275 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 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 on for the issuance of the writ," and that the supporting brief must be direct and concise. The petition for certiorari filed in this case is fifty-one pages long and contains no concise statement of the facts. The brief in support of the petition is seventy-two pages long and is presented separately. Both the petition and the brief have the same appendix, which is ninety pages long, and contains many references to Florida statutes. Messrs. G. W. L. Smith and Robert F. Cogswell for petitioners. Mr. Giles J. Patterson for respondent. No. 558. KUNGLIG JARNVAGSSTYRELSEN, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ROYAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE SWEDISH STATE RAILWAYS, V. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK AND DEXTER & CARPENTER, INC.; and No. 559. SAME V. DEXTER & CARPENTER, INC. On petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. November 21, 1927. Per Curiam. The petition for two writs of 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 on for the issuance of the writ," and that the supporting brief must be direct and concise. The petition filed in this case for the two writs of certiorari is thirty-four pages long, and the petitioner's brief filed in support thereof is one hundred ninety-six pages long, thirty-six pages of which are devoted to a statement 83583° 28- -32 Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 275 U.S. of the facts. Mr. Gustav Lange, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. Charles S. Haight and John S. Garver for respondents. No. 572. GYPSY OIL COMPANY v. LEO BENNETT ESCOE, A MINOR, BY O. W. STEPHENS, GUARDIAN. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. November 21, 1927. Per Curiam. This petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma is denied. The application was not made in accordance with § 8 (a), act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 940, which provides: "No writ of error, appeal, or writ of certiorari shall be allowed or entertained unless application therefor be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered March 22, 1927. A timely petition for rehearing was denied June 14, 1927. On June 18, 1927, an application for leave to file a second petition for rehearing was endorsed: "Leave granted to file-Fred C. Branson, Chief Justice." "On August 2, 1927, as appears from the minutes, the following proceedings were taken by the court: "Gypsy Oil Company v. Escoe, et al. Application for leave to file a second petition for rehearing denied; application for oral argument denied. Fred C. Branson, Chief Justice." On September 30, 1927, more than three months after denial of the petition for rehearing (June 14), the present petition for certiorari was filed. The running of the time within which proceedings may be initiated here to bring up judgment or decree for review is suspended by the seasonable filing of a petition for 275 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. rehearing. But it begins to run from the date of denial of such petition and further suspension can not be obtained by the mere presentation of a motion for leave to file a second request for rehearing. Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 153, 154. If, however, a timely motion for leave to file the second petition is granted, and the petition is actually entertained by the Court, then the time within which application may be made here for certiorari begins to run from the day when the Court denies such second petition. Messrs. Chester I. Long, George E. Chamberlain, Peter Q. Nyce and James B. Diggs for petitioner. Mr. Creekmore Wallace for respondent. No., original. IN RE ABRAHAM S. GILBERT. November 21, 1927. It is ordered that the clerk issue a rule returnable Monday, December 12, 1927, addressed to Abraham S. Gilbert, of New York City, member of this bar, which shall direct That he make written report to this Court showing what fees or allowances have been paid to him (also when and by whom paid) for services as master in the several causes reviewed here during the October term, 1921, and reported in 259 U. S. 101, under the following titles: Newton, as Attorney General of the State of New York, et al., v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York; Same v. New York & Queens Gas Company; Same v. Central Union Gas Company; Same v. Northern Union Gas Company; Same v. New York Mutual Gas Light Company; Same v. Standard Gas Light Company of the City of New York; Same v. New Amsterdam Gas Company; Same v. East River Gas Company of Long Island City. That he likewise report whether he has returned or repaid any portion of the fees or allowances received by him as such master, with dates and names of the parties. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 275 U.S. That if he has received fees or allowances as master in any of the specified causes exceeding the maximum amount held by us to be permissible, and has not returned or repaid the excess, then he shall show cause why his name ought not to be stricken from the roll of attorneys permitted. to practice here and he be punished for contempt or otherwise dealt with as the circumstances may require. No. 293. UNITED STATES AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, THE ARKANSAS WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, FORT SMITH AND VAN BUREN RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. Argued November 22, 1927. Decided November 28, 1927. Per Curiam. Reversed and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri with directions to vacate the injunction decree and dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of the United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co., 273 U. S. 299. Mr. Blackburn Esterline, Assistant to the Solicitor General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell and Messrs. Charles W. Needham and Oliver E. Sweet were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Samuel W. Moore, with whom Mr. Frank H. Moore was on the brief, for appellees. No. 543. ARTHUR RICH. v. MICHIGAN. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. Argued November 22, 1927. Decided November 28, 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. Messrs. Harry E. Kelly 275 U.S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. and Thornton M. Pratt, with whom Messrs. Richard S. Doyle and Carl H. Zeiss were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Wm. W. Potter and Wilbur M. Brucker were on the brief for defendant in error. No. 346. FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES. On writ of certiorari to the Court of Customs Appeals. Argued November 22, 1927. Decided November 28, 1927. Per Curiam. Reversed on the authority of United States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607, 612; the decision being that § 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962; U. S. C., Title 19, § 361) does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., for petitioners. Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Mr. Cyril S. Lawrence was on the brief, for the United States. No. 89. E. W. BLISS COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. On writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims. Argued November 29, 1927. Decided November 29, 1927. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the Court of Claims for further findings. Counsel to enter into a stipulation as to the form of judgment to be entered in the Court of Claims. Mr. Wm. B. King, with whom Messrs. Bynum E. Hinton, George A. King and George R. Shields were on the brief, for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Assistant Attorney General Galloway and Messrs. Perry W. Howard and Louis R. Mehlinger were on the brief, for the United States. See post, p. 509. |