214 U.S. Statement of the Case. Mr. Hector M. Hitchings for the appellants in opposition thereto. Per Curiam: Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction on authority of Coder, Trustee, v. Arts, 213 U. S. 223. Ex parte ISAAC HELLER, PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. Original. Submitted April 27, 1909.-Decided May 3, 1909. Petition for leave to file petition for mandamus to compel the Circuit Court of Appeals to take jurisdiction of a writ of error to the Circuit Court to review an order fining petitioner for contempt denied without opinion. PETITIONER having been by decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York enjoined in an action in which the National Waistband Company was plaintiff from using the trade-mark "Excelsior" and also from stamping waistbands "Extension" and "Waistband" in a certain manner, was adjudged by the same court to be in contempt for violating the terms of the decree and fined $500. To this order in contempt petitioner sued out a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit which was dismissed with the following opinion: "It is well settled that when an order imposing a fine for violation of an injunction is substantially one to reimburse the party injured by the disobedience, it is to be reviewed only by appeal. Writ of error will lie only when the fine is clearly punitive and in vindication of the authority of the court, as is the case where the fine is made payable in whole or in part to the United States. Matter of Christensen Eng. Co., 194 U. S. 458. The writ of error is dismissed; defendant's remedy is by appeal." 2 A motion for rehearing was denied, with the following opinion: "We see no reason to order a rehearing, nor to certify the questions to the Supreme Court. The decisions in Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 334; and Matter of Christensen Eng. Co., 194 U. S. 458, cover the case now presented. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the First Circuit (Wilson v. Colculagraph Co., 163 Fed. Rep. 901), indicates that this order at the heel of the final decree might be reviewed by appeal." Whereupon petitioner, asserting that the order of the Circuit Court is, notwithstanding such opinions, reviewable only by writ of error, applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court of Appeals to take jurisdiction thereof and decide the same. Mr. Abraham A. Berman for petitioner. Mr. Arthur v. Briesen submitted a brief for the respondent, contending that a contempt order in an equity suit is not reviewable by writ of error if the fine be purely compensatory and not penal in its nature, as such orders are only reviewable, if at all, by appeal. Per Curiam: Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus denied. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. v. KENNEDY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 817. Motion to dismiss or affirm.-Submitted April 26, 1909.-Decided May 3, 1909. Writ of error to review the judgment of the state court in a suit for damages for injuries caused by negligence of plaintiff in error dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction, notwithstanding contention 214 U.S. Statement of the Case. of plaintiff in error that its claim that the act of April 24, 1905, ch. 163, of Texas legislature was unconstitutional as depriving it of the fellowservant defense had been duly set up at the proper time in the state court. THE nature of this case appears above. Mr. C. A. Culberson for the defendant in error in support of the motion. Mr. James Hagerman, Mr. J. M. Bryson and Mr. A. B. Browne, for the plaintiff in error in opposition thereto. Per Curiam: Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. YADKIN RIVER POWER CO. v. WHITNEY CO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 835. Motion to dismiss or affirm.-Submitted May 3, 1909.-Decided May 17, 1909. Writ of error to review judgment of the state court in a condemnation proceeding dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction. THIS was a special proceeding commenced by plaintiff in error to condemn land on which to establish a water power and erect an electric light plant. The state court dismissed the proceedings, and among other things as stated in its opinion, held, construing its own statutes and basing its decision upon one of a similar case in the Supreme Court of the United States, Denver Co. v. Alling, 99 U. S. 480, that the plaintiff in error has not the power of eminent domain; but, that in accepting its new charter from the legislature, it accepted it in the status in which. Statement of the Case. 214 U.S. it was at the time of the renewal of its old charter with such changes only as were specifically made in the reenacting statute. At the time it accepted its new charter, it had lost all rights which it had ever acquired, if it had ever acquired any by express legislative enactment, the legislature of North Carolina having taken away the power of eminent domain from such companies. Mr. Thomas Patterson, Mr. Burton Craige, Mr. Thomas J. Jerome and Mr. W. A. Way for defendant in error in support of the motion. Mr. Frederick M. Leonard for plaintiff in error in opposition thereto. Per Curiam: Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. GRANITE BITUMINOUS PAVING CO. v. LANDIS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. No. 528. Submitted May 3, 1909.-Decided May 17, 1909. The Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of a suit against a number of delinquent taxpayers for assessment work where the assessment due from each taxpayer is less than two thousand dollars. APPELLANT (complainant below) filed its bill against a large number of defendants to foreclose on special tax bills for assessment work done and for which defendant's property was liable. The assessments aggregated more than two thousand dollars, but each assessment was less than that amount. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, holding that complainant had a separate and distinct action at law in the state court on each special tax bill, and that as each was less than two thousand dollars the Federal courts had no jurisdiction. Complainant appealed directly to this court. 214 U. S. Statement of the Case. Mr. W. L. Sturdevant for appellant. There was no appearance for appellee. Per Curiam: The Circuit Court properly held that it had no jurisdiction, for want of the jurisdictional amount, and its decree dismissing the bill is affirmed with costs. MATTER OF HENRY C. PEARSON, PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. Original. Submitted May 17, 1909.-Decided May 24, 1909. Leave to file petition for mandamus to the Chief Justice and the associate justices of the Court of Claims to make a report to the President of the Senate on petitioner's claim denied. As stated by the Court of Claims, Henry C. Pearson filed a claim for three months' extra pay proper as an officer in the Volunteer Service during the civil war under the act of March 3, 1865; on May 22, 1908, the United States Senate referred to the court Bill No. 7013 of the 60th Congress, First Session, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to reëxamine and adjust claims of persons (including petitioner) under the act of March 3, 1865. The court found that the petitioner was loyal and also made the following finding: Henry C. Pearson was enrolled July 1, 1863, as private, Co. N, 21st Pennsylvania Cavalry Volunteers, for six months. He reënlisted for three years as a veteran volunteer on February 10, 1864, was promoted to First Lieutenant and Adjutant February 26, 1864, and was in the service of the United States in such grade of First Lieutenant and Adjutant on March 3, 1865. Said claimant continued in the service of the United States from March 3, 1865, until April 7, 1865, at which time he was discharged from the military service by order of the Secretary of War "on account of physical disability from wounds |