Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Opinion of the Court.

225 U. S.

KYLE v. HAMMOND.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST CIRCUIT.

No, 972. Submitted March 11, 1912.-Decided March 18, 1912.

Under the saving clause of the act of June 7, 1878, 20 Stat. 99, c. i60,

the review of the order in this case was not provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1891.

Mr. Hollis R. Bailey, for appellees, in support of motion to dismiss or affirm.

Mr. Warren Ozro Kyle, for appellants, in opposition thereto.

Per Curiam: Before the repeal of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867 the decision of the Circuit Court would have been final.' Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 U. S. 347, 348, and cases cited; Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 98 U. S. 366. In view of the saving clause of the repealing act of June 7, 1878, 20 Stat. 99, we are of opinion the review of such an order was not provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1891.

The decision in Huntington v. Saunders, 163 U. S. 319, is not to the contrary. There it was merely decided that if the act of 1891 authorized a review of analogous orders, the one sought to be reviewed did not involve the requisite jurisdictional amount.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

[blocks in formation]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1911.

Order: It is ordered by the court that section 3 of rule 37 be amended so as to read as follows:

"3. Where an application is submitted to this court for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of a circuit court of appeals or any other court, it shall be necessary for the petitioner to furnish as an exhibit to the petition a certified copy of the entire transcript of record of the case, including the proceedings in the court to which the writ of certiorari is asked to be directed. The petition shall contain only a summary and short statement of the matter involved and the general reasons relied on for the allowance of the writ. A failure to comply with this provision will be deemed a sufficient reason for denying the petition. Thirty printed copies of such petition and of any brief deemed necessary shall be filed. Notice of the date of submission of the petition, together with a copy of the petition and brief, if any, in support of the same shall be served on the counsel for the respondent at least two weeks before such date in all cases except where the counsel to be notified resides west of the Rocky Mountains, in which cases the time shall be at least three weeks. The brief for the respondent, if any, shall be filed at least three days before the date fixed for the submission of the petition. Oral argument will not be permitted on such petitions, and no petition will be received within three days next before the day fixed upon for the adjournment of the court for the term."

Promulgated June 10, 1912.

[blocks in formation]

OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM APRIL 1,

TO JUNE 10, 1912.

No. 797. LOUIS ELIE JOSEPH HENRY DE GALARD DE BRASSAC DE BEARN, ETC.,PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. FRANCOIS DE BEARN ET AL.; No. 798. LOUIS ELIE JOSEPH HENRY DE GALARD DE BRASSAC DE BEARN, ETC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. FRANCOIS DE BEARN; No. 799. LOUIS ELIE JOSEPH HENRY DE GALARD DE BRASSAC DE BEARN, ETC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ODON DE BEARN; No. 800. Louis ELIE JOSEPH HENRY DE GALARD DE BRASSAC DE BEARN, ETC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. PIERRE DE BEARN; and No. 801. Louis ELIE JOSEPH HENRY DE GALARD DE BRASSAC DE BEARN, ETC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. JEAN BAPTISTE CHAUMET. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. Motion to dismiss submitted April 2, 1912. Decided April 8, 1912. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 331; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648; Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580; The Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. The City of Olathe, Kansas, 222 U. S. 185, 187, 191.) Mr. Maurice Leon for the plaintiff in error. Mr. J. Kemp Bartlett and Mr. Edgar Allan Poe for the defendants in error.

No. 874. JOSEPH D. SULLIVAN, TRUSTEE, ETC., APPELLANT,v. AARON GOLDMAN. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Motion to dismiss submitted April 1, 1912. Decided April 8, 1912. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. (Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1; Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114.) Mr. Joseph D. Sullivan and Mr. L. P. Loving for the appellant. Mr. Henry E. Davis and Mr. Alexander Wolf for the appellee.

[blocks in formation]

No. 907. HANNAH L. ANDREWS, EXECUTRIX, ETC., APPELLANT, v. HARVEY K. PARTRIDGE, TRUSTEE, ETC. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted April 1, 1912. Decided April 8, 1912. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Holden v. Stratton, 119 U. S. 115, 116; Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergh, 218 U. S. 207; Tefft v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114. Mr. Thomas E. French and Mr. Samuel H. Richards for the appellant. Mr. Henry F. Stockwell and Mr. John D. McMullin for the appellee.

No. Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF CHARLEY WEBB, PETITIONER. Submitted April 1, 1912. Decided April 8, 1912. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Mr. James S. Davenport for the petitioner. See second application, ante, p. 663.

No. 949. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ALONZO C. LESSENDEN. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Motion to dismiss or affirm or to place on summary docket submitted March 18, 1912. Decided April 29, 1912. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 118. Mr. M. L. Clardy for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W.F. Guthrie for the defendant in error.

No. 223. THE STATE NATIONAL BANK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. D. P. RICHARDSON, City Tax COLLECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FRANKFORT, ET AL. In error to the Court

« ForrigeFortsett »