diction as the Federal question attempted to be raised is without merit.

Writ of error to review 136 Wisconsin, 6, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PLAINTIFF in error, having been convicted and sentenced, asserted that the law under which the jury was drawn was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ch. 90, Laws of Wisconsin for 1903 and §§ 2524, 2530, 2533, Wisconsin statutes. The trial court sustained the demurrer of the State to this plea. The plea of plaintiffs in error was that it is a denial of equal protection of the law and of due process of law to be put on trial under an indictment found by persons selected by jury commissioners who are required by statute to be freeholders.

·Mr. A. W. Sanborn, Mr. Frank B. Lamoreaux, Mr. Allan T. Pray, Mr. Horace B. Walmsley and Mr. W. F. Bailey for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Frank L. Gilbert, Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, Mr. Victor T. Pierrelee, Mr. A. C. Titus and Mr. J. E. Messerschmidt for defendant in error.

Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Federal question attempted to be raised is without merit.

NOLLMAN & CO. v. WENTWORTH LUNCH
COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 154. Argued April 15, 1910.-Decided April 18, 1910.

On the authority of Toxaway Hotel Company v. Smathers & Co., 216 U. S. 439, held that a corporation engaged in a general restaurant

business is not subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as engaged in manufacturing, printing, publishing, trading and mercantile pursuits.

THIS case involved the question whether a corporation principally or solely engaged in carrying on a general restaurant business comes within those classes of corporations which are subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 as engaged in manufacturing, printing, publishing, trading or mercantile pursuits.

Mr. Maurice P. Davidson for appellants and petitioners.

Mr. Reno R. Billington for appellee and respondent.

Mr. William C. Rosenberg, by permission of the court, filed a brief as amicus curiæ.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed on the authority of Toxaway Hotel Company v. Smathers & Co., decided February 21, 1910 (216 U. S. 439).1

1 The pertinent part of the headnote in this case is as follows:

A corporation engaged principally in running hotels is not a corporation engaged principally in trading or mercantile pursuits within the meaning of § 4, subs. b, of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898.

Where Congress has not expressly declared a word to have a particular meaning, it will be presumed to have used the word in its wellunderstood public and judicial meaning, and cases based on a declaration made by Parliament that the word has a certain meaning are not in point in determining the intent of Congress in using the word. An occupation that is not trading is not a mercantile pursuit.

A corporation not otherwise amenable to the Bankruptcy Act does not become so because it incidentally engages in mercantile pursuit; and so held as to a hotel company which, in addition to inn-keeping in which it was principally engaged, conducted a small store as an incident to its hotel business.

WENAR v. JONES, BISHOP OF PORTO RICO.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO.

No. 143. Submitted April 8, 1910.-Decided April 25, 1910.

In this case the decision appealed from, being merely an order to dismiss and not a determination on the merits, is not reviewable here and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

APPELLEE contended that the decision appealed from is not in itself of a reviewable character being merely an order dismissing an appeal and not a determination on the merits.

Mr. Willis Sweet for appellant.

Mr. Paul Fuller and Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury for appellee.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796, and cases cited.

1 The headnote in this case is as follows:

A decision of the Supreme Court of a Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court because of failure to docket the cause in time is not a final judgment or decision within the meaning of the statutes regarding writs of error and appeals to this court: Mandamus is the proper remedy in such case.

VOL. CCXVII-38

Statement of the Case.

217 U. S.

SCHULTZ v. DIEHL.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

No. 166. Submitted by appellants April 22, 1910.-Decided April 25,

1910.

Under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, the Circuit Court may have jurisdiction of an action brought by a resident of one State against a corporation organized under the laws of another State and stockholders of that corporation for the purpose of removing encumbrances from the property of the corporation in the District in which the suit is brought, even if some of the stockholders are not residents of the District in which they are sued. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1.

THE plaintiffs and appellants brought this case as minority stockholders of the Highland Gold Mines Company, a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, against the Highland Gold Mines Company, said corporation, and its officers and directors.

It is charged in the bill of complaint that the defendant Crawford, who was the attorney and legal advisor of the company, conspired with defendants Diehl, Grabill and Sorrensen, officers and directors of the company, to fabricate false and fictitious claims against the company on which judgment was obtained; that the object and purpose of said defendants was to use the judgment as a means of obtaining title in themselves to the company's property.

Other fraudulent acts were also charged.

Upon the trial defendants Diehl and Grabill moved to dismiss as to them because the court did not have jurisdiction over them for the reason that they had not been sued in the district in which either of them resided or of

which they were residents or inhabitants, it appearing from the bill that they were citizens of Pennsylvania. The court sustained the motion..

Mr. Charles W. Fulton and Mr. Douglas W. Bailey for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Decree reversed with costs and cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Company, 177 U. S. 1; 18 Stat. 470, c. 137, § 8; Code of Oregon, §§ 5064, 300, 301.

BRADY v. BERNARD & KITTINGER.

APPEAL FROM, AND PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO, THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

No. 501. Petition for certiorari and motion to dismiss submitted April 26, 1910. Decided May 2, 1910.

An appeal from an adjudication in bankruptcy taken under § 25a of the Bankruptcy Act of 1598 dismissed because taken too late.

APPEAL from an adjudication in bankruptcy taken under § 25a of the Bankruptcy Act.

Appellee contended in this case that the appeal came too late as it was taken more than ten days after the order. Appellant contended that as he had filed a petition to set aside the order the time ran from denial of that order. The petition to set aside was not filed until more than ten days after the adjudication.