or town where such car or cars are received from such connecting lines when required so to do."

After this amendment went into effect, railroad companies operating in Michigan, including the complainant companies, complied with its requirements as to the interchange of carload traffic. The complainant companies complied with the act until September 12, 1911, when complaint was made before the Railroad Commission of discrimination in charges made for such transportation service. After a hearing, the Commission ordered the removal of this discrimination in charges, and later the complainant companies cancelled all tariffs relating to this interchange of carload traffic, and refused to accept such traffic at all. The suits were brought by the complainant companies to restrain the further enforcement of the act insofar as the same required this interchange ofcarload traffic. The complainants claimed that the act was invalid because it interfered with interstate commerce and because it deprived them of their property without due process of law. A hearing has been had before circuit Judges Knappen and Denison and District Judge Sater on the order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue. From an order of the district court refusing to grant the injunetion, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States by which the decision of the lower court was affirmed. (231 U. S. page 457.)

The American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company vs. Pere Marquette Railway Company. Petition for receivership. Receivers have been appointed for the Pere Marquette Railroad Company as an insolvent corporation. An attempt was made by the Attorney General to intervene in the proceedings, a motion and petition for that purpose having been filed. June 24, 1912, motion and petition argued and submitted. June 25, 1912, motion and petition denied, but Attorney General given right to be heard in proceedings with reference to any action in which the State is interested.

On October 31, 1912, petition of Newman Erb for compensation as receiver and notice of hearing same November 4th was received. November 1, 1912, adjournment of hearing of Erb's petition to November 11th by consent of all parties received. June 11th, 1914, received memorandum brief for use at hearing on the application of Receivers for authority to issue receivers' certificates aggregating $11,100,000. No decision has been rendered in this case.

The Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry Co. vs. Oramel B. Fuller, Auditor General, and Franz C. Kuhn, Attorney General and Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada vs. Same. (Consolidated cases Nos. 5503 and 5504.)

In 1911, the Legislature of the State of Michigan passed an act providing for an annual specific tax of two per cent on the shares of stock and one per cent on the bonds and other indebtedness of railroad companies operating under special charters. The Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company operated under a special charter granted March 7, 1834, to the Detroit & Pontiac R. R. Co., in which was incorporated by Act 140 of the laws of 1855, a provision permitting it to pay

taxes at the rate of one per cent per annum upon its capital stock paid in, in lieu of all other taxes. The provision of the act of 1855 was later held by the courts to have created a valid contract between the State of Michigan and the railroad company therein named.

Before act 95 of 1911, the act imposing specific taxes on the shares of stock and bonds of railroad companies affected thereby, went into effect, the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which had guaranteed and held many of the bonds of the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co., brought suit in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the Auditor General and the Attorney General to enjoin the enforcement of the statute, and to have it declared unconstitutional and void insofar as it affected any shares of stock and bonds of the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co. The railroad companies claim that the act is void for the following reasons: First, because it is class legislation in that it applies only to the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., that being the only railroad company operating under a special charter in the State of Michigan. Second, because it impairs the contract existing between the railroad company and the State of Michigan by virtue of the tax provision of the act of 1855. Third, because it deprives the railroad company of its property without due process of law in requiring it "to deduct the amount of said tax from any dividend or interest or principal which shall be by it payable or about to be paid to the holders or owners of any such shares, bonds, securities or indebtedness." Fourth, because it impairs the obligation of the contract existing between the railroad company and the holders and owners of its shares; and fifth, because it impairs the obligation of the contract existing between the railroad company and the holders of its bonds, such bonds being held by non-residents of and not being taxable by the State of Michigan.

A restraining order was issued by the district judge, and a demurrer has been filed to the bill of complaint which will also be considered as the answer to the order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. September 4th and 5th, 1912, argument of case and submission to court. March 21st, 1913, order overruling demurrer and directing defendants to answer bill. Nov. 24, 1913, stipulation relative to contents of record on appeal mailed to L. C. Stanley.

The Ann Arbor Railroad Company vs. Cassius L. Glasgow, Lawton T. Hemans; Charles S. Cunningham; Grant Fellows; Sid W. Millard; Jay M. Terbush and Leo J. Kennedy.

The bill of complaint in this case was filed October 2nd, 1914. The complainant, the Ann Arbor Railroad Company, seeks to have the Michigan two-cent passenger law, Act 54 P. A. 1907 as amended by Act 276, P. A. 1911, declared invalid as applied to complainant on the ground that it is confiscatory and that under its operation the property of the complainant is being taken without due process of law. Application for a temporary injunction pending the trial of the case on the merits was made and a hearing thereon had at Grand Rapids on the 27th day of May, 1915, before Circuit Judges Knappen and Denison and District Judge Sessions. On the 7th of June, 1915, an opinion was rendered by the court in accordance with which the writ was refused. Arrangements

have been made for the trial of the case at an early date. In accordance with this arrangement the testimony will be taken in open court.

Beekman Winthrop, et al., vs. Grant Fellows, Attorney General et al. No. 116.

In this case individual holders of bonds secured by mortgage upon property comprising a part of the Pere Marquette railroad system, together with the trustee under one of the mortgages by which the bonds were secured, seek to have declared unconstitutional, as applied to the Pere Marquette Railroad system, Act No. 54 P.A. 1907 as amended by Act 276, P. A. 1911, the so-called two-cent passenger rate law of Michi gan. It is the claim of the complainants that the measure is invalid as so applied because it so operates as to confiscate the property of the Pere Marquette railroad system, and further, because the classification as made by the statute is invalid. Application was made for a temporary injunction pending the trial of the issues presented upon the merits and a hearing on said application was set for the 1st of July, 1915.

Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railroad Company vs. Franz C. Kuhn, Attorney General, et al.

This is a case to test the sufficiency of the two cent rate for the carriage of passengers traveling distances exceeding five miles upon the D. S. S. & A. Railroad. The two cent rate was made applicable to the Upper Peninsula in 1911, and the South Shore then became subject to its provisions. The company filed its bill of complaint in the United States: Circuit Court (now District Court) for the Eastern District of Michigan to restrain the Attorney General and the Railroad Commission from enforcing against it the two cent rate, or the penalties incident upon refusal to carry passengers at that rate. The bill raises two principal questions:

(a) That the operation of the rate as applied to intrastate passengers so affects the interstate earnings as to be an invasion of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and

(b) That the rate prescribed is insufficient to pay the cost of the service and a reasonable return upon the value of the property engaged in the business, and is therefore confiscatory.

A restraining order pending the hearing of a motion for a temporary injunction before three federal judges pursuant to statute was issued. The motion for preliminary injunction was argued and submitted. Before decision Judge Angell, who was one of the three judges hearing the motion, retired from the bench which renders necessary a reargument of the motion, which has not yet been had.

The restraining order is continued in force upon condition that the complainant proceed expeditiously in the taking of testimony; considerable proof has been taken upon the part of the complainant and the tak ing of further proof is in progress. The delay in the reargument of the motion for injunction is occasioned by the fact that practically all of the time of those in charge of the litigation is taken up in the taking of proof on the merits.

CASES IN EQUITY DISPOSED OF-District Court of the United States Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, in Equity.

Dudley E. Waters & Paul H. King, Receivers of the Pere Marquette Railroad Company vs. Wallace G. Robinson and James E. Kinnane; James A. Kennedy and Thomas B. Glouster, Composing the Industrial Accident Board of Michigan. March 15, 1915, bill dismissed as to the Accident Board.

Alabama & New Orleans Transportation Co. et al. vs. Edward H. Doyle; John W. Haarer and Grant Fellows. Consolidated case No. 33. Action for injunction to restrain the Michigan Securities Commission from enforcing the so-called Blue Sky law. August 10, 1914, injunction granted.

BANKRUPTCY CASES DISPOSED OF-District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

In re State Account (Jackson Prison) against F. G. Sherwin of Battle Creek, Michigan. October 31, 1914, proof of claim filed. June 9, 1915. Received check for $89.58 in full settlement of claim from Trustee in Bankruptcy.

CASES IN EQUITY DISPOSED OF-District Court of the United States, Western District of Michigan, in Equity.

Western Express Company vs. Cassius L. Glasgow, et al. No. 1771. March 22, 1913, motion for injunction denied. March 22, 1913, motion to dismiss bill of complaint denied. November 13, 1914, stipulation signed by solicitors for respective parties that the bill filed may be dismissed without costs to either party.

CASES IN EQUITY DISPOSED OF-Supreme Court of U. S.

Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company vs. Michigan Railroad Commission. (Log Rate Case) Writ of Error. December 2, 1914, submitted. December 14, 1914, ruling of the Michigan Railroad Commission sustained.

CHANCERY CASES PENDING-Supreme Court of Michigan. Franz C. Kuhn, ex rel John B. Chaddock et al. vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Wayne. Appeal from Wayne Circuit, in chancery.

Burton Howe and Claude H. Corrigan vs. Edward H. Doyle; John W. Haarer and Grant Fellows. Action for injunction to restrain the Michi

gan Securities Commission from enforcing the so-called Blue Sky Law. February 2nd and 3rd, 1914, submitted.

Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. vs. Michigan Railroad Commission. No. 26,795. (Through rate case) Appeal from Kent Circuit. June 18, 1915, submitted.

Delray Connecting Railroad Company, a Michigan Railroad Commission. No. 48,193. cuit.

Michigan corporation vs.
Appeal from Wayne Cir-

Michigan Independent Telephone & Traffic Association vs. Michigan Railroad Commission. Appeal from Kent Circuit.

In the Matter of the Petition of Oramel B. Fuller, Auditor General of the State of Michigan for and in behalf of said State for the sale of certain lands for taxes assessed thereon for the year 1911 vs. Galen L. Stone et al.

Richard Kleinke, et al. vs. William R. Oates, et al. No. 26,727. Appeal from Menominee Circuit. June 17, 1915, submitted.

CHANCERY CASES DISPOSED OF-Supreme Court of Michigan. Attorney General vs. James F. Joy, et al. Petition for rehearing. This case may be found in 55 Mich., page 94, October term of 1884. January 29, 1914, submitted. July 24, 1914, rehearing denied. 21 D. L. N., page 615.

Charles Powers vs. John Cory and O. B. Fuller, Auditor General. November 5, 1914, submitted. March 18, 1915, affirmed with costs. 22 D. L. N., page 104.

The Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Company vs. The Michigan Railroad Commission. (Sidetrack Agreement) Appeal from Kent Circuit. No. 25,997. June 15, 1914, submitted. December 19, 1914, reversed. 21 D. L. N. 1192.

Michigan Central Railroad Company and others vs. Michigan Railroad Commission. Appeal from Wayne Circuit. No. 26,041. June 15, 1914, submitted. October 3, 1914, opinion of circuit judge modified.

Orange S. Mason et al. vs. Judson E. Rice, Commandant, E. B. Taylor, Adjutant General and Board of Managers of the Michigan Soldiers' Home. Appeal from Kent Circuit. January 29, 1914, heard and submitted. July 24, 1914, modified and affirmed. 21 D. L. N., page 621.

Peter J. Jeup and William J. Streng vs. John T. Winship et al. No. 44,570. Appeal from Wayne Circuit. June 15, 1914, submitted. July 25, 1914, order overruling the demurrer reversed. Order sustaining demurrer and record remanded to court below. 21 D. L. N., page 774.