214 U.S. Statement of the Case. PER CURIAM OPINIONS DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM MARCH 1, 1909, TO THE END OF OCTOBER TERM, 1908. MATTER OF HUDSON OIL & SUPPLY CO., PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No. Original. Submitted February 23, 1909.-Decided March 1, 1909. Writ of prohibition to prohibit Judges of the District Court from applying any part of proceeds of sale under decrees of admiralty court of same district of vessels belonging to a bankrupt, and surrendered by the receiver for adjudication of the maritime liens, to the payment of the receiver's expenses and commissions in connection with such vessels, until all maritime liens had been paid in full, refused. A PETITION in bankruptcy having been filed by one James Hughes, and a receiver of his property appointed, petitioner and others filed libels in the admiralty court in the same district as the bankrupt court to enforce maritime liens on a number of vessels owned by the bankrupt, and, after attachment by the marshal, the receiver surrendered the vessels; decrees of condemnation and sale were rendered, the vessels sold and proceeds deposited in the registry of the court. The petitioner alleged that although neither the receiver nor the trustees subsequently appointed had appeared in the proceedings as intervenor or otherwise, the bankrupt court had directed the clerk of the court before distributing to the libellants the proceeds of sale, which were insufficient to pay all the maritime claims for which the vessels were sold, all expenses, commissions and counsel fees of the commissioner. Statement of the Case. 214 U.S. The petitioner asked for a writ of prohibition against the Judges of the District Court to prohibit them from making any order in the admiralty court withdrawing in favor of the bankrupt estate any of the proceeds of the sale in admiralty until the maritime liens were paid. Mr. de Lagnel Berier for petitioner contended that under § 688, Rev. Stat., this court had jurisdiction to issue the writ, and that it was no objection thereto that the occasion arose in a collateral matter. Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396. Also that the admiralty court had full jurisdiction over the proceeds after the receiver relinquished the vessels, but it had no jurisdiction to pay over moneys in its registry to a stranger, or for non-maritime liens, and that the receiver's expenditures and commissions were non-maritime liens (The Mary K. Campbell, 31 Fed. Rep. 840; The Monte, 12 Fed. Rep. 333; The Oceano, 148 Fed. Rep. 131); and if there was any lien under the bankrupt act it did not follow the proceeds into the admiralty court. Per Curiam: Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of prohibition denied. MATTER OF FRANK MCWILLIAMS, PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW. JERSEY. No. Original. Submitted February 23, 1909.-Decided March 1, 1909. Leave to file petition for writ of prohibition similar to that applied for in preceding case refused. THIS case arose out of the same facts as the preceding case 214 U.S. Statement of the Case. and affected the proceeds of one of the vessels, and the same contention was made for petitioner. Mr. Richard D. Currier for petitioner. Per Curiam: Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of prohibition denied. SASS & CRAWFORD v. THOMAS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 122. Submitted March 15, 1909.-Decided March 22, 1909. On authority of Laurel Oil Co. v. Morrison, 212 U. S. 291,1 writ of error to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a case coming from the United States court for the Indian Territory dismissed. THIS case was commenced in the United States court for the Southern District of the Indian Territory and resulted in a 1The headnote in Laurel Oil Co. v. Morrison is as follows: "Where a statute provides for an appeal or a writ of error to a specific court it must be regarded as a repeal of any previous statute providing for an appeal or a writ of error to another court. Brown v. United States, 171 U. S. 631. "Decisions of the Court of Appeals of the United States for the Indian Territory are final except as made subject to review by some express statutory provision. "The provisions in § 12 of the act of March 3, 1905, c. 1479, 33 Stat. 1081, for appeals and writs of error from the United States courts in Indian Territory to the United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, and from that court to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit are exclusive; and there is now no appeal or writ of error in such cases from the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit to this court." Statement of the Case. 214 U. S. judgment for the plaintiff (defendant in error here) which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the United States for the Indian Territory, and subsequently by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. W. A. Ledbetter for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. C. Cruce and Mr. W. I. Cruce for defendants in error. Per Curiam: The writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction on authority of Laurel Oil Co. v. Morrison, 212 U. S. 291, decided February 23, 1909. MATTER OF CONSOLIDATED RUBBER TIRE COMPANY, PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. Original. Submitted April 5, 1909.-Decided April 12, 1909. Leave to file petition for writ of prohibition to prohibit the United States Circuit Court from retaining jurisdiction of a case, denied. An action for infringement of patent rights was commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by one William A. Ferguson, whose citizenship is not disclosed, against the petitioner, a corporation of New Jersey, on patents alleged to have been assigned to the plaintiff by the Reilloc Tyre Company, a British corporation. The petitioner (defendant in that action) moved to dismiss on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction of the parties. That motion having been denied, it submitted its petition to this court for a writ of prohibition, contending that the assignee, whose citizenship does not appear, of a cause of action which accrued to an alien, cannot maintain an action |