Co., 166 Fed. Rep. 569; 168 Fed. Rep. 937; 170 Fed. Rep. 335; 170 Fed. Rep. 625; 170 Fed. Rep. 626; 171 Fed. Rep. 1014; 171 Fed. Rep. 1015; 171 Fed. Rep. 1019; Morton Trust Co. v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co., 170 Fed. Rep. 336; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Second Ave. Ry. Co., 171 Fed. Rep. 1020; Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co., 170 Fed. Rep. 623.

HELVETIA-SWISS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v.

BRANDENSTEIN.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 481. Motion to dismiss submitted November 15, 1909.-Decided November 29, 1909.

A writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed without opinion on the authority of Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288.1

1 The pertinent headnotes in Macfadden v. United States are as follows:

Although where a real constitutional question exists a writ of error can be sued out directly from this court to the trial court under § 5 of the act of 1891, the right to do so is lost by taking an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359. The Circuit Court of Appeals does not lose its jurisdiction of an appeal

under § 6 of the act of 1891 because questions were involved which would have warranted a direct appeal to this court under § 5 of that act.

Where the case can be taken directly to this court under § 5, or to the Circuit Court of Appeals under § 6, and the latter appeal is taken, while a writ of error will lie to the Circuit Court of Appeals if the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court rests, as shown by plaintiff's statement, on grounds, one of which is reviewable by this court, it will not lie if the only ground of jurisdiction is one where the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final.

Mr. Frederick B. Campbell for plaintiff in error.

Mr. William V. Rowe and Mr. Royall Victor for defendants in error.

Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288.

KANSAS CITY STAR COMPANY v. JULIAN.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

No. 85. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted November 29, 1909.Decided December 6, 1909.

Where the Federal question is first raised in the petition to the highest court of the State for rehearing it is too late. Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580.

Where the judgment of the state court rests on non-Federal grounds broad enough to sustain it this court cannot review it under § 709, Rev. Stat.

Writ of error to review, 209 Missouri, 35, dismissed.

Mr. Isaac N. Watson, Mr. Hannis Taylor, Mr. Wash. Adams and Mr. Frank Hagerman, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. John H. Atwood, Mr. O. H. Dean and Mr. Ira Julian, for the defendant in error.

Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 307, 308; State v. Bland, 186

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a criminal case is final, and is no less so because the appellate jurisdiction of this court might have been invoked directly under § 5 of the act of 1891.

Missouri, 691, 701, Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. 648, 653; case below, 209 Missouri, 35.

S.

The attention of the state Supreme Court was not called to any Federal question until in the petition for rehearing, and that was too late. Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580, 585, and cases.

The judgment rested on non-Federal grounds broad enough to sustain it. 209 Missouri, 35; Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. Snell, 193 U. S. 30; Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322.

MILLS v. JOHNSON.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 36. Argued November 12, 1909.-Decided December 13, 1909.

Writ of error to review a judgment of the state court dismissed for want of jurisdiction without opinion on authority of previous decisions.

Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. R. S. Neblett for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Robert E. Prince, Mr. Richard Mays and Mr. W. S. Simpkins for defendants in error.

Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Beale's Heirs v. Johnson, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 119; 99 S. W. Rep. 1045; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86; Same v. Same (No. 2), 212 U. S. 112; McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432; Cox v. Texas, 202 U. S. 446; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 405.

215 U.S.

Per Curiam.

THOMAS v. IOWA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.

No. 448. Argued December 13, 1909.-Decided December 20, 1909.

A writ of error to review a judgment of the highest court of a State, dismissed for want of jurisdiction without opinion.

Writ of error to review, 135 Iowa 717; 109 N. W. Rep. 900, dismissed.

Mr. J. T. Mulvaney for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles W. Lyon for defendant in error.

Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No further opinion will be filed.1

Ex parte UNITED STATES CONSOLIDATED SEEDED RAISIN COMPANY.

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS.

Original. Submitted December 20, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910.

Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus or certiorari denied.

Mr. John H. Miller for petitioner.

Per Curiam. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus or certiorari denied.

1 This case had been once before to this court on writ of error and the writ dismissed. See 209 U. S. 258.

HUSTON, JUDGE, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. HASKELL, GOVERNOR.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 325. Motion to dismiss submitted December 20, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910.

Writ of error to review judgment of highest court of a State, dismissed for want of jurisdiction without opinion on authority of previous decisions.

Writ of error to review 21 Oklahoma, 782, dismissed.

Mr. E. G. Spilman for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. A. C. Cruce for defendant in error.

Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291; Corkran Oil Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U. S. 146; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548; case below, 21 Oklahoma, 782.

PERTH AMBOY DRY DOCK COMPANY v. MONMOUTH STEAMBOAT COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 609. Submitted December 20, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910.

Decree of the District Court of the United States affirmed without opinion.