der. In Oklahoma Gin Co. v. State, 252 U. S. 339, 40 Sup. Ct. 341, 64 L. Ed. decided this day, it appears that the full penalty of $500, with the provision for the like penalty for each subsequent day's violation of the order, was imposed in each of three complaints there involved, although they were merely different instances of charges in excess of a single prescribed rate. Obviously a judicial review beset by such deterrents does not satisfy the constitutional requirements, even if otherwise adequate, and therefore the provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the rates by penalties are unconstitutional without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 147, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Tucker, 230 U. S. 340, 349, 33 Sup. Ct. 961, 57 L. Ed. 1507; Wadley Southern Railway v. Georgia, 235 U. S. 651, 662, 35 Sup. Ct. 214, 59 L. Ed. 405. [4] The plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Corporation Commission from enforcing the penalties. Since this suit was commenced, the Legislature has provided by chapter 52, section 3, of the Laws of 1919 (Sess. Laws Oklahoma 1919, p. 87) that in actions arising before the Commission under section 8235 there shall be the Court of the state as had theretofore exsanre right of direct appeal to the Supreme isted in the case of transportation and trans Amendment plaintiff was entitled to an opportunity for a review in the courts of its contention that the rates were not compensatory. Chicago, etc., Railway Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 456-458, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 33 L. Ed. 970; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 165, 166, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764. The Constitution of the state prohibited any of its courts from reviewing any action of the Commission within its authority except by way of appeal to the Supreme Court (article 9, section 20); and the Supreme Court had construed the Constitution and applicable provisions of the statutes as not permitting a #336 direct appeal from *orders fixing rates. Harriss-Irby Cotton Co. v. State, supra. On behalf of the Commission it was urged at the oral argument that a judicial review of the order fixing rates might have been had also by writ of mandamus or of prohibition issuing out of the Supreme Court of the state. But, in view of the provision of the state Constitution just referred to, it must be assumed, in the absence of a decision of a state court to the contrary, that neither remedy, even if otherwise available, could be used to review an order alleged to be void because confiscatory. The proviso "that the writs of mandamus and prohibition shall lie from the Supreme Court to the Commission in all cases where such writs, respectively, would lie to any inferior court or officer," appears to have no application here. The challenge of a prescribed rate as being confiscatory raises a question, not as to the scope of the Commission's authority, but of the correctness of the exercise of its judgment. Compare Hirsh v. Twyford, 40 Okl. 220, 230, 139 Pac. 313. [3] So it appears that the only judicial review of an order fixing rates possible under the case and the nature of the proofs may rethe laws of the state was that arising in proquire. The suit should, therefore, proceed ceedings to punish for contempt. The Confor the purpose of determining whether the stitution endows the Commission with the maximum rates fixed by the Commission are, powers of a court to enforce its orders by under present conditions, confiscatory. such proceedings. Article 9, sections 18, 19. they are found to be so, a permanent injuncBy boldly violating an order a party against tion should issue to restrain their *enforcewhom it was directed may provoke a comment either by means of penalties or otherplaint; and if the complaint results in a cita-wise, as through an assertion by customers tion to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, he may justify before the Commission by showing that the order violated was invalid, unjust or unreasonable. If he fails to satisfy the Commission that it erred in this respect, a judicial review is opened to him by way of appeal on the whole record to the Supreme Court. But the penalties, which may possibly be imposed, if he pursues this course without success, are such as might well deter even the boldest and most confident. The penalty for refusal $337 to obey an order may be $500; and each day's continuance of the refusal after service of the order it is declared "shall be a separate offense." The penalty may apparently be imposed for each instance of violation of the or mission companies under article 9, section 20, of the Constitution. But as plaintiff was obliged to resort to a federal court of equity for relief it ought to retain jurisdiction of the cause in order to make that relief as full and complete as the circumstances of *338 If of alleged rights arising out of the Commission's orders. Missouri v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R., 241 U. S. 533, 538, 36 Sup. Ct. 715, 60 L. Ed. 1148. If upon final hearing the maximum rates fixed should be found not to be confiscatory, a permanent injunction should, nevertheless, issue to restrain enforcement of penalties accrued pendente lite, provided that it also be found that the plaintiff had reasonable ground to contest them as being confiscatory. [5] It does not follow that the Commission need be restrained from proceeding with an investigation of plaintiff's rates and practices, so long as its findings and conclusions are subjected to the review of the District Court herein. Indeed, such investigation and (40 Sup.Ct.) the results of it might with appropriateness be made a part of the final proofs in the cause.2 These conclusions require that the decree of the District Court be reversed and that the case be remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed. (252 U. S. 339) Mr. C. B. Ames, of Oklahoma City, Okl. for plaintiff in error. Messrs. S. P. Freeling and Paul A. Walker, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma. Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma having found under section 8235 of the Revised Laws of 1910 that the Oklahoma Gin Company and four other concerns in the OKLAHOMA GIN CO. v. STATE OF OKLA- town of Chandler had combined and raised HOMA. the charges for ginning cotton, and on October 17, 1913, fixed a schedule of rates (Submitted Oct. 9, 1919. Decided March 22, lower than those then in force. The company 1920.) No. 32. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 303-PUBLIC SERV- Rev. Laws Okl. 1910, § 8235, so far as it provides penalties for disobedience of orders of the Corporation Commission fixing rates, violates the Fourteenth Amendment, because of the lack of any opportunity for a judicial review of such orders. *340 thereafter charged rates in excess of those so fixed, and three separate complaints against it alleging violation of the order were filed with the Commission. Being summoned *to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt the company admitted violation of the order, but alleged that it was void, among other reasons, because section 8235 was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. After a full hearing, at which new evidence was introduced, the Commission affirmed, on October 10, 1914, the rates fixed, made a finding that the violation of the order was willful, imposed on the company a fine of $500 and costs under each of the In Error to the Supreme Court of the State three separate complaints, directed refund of Oklahoma. of all amounts collected in excess of prescribed rates, and declared also: "A fine will be imposed for each day the order has been violated, and the matter as to the num Proceeding before the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma by the State of Oklahoma against the Oklahoma Gin Company. ber of days and the amounts of fines to be imThe order of the Commission imposing a posed upon defendant, other than those menfine, etc., was affirmed by the Oklahoma Su- tioned in the information, will be left open for preme Court (158 Pac. 629), and the Gin Com-adjustment upon taking of evidence as to the pany brings error. Reversed. See, also, 39 Sup. Ct. 387, 40 Sup. Ct. 338. number of days violated." An appeal was taken by the company to In Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 133, 28 Sup. the Supreme Court of the state, which afCt. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 firmed the order, and thereafter denied two Ann. Cas. 764, the District Court appears to have considered whether the rates were reasonable al- petitions for rehearing. The case comes here though the penal features of the act were declared on writ of error under section 237 of the void. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U. S. Judicial Code as amended (Comp. St. § 1214). 340, 33 Sup. Ct. 961, 57 L. Ed. 1507, was an action This case was argued and submitted with for the penalty; and the question here raised was not involved. That it is the penalty provision and Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love et al., not the rate provision which is void appears from 252 U. S. 331, 40 Sup. Ct. 338, 64 L. Ed. the cases in which the validity of statutes was sustained because the objectionable penalty provisions were severable and there was no attempt to enforce the penalties. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 53, 29 Sup. Ct. 192, 53 L. Ed. 382, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1134; United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 417, 29 Sup. Ct. 527, 53 L. Ed. 836; Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U. S. 433, 443, 30 Sup. Ct. 535, 54 L. Ed. 826; Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U. S. 280, 286, 32 Sup. Ct. 216, 56 L. Ed. 436, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1050; Wadley Southern Ry. v. Georgia, 235 U. S. 651, 662, 35 Sup. Ct. 214, 59 L. Ed. 405. set decided this day. For the reasons forth in the opinion in that case, the provision concerning penalties for disobedience to an order of the Commission was void, because it deprived the company of the opportunity of a judicial review. The judgment must therefore be reversed. It is unnecessary to consider other contentions of plaintiff in error. Reversed. For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes MEMORANDUM DECISIONS DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1919 (251 U. S. 546) No. 163. The ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, appellant, v. The UNITED STATES. March 1, 1920. Appeal from the Court of Claims. For opinion below, see 53 Ct. Cl. 638. Mr. Ben Carter, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. The Attorney General for the United States. PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640, 32 Sup. Ct. 702, 56 L. Ed. 1236. (251 U. S. 546) No. 218. CITY OF FULTON, plaintiff in error, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, etc., et al. March 1, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. For opinion below, see 275 Mo. 67, 204 S. W. 386. Mr. Eugene C. Brokmeyer, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394, 39 Sup. Ct. 526, 63 L. Ed. 1054. See City of Chicago v. Dempcy, 250 U. S. 651, 40 Sup. Ct. 53, 63 L. Ed. 1189, decided Nov. 10, 1919. (251 U. S. 547) (251 U. S. 561) No. 659. Clarence E. REED, petitioner, v. HUGHES TOOL COMPANY. March 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 192. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 562) No. 661. Gutierrez HERMANOS, petitioner, v. The INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. March 1, 1920. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied. (251 U. S. 562) No. 673. WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Charlotte SHEEHAN, adminisPetition for a tratrix, etc. March 1, 1920. writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court, Third District of the State of Illinois, denied. (251 U. S. 562) No. 687. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY, petitioner, v. BOWMAN & BULL. COMPANY. March 1, 1920. For opinion. below, see Bowman & Bull Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 290 Ill. 155, 124 N. E. 851. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois denied. (251 U. S. 562) COMPANY, petitioner, v. Fred E. LEE, as ad- No. 215. The STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of The CITY OF SEDALIA, plaintiff in error, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, etc. March 1, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. For opinion below, see 275 Mo. 201, 204 S. W. 497. Mr. E. C. Brok-ministrator, etc. March 1, 1920. For opinion meyer, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in below, see 263 Fed. 896. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394, 39 Sup. Ct. 526, 63 L. Ed. 1054. See City of Chicago v. Dempcy, 250 U. S. 651, 40 Sup. Ct. 53, 63 L. Ed. 1189, decided Nov. 10, 1919. (251 U. S. 547) No. 277. Laforest L. SIMMONS, plaintiff in error, v. Joe DUART. March 1, 1920. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. For opinion below, see Duart v. Simmons, 231 Mass. 313, 121 N. E. 10. Mr. Edward C. Stone, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error. Mr. David R. Radovsky, of Fall River, Mass., for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156) as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214). (251 U. S. 550) No. 674. NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAIL ROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. M. R. OWENS. March 1, 1920. For opinion below, see Owens v. Hines, 100 S. E. 617. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina granted. (251 U. S. 563) No. 695. Robert L FINK, petitioner, v. OKMULGEE WINDOW GLASS COMPANY. March 1, 1920. For opinion below, see Okmulgee Window Glass Co. v. Fink, 260 Fed. 159. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 563) No. 700. Herman M. WARTELL, petitioner, v. Ralph S. MOORE, trustee, etc. March 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 762. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the SixthCircuit denied. (251 U. S. 548). No. 125. Kate C. ARCHER, administratrix of George F. Archer, deceased, et al., appellants, v. The UNITED STATES; and No. 220. The UNITED STATES, appellant, (251 U. S. 568) (40 Sup.Ct.) Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 209 S. W. 928. No. 14, Original. The STATE OF NEW Mr. Samuel W. Fordyce, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., YORK, complainant, v. INTERNATIONAL for plaintiff in error. NICKEL COMPANY. March 1, 1920. Messrs. F. La Guardia and Edgar Bromberger, both of New York City, and Merton E. Lewis, of Rochester, N. Y., for complainant. Messrs. W. J. Curtis and Ligon Johnson, both of New York City for respondent. Dismissed, per stipulation. (251 U. S. 568) No. 477. WYSONG & MILES COMPANY et al., plaintiffs in error, v. PLANTERS' NATIONAL BANK OF RICHMOND. March 1, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. For opinion below, see Planters' Nat. Bank of Virginia v. Wysong & Miles Co., 177 N. C. 380, 99 S. E. 199. Mr. Thomas J. Jerome, of Greensboro, N. C., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Garland S. Ferguson, Jr., of Greensboro, N. C., for defendant in error. Dismissed, per stipulation. (251 U. S. 568) No. 478. WYSONG & MILES COMPANY et al., plaintiffs in error, v. BANK OF NORTH AMERICA, PHILADELPHIA, PA. March 1, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. For opinion below, see Bank of North America v. Wysong & Miles Co., 177 N. C. 394, 99 S. E. 207. Mr. Thomas J. Jerome, of Greensboro, N. C., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Garland S. Ferguson, Jr., of Greensboro, N. C., for defendant in error. Dismissed, per stipulation. (251 U. S. 569) No. 612. Fred S. THOMPSON, appellant, v. Alexander H. NICHOLS. March 1, 1920. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maine. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 973. Mr. Charles Henry Butler, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error. Dismissed per stipulation. Mandate granted on motion of Mr. Charles Henry Butler for the defendant in error. (252 U. S. 588) No. 225. D. H. GILL et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The CITY OF DALLAS et al. March 5, 1920. In error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas. For opinion below, see 209 S. W. 209. Mr. William H. Clark, of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs in error. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. (252 U. S. 567) No. 418. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, plaintiff in error, v. Robert T. CHEEK. March 8, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. For opinion below, see Cheek v. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, 175, 25 Sup. Ct. 654, 49 L. Ed. 1000; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission of Louisiana, 226 U. S. 99, 101, 33 Sup. Ct. 78, 57 L. Ed. 138; Gray's Harbor Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251, 255, 37 Sup. Ct. 295, 61 L. Ed. 702; Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 19, 38 Sup. Ct. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123. (252 U. 8. 567) No. 669. GULF & SHIP ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY et al. plaintiffs in error, v. Carl BOONE et al., etc. March 8, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. For opinion below, see 82 South. 335. Messrs. B. E. Eaton, of Gulfport, Miss., and T. J. Wills, of Raleigh, Miss., for petitioner. Mr. George Anderson, of Vicksburg, Miss. (Messrs. Anderson, Vollor & Kelly, of Vicksburg, Miss., A. W. Dent, of Mendenhall, Miss., and E. L Dent, of Collins, Miss., of counsel), for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 29 Sup. Ct. 146, 53 L. Ed. 269; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334, 33 Sup. Ct. 510, 57 L. Ed. 857; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 241, 36 Sup. Ct. 274, 60 L. Ed. 622; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701. (252 U. S. 567) No. 692. CHEATHAM ELECTRIC SWITCHING DEVICE COMPANY, appellant, v. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT COMMarch 8, 1920. Appeal from PANY et al. the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Messrs. O. Ellery Edwards, Jr., and Albert M. Austin, both of New York City, for plaintiff. Mr. Thomas J. Johnston, of New York City (Messrs. Emery, Varney, Blair & Hoguet, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 37, 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. Ed. 986; Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 325, 332-334, 32 Sup. Ct. 156, 56 L. Ed. 221; Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 223 U. S. 519, 522, 32 Sup. Ct. 246, 56 L. Ed. 533; Shapiro v. United States, 235 U. S. 412, 416, 35 Sup. Ct. 122, 59 L. Ed. 291; and see Red Jacket, Jr., Coal Co. et al. v. United Thacker Coal Co., 248 U. S. 531, 39 Sup. Ct. 5, 63 L. Ed. 405. titioner. March 8, 1920. Motion for leave to, ent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the file a petition for a writ of prohibition herein United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. denied. (252 U. S. 576) No. 697. John P. GALBRAITH, petitioner, v. John VALLELY, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 670. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. (252 U. S. 576) No. 712. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, petitioner, V. Addie SPEIGHT. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Speight v. Western Union Tel. Co., 100 S. E. 351. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina granted. (252 U. S. 576) No. 746. Henry KRICHMAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 538. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. (252 U. S. 577) (252 U. S. 578) No. 703. Rome LANE, on behair of himself and others, petitioner, v. The EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 918. Messrs. Wells H. Blodgett and Clifford B. Allen, both of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Messrs. George Welwood Murray and Lawrence Greer, both of New York City, and Theodore Rassieur, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (252 U. S. 578) No. 704. Maria Eloisa ROCHA, petitioner, v. Emilia TUASON y Patino et al. March 8, 1920. Mr. W. A. Kincaid, of Manila, P. I., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied. (252 U. S. 578) No. 711. HUDSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, petitioner, v. J. ARON & COMPANY (Inc.) et al. March 8, 1920. For opinion beNo. 678. The CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND low, see The St. Paul, 262 Fed. 1021. Mr. Stu& PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, petition-art G. Gibboney, of New York City, for appeler, v. O. C. SWAIM. March 8, 1920. For lant. Messrs. Charles R. Hickox and T. Catesby opinion below, see Swain v. Chicago, R. I. & Jones, both of New York City, for J. Aron & P. R. Co., 170 N. W. 296, 174 N. W. 384. Co. Mr. George H. Mitchell, of New York Messrs. J. G. Gamble and Fred W. Sargent, City, for Hamilton-Beers Corporation. both of Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff in er- tion for a writ of certiorari to the United ror. Messrs. Harriet B. Evans, and C. H. States Circuit Court of Appeals for the SecHowell, C. H. Elgin, and M. M. Howell, all of ond Circuit denied. Centerville, Iowa, for defendant in error. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa denied. Peti (252 U. S. 579) No. 718. CAMP BIRD, Limited, petitioner, v. Frank W. HOWBERT, as collector of internal revenue, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, sce 262 Fed. 114. Messrs. William Story, Jr., of Ouray, Colo., and William V. Alex C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and Hodges, of Denver, Colo., for petitioner. Mr. Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (252 U. S. 579) No. 721. The PHILLIPS COMPANY, petitioner, v. Byron F. EVERITT, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 341. Messrs. William L. Carpenter, of Detroit, Mich., Thomas H. Gill, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Thomas G. Long, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Messrs. Clarence A. Lightner and Walter E. Oxtoby, both of Detroit, Mich., for defendant. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. (252 U. S. 579) No. 722. Alfred R. SWANN, petitioner, v. W. W. AUSTELL, executor, etc., et al. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 465. Messrs. Daniel W. Rountree and Clifford L. Anderson, both of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. Messrs. Jack J. Spalding and Chas. T. Hop |