Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Mr. Norman Farrell, Jr., and Mr. Hill McAlister for appellants.

Mr. Edwin C. Brandenburg, Mr. Clarence A. Brandenburg, Mr. F. Walter Brandenburg, Mr. A. E. Wilson and Mr. James R. Duffin for appellees.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiotion and petition for writ of certiorari denied.

EX PARTE MORSE, PETITIONER.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS.

No. -, Original. Submitted May 2, 1910.-Decided May 16, 1910.

[ocr errors]

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the

ground that petitioner was restrained under a judgment of sentence of imprisonment entered by a court without jurisdiction and in disregard of petitioner's constitutional rights, denied without opinion.

PETITIONER was tried, convicted and sentenced. He filed this petition alleging that his trial was not impartial, that special government agents were in charge of the jury, that one juror was mentally dis qualified, that the court submitted the question of intent to deceive which was not in the indictment, and that the sentence was in excess of the term prescribed by the statuis.

Mr. Martin W. Littleton for petitioner.

Per Curiam. Motion for leave to nle petition denied.

[blocks in formation]

SHEDD v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

EX REL. HEALY, STATE'S ATTORNEY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS..

No. 708. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16, 1910.--Decided

May 31, 1910.

A judgment of ouster rendered in quo warranto proceeding, 241 Illinois,

155, affirmed without opinion.

The facts involved the validity of a judgment of ouster rendered by the Supreme Court of Illinois in a quo warranto proceeding.

Mr. Harry S. Mecartney for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. James Hamilton Lewis for defendant in error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs.

THOMAS RHODUS v. MANNING.

SAME v. SAME.
BIRCH F. RHODUS v. SAME.

SAME v. SAME.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Nos. 739, 740, 741, 742. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16,

1910.-Decided May 31, 1910.

Judgments of the state court committing plaintiffs in error for failure

to comply with orders of the court directing them to turn over property to receiver of a corporation, affirmed without opinion

[blocks in formation]

notwithstanding contention that the orders amounted to unreasonable searches, required plaintiffs in error to incriminate themselves and denied them due process of law.

The state court entered orders requiring plaintiffs in error to turn over property to defendant in error received of a corporation and adjudging them in and committing them for contempt for failure to comply.

Plaintiffs in error sued out writs of error assigning as error that they were denied rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

Defendant in error moved to dismiss :

Because the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not apply to the compulsory production of evidence in a court of a State.

Because the record does not present a case of either a search or seizure, or of the production of evidence; but shows, on the contrary, non-compliance with a decree for relief upon an undisputed title tu possession.

Because it is inanifest that the writs of error herein were taken for delay only, and that the contention on which the jurisdiction depends is so frivolous as not to require further argument.

Mr. Benjamin C. Bachrach and Mr. Joseph B. David for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Samuel Alschuler, Mr. Charles R. Holder and Mr. Joseph Weissenbach for deiendants in error.

Per Curiam. Judgments affirmed with costs.

[blocks in formation]

MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & TEXAS RAILROAD &

STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. STREET.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH

SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 813. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16, 1910.-Decided

May 31, 1910.

A judgment of the state court for damages for personal injuries

affirmed without opinion.

JUDGMENT against plaintiff in error for damages for personal injuries sustained by defendant in error by reason of plaintiff in error's negligence. Plaintiff in error sued out this writ of error on ground that it had been denied the right to remove the case to the Federal Court. Defendant in error moved to dismiss or affirm.

Mr. Maxwell Evarts and Mr. H. M. Garwood for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. John W. Parker for defendant in error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v.

SHEEGOG, ADMINISTRATOR.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

No. 879. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16, 1910.– Decided

May 31, 1910.

Held, without opinion, that the Circuit Court of the United States

had no jurisdiction of this action to enjoin the collection of a judgment entered against appellant in the state court.

[blocks in formation]

THE railroad company removed a suit brought against it and some of its employés for damages for personal injuries from the state court into the Federal court; the state court declined to surrender jurisdiction and the plaintiff in that suit (appellee here) recovered judgment which was affirmed. In the Federal court motions to remand were overruled and judgment entered in favor of the railroad company. Thereupon the railroad company brought this suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment entered in the state court in favor of the appellee in this case. The Circuit Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Plewett Lee and Mr. Edmund F. Trabie for appellant.

Mr. John G. Miller for appellee.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs.

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON

V. TAPPAN.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR

THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 837. Submitted May 16, 1910.-Decided May 31, 1910.

Judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing a case for want of juris

diction affirmed without opinion.

This case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In its brief plaintiff in error contended that this suit was properly brought in the Circuit Court upon the ground

« PreviousContinue »