Volume 249 — United States Reports

Held: that the latter allegations were part of plaintiffs’ case, and involved a construction and application of § 2332, and hence the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reviewable in this court by appeal. Pp. 20-23.

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OE CUSTOMS APPEALS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion. For the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, see G. A. 7758, 29 T. D. 59.</p>

Held: that the order merely embodied the rule that a change of sovereignty does not end existing private law, and that the act neither fastened upon the Zone a specific civil-law interpretation of the Code nor overthrew the principle of common-law construction adopted and applied by the Supreme Court of the Zone before the act was passed. P. 44.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck and other defendants, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights.

. The cases are stated in the opinion. Since this case involves the construction and application of the Constitution, by § 247, Jud. Code, a writ of error may be taken from the District Court for Alaska direct to the Supreme Court of the United States. If it had involved constitutional questions only, this court would have had exclusive jurisdiction to review the judgment of the District Court,, and the Circuit Court of Appeals would have had none.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: where tax-bills were issued for street improvements under the authority of Art. VI, § 14, of the charter of the City of St. Louis, that the one-fourth levied and assessed under the front-foot rule is valid and incontestable even where the three-fourths of such tax-bills assessed under the area rule are invalid because of gross inequalities in the assessment thereof.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the law made no provision whereby during this interval a deed of land in the new district might be filed in an older district in which the land was previously located, and that a deed so filed was not constructive notice to subsequent purchasers who bought several months after the recording office in the new district was opened. P. 84.

United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), was a decision of the US Supreme Court upholding the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act as a valid use of a federal power under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prescriptions of narcotics for maintenance treatment was not within the discretion of physicians and thus not privileged under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U.S. 100 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that penalties awarded "in lieu of actual damages and profits" cannot be less than $250 for each case of copyright infringement.

Held: error for the Court of Appeals, finding the bill made a case for the relief sought, to award a permanent injunction; for defendants were entitled to answer to the merits as if their motion had been overruled originally. P. 114.. 46 App. D. C. 411 , reversed. The case is stated in the opinion. The Solicitor General, with whom Mr. Leslie C. Garnett was. on the brief, for appellants.

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the district court was thus empowered to determine and *135 decree damages arising under the injunction bonds prior to the reversed decrees. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McKnight, 244 IT. S. 368, explained. P. 143.

Held: that- there are adequate grounds for each’ of these exceptions. Id. The discrimination resulting between employees engaged in the same kind of work, where one employer exercises his option to come under the act and another does not, is likewise consistent with the equal protection clause. P. 159.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: consistent with the contract clause and due process. Id. Mdrley v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern By. Co., 146 U. S. 162 . Interest on judgments allowed by statute merely is not contractual but a penalty or liquidated damages. P. 173. Quaere: Is this true of a judgment' based on a contract stipulating for interest? Id. Affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>certiorari to the supreme court of the state of OKLAHOMA.’</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>To empower this court to review a judgment of a. District Court as involving the Constitution,-under Jud. Code, § 238, the writ of error must present a substantial constitutional question, properly raised ’ below.' P. 183.</p> <p>A substantial constitutional question cannot be based upon a refusal to give requested instructions the substance of which was clearly embodied in the charge to the jury. P.-184.</p> <p>A judge is not obliged to adopt the exact language of instructions re- , quested, or to repeat-instructions already given in. substance. P. 185.</p>

Held: that it could not be heard, to object , that the senders of the messages were not identified as officers or agents of the connecting carrier. . P. 192. A shipment of poultry, delayed by floods, was appropriated by state military authorities, at the solicitation of the carrier and upon its false or not justified representation that the fowls were abandoned by their caretaker and dying.

<p>APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>A suit against state officials to enjoin the enforcement of a tax becomes • moot and must be dismissed oh appeal where it appears that defendants’ term of office has expired and that their successors have qualified, when there is'no law authorizing a revival or continuance ■against the latter.</p>

<p>Order opening case for additional and supplemental proofs, and appointing commissioner.</p>

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the conviction of a newspaperman for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 in connection with criticism of U.S. involvement in foreign wars. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court found that this criticism constituted the "willful obstruction" of America's recruitment efforts and was not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As in Schenck v. United States, also decided in 1919, the speech might have been protected were the country not at war.

Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision, relevant for US labor law and constitutional law, that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917.

<p>A stipulation in an interstate bill of lading conditioning the shipper's right to recover for loss or damage to live stock upon delivery of a verified claim in writing to a designated agent of the carrier within five days from the removal of the stock from the cars, held valid; and not waived; and not substituted by oral notice of the facts to the connecting carrier’s agent. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern By. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592.</p>

<p>IN EQUITY.</p> <p>The case is stated in the Opinion.</p>

Held: that neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries, nor all together, could be regarded as a joint stock association, within the meaning of § II, G. (a), of the Income Tax Law of October 3, 1913; and that dividends upon the stock left with the trustees were not subject to the extra tax imposed by that section. P. 232.

The case is stated in the opinion. That the court below had jurisdiction over the Kansas and Missouri defendants because of the ancillary and dependent character of the suit, see 234 Fed. Rep. 1.54; Phoenix Ry. Co. v. Geary, 239 U. S. 277; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276; White v. Ewing, .159 U. S. 36. There is no misjoinder of causes. The property is a unit, to be protected as such.

Held: as between strangers, not conclusive that her children were free.

Held: rendered the charge unreasonable and void.

<p>A judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, which denied the right of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners to require a Manila street car company to give free transportation to detectives wearing their badges concealed, and was based wholly upon a construction of the company’s franchise ordinance, held not subject to review under Jud. Code, § 248, before the amendment of September 6, 1916, (1) as clearly not involving the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title or privilege of the United States, and (2) because the value in controversy was not shown to exceed 125,000.</p>

Held: that the court cannot say, upon its judicial knowledge, that the legislature had no adequate ground for the distinction; possibly one might be found in the need of adjusting the service in the excepted restaurants to the hours of trains. Id. 18 Arizona, 345, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Harvey M. Friend for plaintiff in error.

The cases are stated in the opinion. contended that this case differed, tolo ccelo, from the Gunning Case, 235 Missouri, 99, upon which great reliance was placed by the city.

Held: that the rule adopted had no necessary relation to the real valúe in Georgia, and that the tax was void. P. 283. Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Pennsyl-. vania, 141 U. S. 18 , distinguished and limited. What is said in an opinion upon a point not raised or properly involved cannot control in a subsequent case where the very point is presented for decision. P. 286. 143 Georgia, 765; 146 id.," 489, reversed.

Held: a common carrier within the meaning of the Hours of Service Act, c. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415 . P. 304. Crews engaged in moving at one time a locomotive and seven or eight cars between the docks and the warehouses and team tracks of a terminal company, held engaged in the movement of a “train,” within the meaning of the Hours of Service Act. § 1. P. 307. 239 Fed. Rep. 287 , reversed. The case is stated in. the opinion.

<p>An Indian holding a trust patent under the General Allotment Act of 1887, who leases his allotment with permission granted under the Act of June 25, 1910, and the supplementary regulations of the Interior Department, may make a valid sale of his share of the crop reserved in the lease as rental. P. 311.</p> <p>Whether, apart from authority to lease, sale of the growing crop by the allottee would be void under the. Act of 1887, in a State where such crops are personalty — not passed upon. P. 309.</p> <p>The concession that the allottee had written permission from the Government to lease his allotment is taken as implying permission to lease for himself based on a finding of capacity under the Act of 1910 and regulations, and not as referring to authority of the Government to lease for the allottee in case of age, disability, etc., under the Act of May 31,1900,31 Stat. 221,229. P.312.</p>

Held: that a contract was completed with the same force and effect as if a formal writing had been executed, and bond approved, by the Department, and that the Postmaster General or his successor had no discretion to revoke it. P. 317.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>An owner jwho by personal contract has warranted the seaworthiness of .a vessel, and is also privy to and has knowledge of hér unseaworthiness, to which is due a loss of-cargo, is not within the Limited Liability Act óf June 26,',1884.</p> <p>Concurrent findings of two lower courts accepted.</p>

ownership of the five and that they are so situated that the sinking of the well upon one will tend to develop, or to prove the oil-bearing character of the remaining claims of his group. There was no need of remedial legislation in cases where discovery had been made on the claims, because such a discovery itself establishes their oil-bearing character. The mining law requires assessment work as an evidence of good faith.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the fact that the amount specified was to be the same whether both buildings were delayed or only one was not a sufficient reason for considering it a penalty, nor was there other ground for not giving effect to the agreement as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. P. 364. Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642 .

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p> <p>besides arguing the merits, urged that the mere lapse of time was not enough to bar the relief sought, because the petition averred that from the time of his removal the relator made every reasonable effort to have his rights recognized and to be restored to his position, but without avail, and by his attorneys had made formal request for restoration; which allegations were not properly denied. The relator was not to be condemned because he did not fly to the courts without exhausting the possibilities of amicable adjustment. Rather should the law, which discourages litigation, commend his course. And the delay had worked no harm. There was no pretense of loss of evidence; no change of situation; no intervening rights of innocent third parties. The question was one of law, pure and simple, without dispute of fact. And surely, in such circumstances, the doctrine of laches ought not to be allowed to act as a cloak for a grievous injustice. The fact that a successor had drawn the salary did not affect the situation, for relator, if unlawfully removed, was entitled to the compensation of the office (United States v. Wickersham, 201 U. S. 390), whether successful in this proceeding or not.</p> <p>Under c. 42 of the Code of the District of Columbia, §§ 1273-1282, mandamus is a writ of right. It is a common-law remedy, Heine v. Levee Commissioners, 19 Wall. 655; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 524; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524; and § 1265 of the Code is applicable, allowing three years within which to bring action. Laches is no defense to a law action. Roller v. Clark, 38 App.. D. C. 260, 266; Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 TJ. S.' 314, 326; Abraham v. Crdway, 158 U. S. 416, 422; Barbour v. Moore, 10 App. D. C. 30, 47.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR. THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The District Court has no jurisdiction in habeas corpus to determine and award the custody of an infant at the suit of an alien against a citizen of the State of forum, when the only substantial question is which of the parties is the mother. P. 377.</p> <p>The claim that such á case arises under a law of the United States because the infant was imported'by the respondent in violation of the Immigration Laws is frivolous. Id.</p> <p>Quaere: Whether diversity of citizenship with an averment of pecuniary interest could Confer jurisdiction on a federal court in habeas corpus. P.378. .</p>

<p>The basis of the power of the federal courts to punish summarily for contempt committed in their presence is to secure them from obstruction in the performance of their judicial duties; and'to justify exertion of this power, the element of- obstruction must clearly appear. P. 3S3.</p> <p>Because perjury is punishable as a criminal pífense is rio reason why it may not also afford basis for punishment as a contempt. P. 382.</p> <p>Perjury in fade curice is not of itself punishable as contempt apart from its obstructive tendency. P. 383. ..</p> <p>Hence, a District Court has no power to adjudge a witness guilty of contempt solely because in the court’s opinion he is wilfully refusing to testify truthfully, and to .confine him until he shall purge himself by giving testimony which the court deems truthful. P. 384. -</p> <p>In such a case, held that the original jurisdiction of this court in habeas corpus was properly invoked. Id.</p>

Held: in view of these qualifying words, that the contract did not guarantee the railroad against any change of the rates during that period. Id. Eastern R. R. Co. v. United States, 129 U. S. 391 .

Held: in respect of such products imported from another State for sale in Washington, that the charge is excessive and an-unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. Id. 94 Washington, 291, reversed. The case is stated in the. opinion.

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.:</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that there was no vis major, excusing further performance, and that enforcement of the agreed rates would not deprive the company of property without due process of law. P. 413. Equity cannot relieve from bad bargains simply because they are such. P. 414. ' 253 Fed. Rep. 499 , affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Joseph S. Clark, with whom Mr. Karl E. Burr, Mr. Henry Á.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: not objectionable under the equal protection clause. P. 431. The right of a manufacturer to maintain secrecy as to his compounds and processes is subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of its ■ police power, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth. P. 432.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. Wine has from the dawn of civilization been a recognized article of commerce, useful in arts, mechanics and for scientific, medicinal and religious purposes. Its future acquisition may be prohibited, but until some statute has been passed to change its status it retains the status of property given by common consent of mankind through the course of centuries.

The case is stated in the opinion. Here was a month taken, at the best season of the year for working, simply to obtain - record evidence of the authority of the attorney in fact of the surety company to sign the contract. The delay was wholly on the part of the Government. . "Whether styled “reasonable” or “unreasonable,” it was a delay for which the contractor was in no degree responsible.

Held: where the District Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, had refused to stay the accounting, upon full consideration of the grounds urged in this court by petitioner. Rule discharged; petition dismissed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. H. A. Toulmin, Jr., and Mr. H. A. Toulmin, with whom Mr. E. H. Turner and Mr. W. B. Turner were on the brief, for petitioners.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that this prevents recovery where the invention was completed.-during such service although in the hours when the inventor was not actually on duty. 52 Ct. Clms. 532, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. *488 Mr. Samuel Herrick, with whom Mr. P. M. Liddy was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson for the United States. Me.

Held: that the Secretary, having approved the name “Creamo” as a designation of an oleo product, containing 30% cream, and which was strongly extolled on that ground, was amply justified in denying the use when the cream had been greatly reduced or omitted, and replaced by skimmed milk; notwithstanding evidence that the manufacturer invested heavily upon the faith of the approval. Id. 243. Fed. Rep. 503, reversed.

<p>Revised Statutes, § 3226, providing that no suit shall be maintained - for recovery of illegal or erroneous taxes until appeal made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and decision had thereon, and-fixing a period -within which suit may be brought when' his decision is delayed more than six months, was made applicable by § 31 of the War. Revenue Act of June 13,1898, 30 Stat. 448, 464, to inheritance' taxes collected under that act. P, 507. » ‘ ,</p> <p>As applied to a claim for a refimd of such inheritance taxes, this bar of Rev. Stats., § 3226, and the bar of § 3228, which • requires all claims for the refunding of erroneous or illegal internal taxes to be' presented to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within , two years next' after the cause of action accrued, wére removed by the Acts of June 27, 1902, c. 1160, § 3, 32 Stat. 406, and of July 27, 1912, c. 256; 37 Stat. 240, if the claimant complied with their 'requirements and presented his claim to' the Commissioner. Id.</p> <p>The fact that a tax was voluntarily paid, without protest, is not an impediment to- a refund under the Act of July 27, 1912, supra. • United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 1. P. 508.</p> <p>The Act of July 27, 1912, supra, §2,’ in providing that repayment shall be made to “such claimants as have presented or shall hereafter present their claims,” requires a positive and individuál assertion of the claim, within the time limited; .the claimant may not*' rely upon claims presented by others not manifestly his own or clearly fnade on ¿is behalf, nor excuse- the presentation of his claim upon the assumption that it Would have been useless, judged by results in other eases. Id.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. The statute is unconstitutional and void: (1) Because it is arbitrary and unreasonable, and the discrimination attempted has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be accomplished; because tree-tops, etc., lying on the land of the owner, 400 feet and less from the land of the City of Asheville, constituting its watershed, are absolutely'harmless; they contain no element. of injury or damage to anyone and could not by any possibility…

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>The case is stated in thé opinion..</p>

Held: that the limitation was not intended to affect the city when constructing a street railroad of its. own under a later amendment of the law and of the state constitution. P. 519.

<p>A state law relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proving negligence is constitutionally inapplicable to a case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Art. P. 529. New Orleans & Northeastern: R. R. Co. v. Harris. 247 U. S. 367.</p> <p>Under the Boiler Inspection Act, the mere breaking of a king pin and coupling chains, without other evidence, does not establish, as a matter of law, that they were defective. P. 530.,</p> <p>When the decision of the state court upholds a state statute in conflict with a valid law of the United States, review is by writ of error-. Id. ■</p>

Held: that the railroad company was not under an absolute duty to furnish him a safe place for the performance of his duties, but was merefy bound to use reasonable care. Id. 115 Mississippi, 343, reversed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Charles N. Burch, with whom Mr.- II. D. Minor was on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error. .

Held: not- ¡ignoré switching operation but a train movement, subject to the train-brake provisions of the Sa|ety Appliance Act, as amended. P. 538. The. application of the act can not be made to depend on the taking of qther than the prescribed precautions, such as providing gates and watchmen, or upon balancing the dangers involved in following its requirements against those involved in its neglect. P. 539.

Held: That the grant, construed strictly, with reference to the public necessity in that vicinity and previous pollution ,of the water, was subject to the right of the State to authorize the City of Newport News to discharge its sewage into the Roads, and that the consequent pollution of the plaintiff’s oysters was neither (1) á taking of his property without due process, nor (2) an impairment of his contract rights, nor…

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>In the interest of justice the court may decline to dismiss a ease upon the ground that the writ of error and citation were not made returnable in time, where the irregularity had color of authority from the court below and one of its judges. P. 555.</p> <p>An offer to sell real property, in the form of an option allowing three months in which to buy at a certain price, is not accepted by an ■ offer to purchase at that price, conditioned to be paid on a date specified (beyond the three months) or “before and with delivery” of clear title. Id.</p> <p>The opportunity to accept a continuing offer is lost by making a counter offer. ' P. 556.</p> <p>The court will not disturb a decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on a local question of contract, unless clearly wrong. Id. - '</p>

Held: that the new orders were to be regarded as resting upon the- original petition of the carriers, so that, under the jurisdictional Act of October 22,1913, á suit to enjoin their enforcement was properly brought in a judicial district where one of the carriers* a party' defendant, had its residence. • P. 563.

Held: considering the Superintendent’s functions and powers under the New York law, and the .purpose of the statement, that it was educational and adviáory merely, not binding on the city and county sealers and not a rule or regulation of a legislative character such as might impair the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or the commerce clause. P. 573. 242 Fed. Rep. 87 , affirmed.

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State, of Alabama.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.</p>

<p>Error to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, State of California.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, State of California.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico.</p>

<p>Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.</p>

<p>Error to -the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California; and</p> <p>Error to the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, State of California.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court' of the State of South Dakota.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of .the State of Kentucky.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia.</p>

<p>Appeals from the Court of Claims.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington.</p>

<p>Error to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>