263 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. U. S. 193, 195. Mr. James S. Beacom for plaintiff in error. Mr. James S. Moorehead and Mr. Robert W. Smith appeared for defendants in error. No. 41. F. E. WEAR ET AL. V. VIRGIL W. JOHNSTON ET AL. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Argued October 4, 1923. Decided October 8, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6. Mr. Samuel Feller, with whom Mr. H. M. Langworthy was on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Douglas Hudson appeared for defendants in error. No. 23. MANGUM ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CAMPBELL RUSSELL ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY, ETC. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma. Submitted October 3, 1923. Decided October 8, 1923. Per Curiam. Action below to enjoin utility rates as in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rates sustained as reasonable by State Commission, State Supreme Court, and the United States District Court below. Appellees have filed brief. Appellant has failed to do so. The Court declines, in the absence of a brief, to examine a lengthy record to determine whether the evidence contained therein overcomes the presumption attaching to the finding of the commission and two courts. Decree affirmed. Mr. George F. Short and Mr. C. A. Galbraith for appellees. No brief filed for appellant. No. 50. A. BOURJOIS & COMPANY, INC. v. George W. ALDRIDGE, COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK, ET AL. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 263 U.S. On a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argued October 5, 1923. Decided October 8, 1923. Per Curiam. The two questions certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals for Second Circuit are answered in the affirmative, upon the authority of Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689, the defendant not objecting. Mr. Hans v. Briesen for A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Mr. Harry E. Knight, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for Aldridge, submitted.. No. 404. October Term, 1922. THOMAS D. MCCARTHY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, v. JULES W. ARNDSTEIN. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. October 15, 1923. The petition for a rehearing in this case is granted; and the case assigned for reargument on Monday, November 19 next, after the cases heretofore assigned for that day. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Lindley M. Garrison, Mr. Saul S. Myers and Mr. Walter H. Pollak, for appellant, in support of the petition. Mr. W. Randolph Montgomery, by leave of Court, filed a brief as amicus curiae. [See 262 U. S. 355.] No. 55. HECTOR H. ELWELL v. UNITED STATES ET AL. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Submitted October 5, 1923. Decided October 15, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. Mr. Roy D. Keehn for appellant. Mr. Charles C. Case was also on the brief. Mr. Solicitor General Beck, Mr. Assistant Attorney Gen 263 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. eral Riter and Mr. LeRoy L. Hight, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for appellees. Mr. R. S. Collins was also on the brief. No. 61. ANNIE VIOLA DOUGLAS v. J. W. RHODES. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Argued October 10, 1923. Decided October 15, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. Mr. Patrick H. Loughran for appellant. Mr. J. A. Tellier, with whom Mr. Zal Harrison, Mr. T. W. Davis, Mr. S. C. Costen, Mr. Joe Rhodes, Jr., and Mr. D. F. Taylor were on the brief, for appellee. No. 69. CHICAGO COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Argued October 12, 1923. Decided October 15, 1923. Per Curiam. Affirmed upon the authority of Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 592; United States v. North American Transportation Co., 253 U. S. 330, 333. Mr. Charles T. Tittmann and Mr. Peter B. Nelson, with whom Mr. Reeves T. Strickland and Mr. Donald Defrees were on the briefs, for appellant. Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Mr. Solicitor General Beck was on the brief, for the United States. No. 202. HARRIET C. BRITTIN v. S. E. JUDEN, PRESIDING JUSTICE, ET AL. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Submitted, pursuant to the 32d Rule, October 15, 1923. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 263 U.S. Decided October 22, 1923. Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs, upon the authority of Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456, 459-460; El Paso Water Co. v. El Paso, 152 U. S. 157, 159. Mr. Patrick H. Cullen and Mr. T. T. Fauntleroy for appellant. Mr. Arthur L. Oliver and Mr. Edward D. Hays for appellees. No. 80. MATT WALSER v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS. Error to the Municipal Court of the City of Sioux Falls, State of South Dakota. Submitted October 15, 1923. Decided October 22, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, 24; (2) Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 130; Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 176; Booth v. Indiana, 237 U. S. 391, 394; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369; (3) Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U. S. 403, 408. Mr. Joe Kirby for plaintiff in error. Mr. Joe H. Kirby and Mr. Thos. H. Kirby were also on the brief. Mr. R. W. Parliman and Mr. W. G. Porter for defendant in error. Mr. R. W. Parliman, Jr., was also on the brief. No. 286. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. V. STOKES V. ROBERTSON, STATE REVENUE AGENT, ETC. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. November 12, 1923. Per Curiam. Petition for rehearing denied. The authorities under which this case was dismissed were not § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6, as stated in the per curiam of October 8, 1923, but were: Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 263 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. Mr. William H. Watkins, Mr. R. L. Mc- · Laurin, Mr. William Thompson, Mr. Edward L. Blodgett and Mr. Foye M. Murphy, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Earl N. Floyd for defendant in error. [See ante, 673; infra, 698.] No. 157. HARRY KELLMAN v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Motion to dismiss submitted October 22, 1923. Decided November 12, 1923. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Bailiff v. Tipping, 2 Cranch, 406; Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 465, 466; Hogan v. Ross, 9 How. 602, 603; Insurance Co. v. Mordecai, 21 How. 195, 201; Kitchen v. Randolph, 93 U. S. 86, 87; United States v. Phillips, 121 U. S. 254. Mr. George F. Haid, for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Mr. Wm. L. Bohnenkamp and Mr. George Eigel appeared for plaintiff in error. No., Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF L. SANTIAGO CARMONA ET AL., PETITIONERS. Submitted November 12, 1923. Decided November 19, 1923. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus herein denied. Mr. F. Granville Munson and Mr. Grant ̧ T.. Trent for petitioners. No. 545. STATE OF OHIO EX REL. GEORGE S. HAWKE V. ROBERT A. LEBLOND, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, ETC. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. November 19, 1923. Per Curiam. The motion to advance is denied. The application for certiorari is also denied, and the writ of error is dismissed by the Court of its own motion, upon authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726. Mr |