cases in the least cumbersome and most expeditious way. The former certificate was thought to invite a consideration of mixed questions of law and fact. However that may have been, the present one puts definite questions of pure law, and I think that those questions should be answered. Even if the third should be objected to, the other two are complete in themselves. It is no objection to a question of law that the case turns upon it. That is the best of reasons for propounding it. The only objection is not to deciding the case here but to putting questions that turn upon conclusions from evidence, or that present a general statement and ask a judgment with regard to unspecified questions of law.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MOODY concur in this dissent.

THOMAS v. SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

No. 157. Argued April 16, 19, 1909.—Decided April 26, 1909.

Writ of error to review a judgment of the state court in a condemnation proceeding, 218 Illinois, 571, dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction.

THIS was a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois in a condemnation proceeding in which plaintiff in error contended that he had been denied due process of law.

Mr. George W. Thomas, pro se.

Mr. Cecil Page, with whom Mr. Monroe L. Willard was on the brief, for defendant in error.

214 U.S.

Statement of the Case.

Per Curiam: Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Stevens, Administrator, v. Nichols, 157 U. S. 370; Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241; Tracy v. Ginsberg, 205 U. S. 180; Rusch v. John Duncan Land & Mining Co., 211 U. S. 526; reported below, 218 Illinois, 571.

ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

No. 162. Argued April 19, 20, 1909.-Decided April 26, 1909.

Affirmed on authority of Northern Pacific Railway v. Duluth, 208 U. S. 583.1

THIS case involved a question almost the same as that in 1 The headnote in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Duluth applicable to this case is as follows:

'The right to exercise the police power is a continuing one that cannot be limited or contracted away by the State or its municipality, nor can it be destroyed by compromise as it is immaterial upon what consideration the attempted contract is based.

"The exercise of the police power in the interest of public health and safety is to be maintained unhampered by contracts in private interests, and uncompensated obedience to an ordinance passed in its exercise is not violative of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution; held, that an ordinance of a municipality of that State, valid under the law of that State as construed by its highest court, compelling a railroad to repair a viaduct constructed, after the opening of the railroad, by the city in pursuance of a contract relieving the railroad, for a substantial consideration, from making any repairs thereon for a term of years was not void under the contract, or the due process, clause of the Constitution."

VOL, CCXIV-32

Northern Pacific Railway v. Duluth in which it was held that a railway was not deprived of its property without due process of law by being obliged to rebuild a viaduct over streets of a city.

Mr. Rome G. Brown, with whom Mr. Charles S. Albert and Mr. William R. Begg were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Frank Healy, with whom Mr. Albert E. Clarke was on the brief, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed on authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Duluth, 208 U. S. 583.

FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY NEWS COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

No. 165. Argued April 20, 1909.-Decided April 26, 1909.

Writ of error to review judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky dismissed without opinion, for want of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the contention of plaintiff in error that where a state court in construing a contract departs from its established and applicable mode of procedure theretofore applied under similar circumstances due process and equal protection of the law are denied.

THIS was a writ of error to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals by which plaintiff in error contended that he had been deprived of his property without due process of law.

Mr. William H. Field for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles F. Taylor for defendant in error.

214 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

Per Curiam: Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Central Land Company v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 135; Barrington v. Missouri, 205 U. S. 485; Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. S. 170; Thompson v. Kentucky, 209 U. S. 430.

DONOHUE v. EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF

ARIZONA.

No. 516. Motion to dismiss or affirm.-Submitted April 19, 1909.-Decided April 26, 1909.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona holding that ejectment should not be maintained against a railroad company where the owner had remained inactive and permitted the construction of the track affirmed without opinion on authority of Roberts v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, 158 U. S. 1, and Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Smith, 171 U. S. 260.

THE Court below held that ejectment could not be maintained, saying in its opinion: "The only question requiring our attention, upon the record, as presented, is whether ejectment or trespass may be maintained, and we have no hesitancy in holding that they may not be. This has been determined so authoritatively that discussion by us is wholly unnecessary. In Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Smith, 171 U. S. 260, it is said:

""This subject was fully considered by this court in the case of Roberts v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 158 U. S. 1, where, upon the foregoing authorities and others, it was held that if a landowner, knowing that a railroad company has entered upon his land and is engaged in constructing its road without having complied with a statute requiring either payment by agree

ment or proceedings to condemn, remains inactive and permits it to go on and expend large sums in the work, he is estopped from maintaining either trespass or ejectment for the entry, and will be regarded as having acquiesced therein, and will be restricted to a suit for damages. See also City of New York v. Pine, 185 U. S. 93.'"

Mr. A. B. Browne, Mr. Alexander Britton and Mr. E. E. Ellinwood for the appellee in support of the motion.

Mr. Charles F. Ainsworth for the appellant in opposition thereto.

Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed. Roberts v. Northern Pacific Railroad Co., 158 U. S. 1; Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Smith, 171 U. S. 260.

LOGAN v. FARMERS' DEPOSIT NATIONAL BANK OF PITTSBURGH.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

No. 745. Motion to dismiss or affirm. Submitted April 19, 1909.-Decided Apr.: 26, 1909.

An appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals in a bankruptcy matter dismissed without opinion on authority of Coder v. Arts, 213 U. S. 223.

THIS case came up on motion to dismiss or affirm a final decree or judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit modifying a decree of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia in the bankruptcy proceedings of the Morgantown Tin Plate Company and rejecting all of a claim of $100,000, except $22,500.

Mr. B. M. Ambler and Mr. A. Leo Weil for the appellees in support of the motion.