215 U.S. Per Curiam. THOMAS v. IOWA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 448. Argued December 13, 1909.-Decided December 20, 1909. A writ of error to review a judgment of the highest court of a State, dismissed for want of jurisdiction without opinion. Writ of error to review, 135 Iowa 717; 109 N. W. Rep. 900, dismissed. Mr. J. T. Mulvaney for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles W. Lyon for defendant in error. Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No further opinion will be filed.1 Ex parte UNITED STATES CONSOLIDATED SEEDED RAISIN COMPANY. PETITION FOR MANDAMUS. Original. Submitted December 20, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus or certiorari denied. Mr. John H. Miller for petitioner. Per Curiam. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus or certiorari denied. 1 This case had been once before to this court on writ of error and the writ dismissed. See 209 U. S. 258. HUSTON, JUDGE, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. HASKELL, GOVERNOR. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 325. Motion to dismiss submitted December 20, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910. Writ of error to review judgment of highest court of a State, dismissed for want of jurisdiction without opinion on authority of previous decisions. Writ of error to review 21 Oklahoma, 782, dismissed. Mr. E. G. Spilman for plaintiffs in error. Mr. A. C. Cruce for defendant in error. Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291; Corkran Oil Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U. S. 146; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548; case below, 21 Oklahoma, 782. PERTH AMBOY DRY DOCK COMPANY v. MONMOUTH STEAMBOAT COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 609. Submitted December 20, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910. Decree of the District Court of the United States affirmed without opinion. Mr. James D. Dewell, Jr., and Mr. Avery Fayette Cushman for appellant. Mr. Charles N. Snyder for appellee. Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs. KENYON v. FOWLER, RECEIVER OF AMERICAN EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF SYRACUSE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 87. Argued January 18, 1910.-Decided January 24, 1910. Judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of the District Court for an assessment of stock of an insolvent national bank made by the Comptroller, affirmed without opinion. 155 Fed. Rep. 107, affirmed. Mr. Dorr Raymond Cobb for plaintiff in error. Mr. Leonard C. Crouch for defendant in error. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U. S. 138; Finn v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27; Matteson v. Dent, 176 U. S. 521. Opinion below, 155 Fed. Rep. 107; S. C., 83 C. C. A. 567. VOL. CCXV-38 Syllabus. 215 U.S. DYER v. CITY OF MELROSE. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 93. Argued January 20, 1910.-Decided January 24, 1910. A judgment of the state court sustaining a tax on property of an officer of the United States Navy affirmed on the authority of previous cases.1 197 Massachusetts, 99, affirmed. Mr. Chester M. Pratt for plaintiff in error. Mr. Claude L. Allen for defendant in error. Hibernia Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs. BERGER v. TRACY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 97. Submitted January 21, 1910.-Decided January 24, 1910. A writ of error to review judgment of the highest court of a State dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on authority of Castillo v. Mc 1 As stated in the brief of defendant in error: "This case presents the single question whether money which the plaintiff in error has received as salary or emoluments from the Federal Government, after being so received and deposited in national banks, subject to check, is exempt from taxation by local authorities in Massachusetts, on the principle that a State cannot lay a tax upon an office under the Government of the United States, nor upon any means or instruments used solely for the maintenance of the Federal Government or the performance of any of its functions." Connico, 168 U. S. 674; no Federal question was suggested prior to petition for writ of error. Writ of error to review 135 Iowa, 597, dismissed. Mr. Chester C. Cole for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674. No Federal question suggested prior to petition for writ of error. Case below, 135 Iowa, 597. UNITED STATES v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 597. Motion to dismiss submitted January 31, 1910.-Decided January 31, 1910. A certificate in which there was no opinion, judgment or order of the court below dismissed on authority of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, ante, p. 216. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for the United States. No appearance for The Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. Per Curiam. Certificate dismissed on authority of Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S. 216. |