Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 275 U.S. H. V. Mercer, with whom Messrs. H. B. Fryberger and Harvey Hoshour were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Frank D. Adams, Elmer F. Blu, George W. Morgan, Nathan L. Miller and Kenneth B. Halstead were on the brief for defendants in error. No. 46. THOMAS H. DENT, ADMINISTRATOR, v. JAMES S. SWILLEY. Error to the Court of Civil Appeals, Ninth Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas. Argued October 19, 1927. Decided October 24, 1927. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction. Treating the writ of error as an application for certiorari, the certiorari is denied for want of a substantial Federal question on the authority of Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. S. 170, 178; Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U. S. 86, 91; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112. Mr. Wm. L. Houston, with whom Messrs. Winford H. Smith, Charles H. Bates and Thomas H. Dent, pro se, were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas B. Dupree was on the brief for defendant in error. No. 54. A. W. MELLON, DIRECTOR GENERAL, v. L. E. MCKINLEY. On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. Argued October 19, 20, 1927. Decided October 24, 1927. Per Curiam. The grounds which were presented in the petition for certiorari, because of which the writ was granted, do not prove to have a substantial basis in the record, and the certiorari heretofore granted in this case is therefore vacated upon the authority of United States v. McFarland, ante, p. 485; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Service Co., 263 275 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. U. S. 508; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440. Mr. Ashby M. Warren for petitioner. Mr. Thomas C.. Mapother was on the brief for respondent. No. 59. GEORGE D. IVERSON, JR., v. ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY. Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. Argued October 20, 1927. Decided October 24, 1927. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction. Treating the writ of error as an application for certiorari, the certiorari is denied for want of a substantial Federal question on the authority of Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. S. 170, 178; Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U. S. 86, 91; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112. Mr. Harry Zoller, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. G. W. S. Musgrave and John H. Hessey were on the brief for defendant in error. No. 61. MUELLER GRAIN COMPANY V. AMERICAN STATE BANK OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA. On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Argued October 20, 21, 1927. Decided October 24, 1927. Per Curiam. Reversed on the authority of Fleischman Construction Co. v. United States, use of Forsberg, 270 U. S. 349, 356; Law v. United States, 266 U. S. 494, 496; and the cause remanded to the said Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Mr. Walter H. Moses, with whom Messrs. Walter Bachrach and Clarence W. Heyl were on the brief, for petitioner. Messrs. Carl Meyer, Henry Russell Platt and David F. Rosenthal for respondents, submitted. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 275 U.S. No. 36. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY v. TEXAS. On writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, Third Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas. Argued October 17, 1927. Decided October 31, 1927. Per Curiam. In this case, in which a certiorari was granted, the writ is now vacated for the reason that the grounds advanced for the granting of the writ prove, upon an examination of the record, not to have a substantial basis. Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 508; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440; United States v. McFarland, ante, p. 485. In this case exception is taken by one of counsel for the respondent to seven pages of a reply brief filed by one of counsel for the petitioner. The matter excepted to is an effort by counsel for the petitioner to minimize and detract from the weight of a supplemental record which the Court permitted to be filed by a recital of correspondence and communications between opposing counsel with an intimation that, contrary to an agreement, no opportunity had been furnished to oppose the filing. Respondent's counsel asks that this brief be stricken from the files as improper. The motion is granted. The supplemental record was filed by order of the Court. No motion was made to have the order revoked or the record stricken off the files. We can not approve of this insinuating and irregular method of reflecting on opposing counsel and on the relevancy and weight of a document which the Court has permitted to be filed. Mr. Alex H. McKnight, with whom Messrs. J. M. Bryson and C. C. Huff were on the brief, for petitioner. Messrs. Joseph W. Bailey and Luther Nickels, with whom Messrs. Claude Pollard, Dan Moody and D. A. Simmons were on the brief, for respondent. No. 72. FORDSON COAL COMPANY V. JOHN M. MOORE, SHERIFF. Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. Argued October 27, 1927. Decided October 275 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 31, 1927. Per Curiam. The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), for lack of jurisdiction. Jett Bros. Distilling Company v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Treating the writ of error as an application for certiorari, the certiorari is denied for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 501, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 Ụ. S. 144, 147. Mr. Wallace R. Middleton, with whom Mr. Clifford B. Longley was on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Frank E. Daugherty, Attorney General of Kentucky, Gardner K. Byers and Swagar Sherley were on the brief for defendant in error. No. 77. GUNDER DRAXTON ET AL. v. C. P. FITCH ET AL. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. Argued October 27, 1927. Decided October 31, 1927. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Mr. James Manahan for plaintiffs in error, submitted. Mr. Victor E. Anderson, with whom Messrs. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General of Minnesota, and James E. Markham were on the brief, for defendants in error. No. 80. E. G. GRIFFIN v. GEORGE L. POWERS ET AL. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. Argued October 28, 1927. Decided October 31, 1927. Per Curiam. Affirmed on the authority of Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 122; Douglas v. Noble, 261 U. S. 165, 169, 170; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425, 427. Mr. Carlisle S. Littleton for plaintiff in error. Messrs. John D. Keeble and Scott P. Fitzhugh were on the brief for defendants in error. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 275 U.S. No., original. Ex PARTE CHARLES A. STUTZMAN. November 21, 1927. Per Curiam. The motions of Mr. Charles A. Stutzman for leave to file a petition for habeas corpus in this case and to proceed in forma pauperis therein are both denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the unprinted petition, and papers accompanying it, finds that there are no grounds upon which the writ of habeas corpus can be issued. The costs already incurred herein by direction of the Court shall be paid by the clerk from the special fund in his custody, as provided in the order of October 29, 1926. No. 490. MOLLIE TIGER AND BABY CUMSEY, BY C. L. GARBER, ET AL. v. F. S. LOZIER ET AL. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. November 21, 1927. Per Curiam. The petition for certiorari is denied for the reason that the petitioner has failed to comply with section 2 of Rule 35 of the Supreme Court which provides that the "petition shall contain only a summary and short statement of the matter involved and the reasons relied upon for the issuance of the writ," and that the supporting brief must be direct and concise. The petition for certiorari filed in this case contains no concise statement of the facts, is sixty-six pages long, and purports to set forth forty-seven "Federal Questions Arising in This Case." The petitioner's brief, of seventytwo pages, is prefaced by some twenty pages of "General Propositions of Law," and followed by an appendix of two hundred and ten pages of excerpts from the record. Mr. Lewis C. Lawson for petitioners. Messrs. George S. Ramsey, Alvin Richards and John M. Chick for respondents. No. 497. WARREN E. BROWN ET AL. v. LOUIS H. KRIETOn petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit MEYER. |