ann. Error to state court-Federal question.

Cas. 1917D, 629, 13 N. C. C. A. 943; In Error to the Court of Appeals for Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, the First Appellate District, Division 243 U. S. 219, 234, 61 L. ed. 685, 694, 37 One, State of California.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 260, Ann. Cas. 1917D, See same case below, 38 Cal. App. 245, 642, 13 N. C. C. A. 927; Middleton v. 175 Pac. 909.

Texas Power & Light Co. 249 U. S. 152, Messrs. Daniel N. Clark and Harry A. 163, 63 L. ed. 527, 534, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. Hegarty for plaintiff in error.

227; Arizona Employers' Liability Cases Messrs. John W. Preston and John C. (Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer) 250 Brooke for defendant in error.

U. S. 400, 63 L. ed. 1058, 6 A.L.R. 1537, November 15, 1920. Per Curiam: 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon (4) Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U. $. 32, 34, the authority of the Act of Congress of 63 L. ed. 108, 109, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 16. September 6, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 726, chap. 448, Comp. Stat. § 1207, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 411).

FRANK R. LOPEZ, Appellant, v. FREDER

ICK C. Howe, as Commissioner of Im

migration at the Port of New York. [613] W. H. HUMPHREYS, as Adminis

[No. 146.) trator, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. BATES Appeal--from circuit court of appeals& ROGERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. habeas corpus case. [No. 349.]

Appeal from the United States CirError to state court-Federal question. cuit Court of Appeals for the Second In Error to the Court of Appeals of

Circuit. the State of Kentucky.

See same case below, 12 A.L.R. 192, See same case below, 187 Ky. 538, 219 170 C. C. A, 377, 259 Fed. 401. S. W. 806.

[614] Mr. Charles Recht for appelMr. Allan D. Cole for plaintiff in er- lant. ror.

Solicitor General Frierson and Mr. Messrs. E. L. Worthington, LeWright Harry S. Ridgely for appellee. Browning, and Edwin A. Swingle for November 22, 1920. Per Curiam : defendant in error.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, upon November 15, 1920. Per Curiam: the authority of Kurtz Moffitt, 115 Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon U. S. 487, 498, 29 L. ed. 458, 460, 6 Sup. the authority of

Ct. Rep. 148; Lau Ow Bew v. United

States, 144 U. S. 47, 58, 36 L. ed. 340, 1557, 1561, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; St.
314, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Cross v. Anthony's Church v. Pennsylvania R.
Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 88, 36 L. ed. 896, Co. 237 U. S. 575, 577, 59 L. ed. 1119,
898, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 22; Whitney v. 1122, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729.
Dick, 202 U. S. 132, 135, 50 L. ed. 963,
964, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 584; Horn v.
Mitchell, 243 U. S. 247, 61 L. ed. 700,
37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293. Petition for writ Ada C. MONGRAIN, Plaintiff in Error, v.
of certiorari herein denied.

W. H. AARON et al. [No. 61.]
Error to state court-Federal question.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the

State of Oklahoma. CITY OF NEWPORT, Appellant, v. How- See same case below, Okla. 174

ARD HECKERMAN et al., etc. [No. 98.] Pac. 755.
Commerce-licenses and taxes-peddlers Mr. Preston A. Shinn for plaintiff in

and drummers.
Appeal from the District Court of the

Messrs. Nathan B. Williams and George United States for the Eastern District B. Denison for defendants in error. of Kentucky.

[615] December 6, 1920. Per CuriMr. Brent Spence for appellant.

am: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction No appearance for appellees.

upon the authority of $ 237 of the JudiNovember 22, 1920. Per Curiam:cial Code, as amended by the Act of Reversed with costs, and remanded for September 6, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 726, further proceedings upon the authority chap. 448, Comp. Stat. § 1214, Fed. Stat. of Wagner v. Covington, 251 U. S. 95, Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 412), 8 2. 64 L. ed. 157, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93.

error.

LOUIS WUNDER, Plaintiff in Error, V. Hugh REILLY, Plaintiff in Error, v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (No. 197.] ROBERT SHIPMAN et al. [No. 502.)

Constitutional law-war-time prohibition. Error to circuit court of appeals-juris

In Error to the District Court of the diction below-Federal question. United States for the District of Mary

In Error to the United States Circuit land. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Cir

Messrs. George Lewis Eppler and Fulcuit.

ler Barnard, Jr., for plaintiff in error. See same case below, C. C. A.

Solicitor General Frierson for defend266 Fed. 852.

ant in error. Messrs. Harry L. Patton and Frank

December 6, 1920. Per Curiam: AfFaircloth for plaintiff in error.

firmed upon the authority of Hamilton Messrs. S. B. Davis, Jr., E. R. Wright, v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. W. W. Spalding, and Guy Mason for de 251 U. S. 146, 64 L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. fendants in error.

Rep. 106; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 November 22, 1920. Per Curiam: U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon 141. the authority of

(1) Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 568, 56 L. ed. 1205, 1210, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704; Hull v. Burr, 234. U. S. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Complainant, v. 712, 720, 58 L. ed. 1557, 1561, 34 Sup.

STATE OF TEXAS. [No. 23, Original.] Ct. Rep. 892; Louisville & N. R. Co. v.

December 6, 1920. Order. Western U. Teleg. Co. 237 U. S. 300,

The re302, 59 L. ed. 965, 966, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. ceiver is hereby authorized and directed 598; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. to make the following payments, and to Yurkonis, 238 Ú. S. 439, 444, 59 L. ed. charge the same as expenses of the re1397, 1400, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 902. ceivership: To Nagel & Kirby the sum

(2) Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co. 191 of $7,500, as compensation for services U. S. 526, 530, 48 L. ed. 287, 290, 24 heretofore rendered by them as counsel Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Devine' v. Los An- and attorneys for the receiver; to Megeles, 202 U. S. 313, 333, 50 L. ed. 1046, Kenney & Flannery the sum of $15,000, 1053, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652; Shulthis v. on account of services rendered by them MeDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569, 56 L. ed. as attorneys for the receiver; and to 1205, 1210, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704; Hull Frederic A. Delano the sum of $25,000, v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 58 L. ed. on account of his services as receiver.

V.

« ForrigeFortsett »