« PreviousContinue »
Decisions Denying Certiorari.
No. 1226. JOSEPH DICARLO V. THE UNITED STATES. June 1, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas L. Newton for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General Donovan for the United States.
No. 1227. JOSEPH RUFFINO V. THE UNITED STATES. June 1, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. Ernest W. McIntyre and Thomas L. Newton for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General Donovan for the United States.
No. 1231. UNION PETROLEUM STEAMSHIP COMPANY V. WILLIAM H. EDWARDS, FORMERLY COLLECTOR. June 1, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Delbert M. Tibbetts for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondent.
No. 1237. I. A. SILVERBERG ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES. June 1, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. W. F. Weeks for petitioners. The Attorney General for the United States.
No. 1245. WASHBURN CROSBY COMPANY V. FRANCE MILLING COMPANY. June 1, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Messrs. William J. Hughes, Edward S. Rogers, Harry D. Nims and Minturn Des. Verdi for petitioner. Mr. Samuel E. Darby for respondent.
268 U.S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.
No. 1253. PHILIP LESCHNIK v. CATHERINE C. FRIER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE IN BANKRUPTCY OF SOL J. LESCHNIK. June 1, 1925. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Ben A. Matthews for petitioner. Catherine C. Frier, pro se.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM APRIL 14, 1925, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 8, 1925.
No. 358. WILLIAM, INMAN & STRIBLING v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY. April 20, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. Dismissed with costs on motion of Mr. C. E. Cotterill, with whom Mr. Harry W. VanDyke was on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. Hollis N. Randolph and Robert S. Parker for appellee.
No. 189. BUFFALO UNION FURNACE COMPANY V.
υ UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION. April 27, 1925. Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. John Lord O'Brien for plaintiff in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan for defendant
No. 507. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY V. FARMINGTON SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. May 4, 1925. Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Austin N. Pinkham for plaintiff in error. Messrs. William C. Resen and Lee M. Friedman for defendant in error.
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 268 U.S.
No. 888. PATRICK J. O'SHAUGHNESSY ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES. May 4, 1925. Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama. Writ of error dismissed as to plaintiff in error John McEvoy, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Beck in behalf of counsel for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Harry H. Smith was on the brief, for plaintiff in error McEvoy.
No. 1164. THE UNITED STATES V. HERBERT H. McGOVERN, JR. May 11, 1925. Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Beck, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Herbert H. McGovern, Jr. pro se.
No. 927. ANDRES FUENTES v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS. May 11, 1925. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. Dismissed, pursuant to section 4, rule 37. Mr. Adam C. Carson for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
No. 970. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY ET AL. v. K. KISHI ET AL. May 11, 1925. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Dismissed, pursuant to section 4, rule 37. Mr. R. L. Batts for petitioners. No appearance for respondents.
No. 1254. ALBERT OTTINGER, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. New YORK AND QUEENS Gas COMPANY. Motion filed May 23, 1925. Decided May 25, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Robert E. Coulson for the appellee. No appearance for appellant.
District strict of
Beck Harry -Evoy.
ORDER AMENDING EQUITY RULES. MAY 4,
Equity Rules 10 and 30 (226 U. S. Appendix) are amended hereby to read as follows:
DECREE FOR DEFICIENCY IN FORECLOSURES, ETC.
In suits for the foreclosure of mortgages or for the enforcement of other liens a decree may be rendered for any balance found to be due over and above the proceeds of the sale or sales; and execution may issue for the collection of the same as is provided in rule 8 when the decree is solely for the payment of money. Such a deficiency decree may be so rendered and enforced whether the plaintiff owns the debt or is a trustee or agent for another or others who own it, as often is true when the debt is evidenced by notes or bonds. Where the plaintiff is such trustee or agent, any money collected on the execution shall be paid to him as such representative, and he shall pay it to the owner of the debt if there be only one, and if there be more shall distribute it pro rata among them according to their respective interests.
The defendant by his answer shall set out in short and simple terms his defense to each claim asserted in the bill, omitting mere statements of evidence and avoiding general denials, but specifically admitting, denying, or explaining
the facts upon which the plaintiff relies, unless he is without knowledge, in which event he shall so state, and this shall be treated as a denial. Averments other than those of value or amount of damage, when not denied, shall be deemed confessed, except as against an infant, lunatic, or other person non compos and not under guardianship, but the answer may be amended, by leave of the court or judge, upon reasonable notice, so as to put any averment in issue, when justice requires it. The answer may state as many defenses, in the alternative, regardless of consistency, as the defendant deems essential to his defense.
The answer must state in short and simple form any counterclaim arising out of the transaction which is the subject matter of the suit, and may, without cross bill, set up any set-off or counterclaim against the plaintiff which might be the subject of an independent suit in equity against him, and such set-off or counterclaim, so set up, shall have the same effect as a cross suit, so as to enable the court to pronounce a final decree in the same suit on both the original and the cross claims.
When in the determination of a counterclaim complete relief can not be granted without the presence of parties other than those to the bill, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants if they are subject to its jurisdiction.
ORDER. AMENDING RULE OF THE COURT.
MAY 4, 1925.
It is now here ordered by this court that section 7 of Rule 24 of this court be amended so that the entire section will read: 1
In pursuance of the act of March 3, 1883, authorizing and empowering this court to prepare a table of fees to
1 The revision of all the rules of the court, adopted June 8, 1925, and effective July 1, 1925, was printed in Vol. 266 U. S., pp. 643, et seq. The rule amended by the above became rule 29 of the revision.