end might be accomplished. The commission | United States intervened. On first report of was directed to act, if it had reason to be receiver. Order entered instructing receiver. lieve that an "unfair method of competition See, also. 40 Sup. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. -; in commerce has been or is being used." The 40 Sup. Ct. 391, 64 L. Ed. ; 40 Sup. Ct. purpose of Congress was to prevent any un- 580, 64 L. Ed. : 40 Sup. Ct. 582, 64 L. fair method which may have been used by Ed. any concern in competition from becoming its general practice. It was only by stopping its *442 Order Instructing Receiver. use before it became a general practice, that PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of the the apprehended effect of an unfair method in first report of Frederic A. Delano, receiver, in suppressing competition by destroying rivals the above-entitled cause, and of the supplecould be averted. As the Circuit Court of Ap- mental report of June 3, 1920, and the varipeals found that the evidence was sufficient ous suggestions of the United States, interto support the facts set forth above, and vener, and of the state of Texas, and of the since on those facts the commission could several motions, applications, exceptions, and reasonably hold that the method of competi- suggestions heretofore filed by parties claimtion in question was unfair under the circum-ing an interest in the subject-matter of this stances, it had power under the act to issue suit, it is this 7th day of June, A. D. 1920, the order complained of. adjudged and ordered that the action of said receiver in taking possession of and operating under his own management and control the property described in the order of this court of April 1, 1920, until the further order of this court, including the oil and gas wells and plants, toll bridges, water plants, tank wagons, pipe lines, storage tanks, and other property located thereon and therein; the arrangements made by said receiver for guarding and policing said property; the office and *466 field organization created by him for the operation and development of the property and the resources thereof, and for collecting, couserving, and investing the proceeds of the sale of all oil, gas, gasoline, and other products taken therefrom since April 1, 1920, be, and they are hereby, ratified and approved. 2. So much of the land described in the order of this court of April 1, 1920, in range 14 west, as lies between the south edge of the present sand bed of the Red river (marked generally by the border line of vegetation along the edge of the flood plain) and the foot of the Texas bluff, as was on the 1st day of April, 1920, in the possession of persons claiming under patents from the state of Texas, and is not included in the river-bed lands, as hereinafter defined, shall be returned by the receiver to the several operators or claimants in possession on April 1, 1920, or their assigns, together with all wells, tanks, pipe lines, structures, equipment, and material, upon condition that such operator, claimant, or assigns account for, pay over to. and impound with the receiver, if not already done, three-sixteenths of the gross proceeds of all oil taken from the respective lands on and since April 1, 1920, and the royalty on commercial gas customary in the Burk-Burnett and Northwest Extension oil fields, and royalty on casing-head gas in accordance with the regulations and schedule of prices promulgated for Indian lands by the Secretary of the Interior August 10, 1917, the proceeds thereof to be either paid in cash, or the pay (40 Sup.Ct.) eral or office supervision; (2) to refund to those operators or drillers who have drilled and brought into production new wells in said area since April 1, 1920, a fair percentage of the entire actual cost of such work, including a reasonable allowance for ment thereof within 90 days to be secured [ vision, but excluding any allowance for genby good and sufficient surety to be approved by the receiver, and upon the further condition that said operator or claimant shall enter into an agreement in writing with the receiver, by the terms of which the operator shall develop and operate said properties in a workmanlike and businesslike manner, sub-field supervision, but excluding any allowject to the supervision of the receiver and to the orders of this court, and shall impound with the receiver three-sixteenths of the gross amount of the proceeds from the sale of | *467 tions upon such wells, provided satisfactory evidence of the existence of all of such claims be furnished. ance for general or office supervision; (3) to pay the just claims of mechanics and materialmen for work done and materials furnished on wells in said area brought in since April 1, 1920, and the claims of persons, asoil thereafter produced, and the royalty on gas and casing-head gas as hereinbefore spec-ments made in good faith for drilling operasociations, and corporations for advanceified. This agreement to contain such further stipulations as the receiver may deem proper for regulating the production of gas and oil and to prevent waste or the entrance of water to the oil sands or oil-bearing strata to the destruction or injury of the oil deposits or the damage of wells in the possession of the receiver; and, provided further, that the receiver, in his discretion, may agree with any operator or claimant to operate for his benefit and at his expense the lands in said "Big Bend" area. Until the several operators or claimants comply with the foregoing conditions, the receiver shall retain possession of the respective properties and shall operate the same in accordance with the order of this court of April 1, 1920, as modified by this order. 5. Said receiver is further authorized and directed to release and surrender to the lawful owners thereof (1) all oil and gas stored within the receivership area which is shown by evidence satisfactory to him to have been produced by operations outside of said area; (2) all machinery, tools and other equipment stored within the receivership area when the receiver took possession and not actually used in the production, storage, transportation, etc., of the oil and gas products thereof, and such other machinery, tools, drilling rigs and similar apparatus found within the receivership area as may not be required for the receivership operations; (3) all oil, gas and the products thereof which are shown by In the event of failure or refusal of any operator to operate the property as directed by the receiver, or if any operator shall vio-evidence satisfactory to the receiver to have late his agreement with the receiver, the receiver is authorized to take possession of and operate such property, impound three-sixteenths of the proceeds as provided by this order, and pay out of said proceeds the expenses of operation, keeping a separate account of the expense of production of each well as nearly as practicable. 3. The river-bed lands, for the purposes of this order, shall comprise all lands not here inbefore excepted, being more specifically that part covered by the receivership of all the broad and approximately flat sandy stretch which extends from the foot of the bluff or the edge of the flood plain, as the case may be, on the south side of the river, to the midchannel of the river as defined in said or der of April 1, 1920, and as it then existed including everything within the bounds just been produced by operations outside of the receivership area, but which were mingled and stored with similar products produced within said area on and subsequent to April 1, 1920. 6. Said receiver is further authorized and directed (1) to arrange for the sale and dis *469 position of all oil, gas, gasoline, water, and other products of said property; (2) to take possession and license the operation of all to regulate and limit the tolls chargeable toll bridges within the receivership area, and thereon; (3) to sell at the best price obtainable, properly credit and account for, such derricks, tanks, pipe lines, tools, appliances and materials not claimed by the owners operations; (4) to purchase at the best price thereof and not required for the receiver's obtainable such tanks, machinery, appliances, tools, motor cars, and equipment, as may be necessary for the operation, protection, and development of the property in his charge; (5) to retain and employ whatever technical production of any well in the river-bed *area or other assistants he may require or may paid to him since April 1, 1920: (1) To pay deem necessary to satisfactorily operate, deto the operator or operators of any such well velop and protect the property in his charge, the actual cost of operating the same since fix the terms of employment and the rate of April 1, 1920, inclusive, including in such compensation; (6) to make such banking arcost a reasonable allowance for field super-rangements as he may deem necessary to described. 4. It is further ordered that said receiver be and he is hereby authorized and directed, out of the gross proceeds derived from the #468 (Decided June 7, 1920.) No. 27. properly conserve and safeguard the funds | STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXresulting from his operations and to invest AS (UNITED STATES, Intervener). the surplus funds in the United States treasury certificates; (7) to make such contracts for fire, tornado, employé and public liability insurance as may be deemed necessary or advisable and take whatever other reasonable precautions are customarily employed in the management, operation, development, and protection of oil and gas properties of simi-ed States intervened. On motion of the Unitlar magnitude. 7. The receiver is hereby further authorized and directed to drill in the river-bed area described in paragraph 3 hereof, and bring into production whatever new wells he may be advised by his geologist and other experts are necessary for the conservation and development of the river-bed lands as a whole, pay the cost thereof out of the funds in his hands derived from the production of the wells in said river-bed area, keep separate accounts of the costs of drilling and operating and of the proceeds of the production of each well, and make a full report thereof, with his recommendations for the #470 equitable allocation and distribu*tion of such In Equity. Original suit by the State of Oklahoma against the State of Texas, in which the Unit ed States and of complainant, requesting the cause to be set down for hearing on questions of law. Motion granted. See, also, 40 Sup. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. 40 Sup. Ct. 394, 64 L. Ed. ·; 253 U. S. 465, 40 Sup. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. -; 40 Sup. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. #471 PER CURIAM. *On consideration of the motion of the United States and the state of Oklahoma, requesting that this cause be set down for hearing at an early day upon certain questions of law, and of the response of the state of Texas to said motion, this day presented: It is ordered that this cause be and it is costs and proceeds, as soon after the court re-hereby set down for hearing on the 15th day of November, 1920, upon the following questions of law, to wit: convenes in October next as may be practiable. (1) Is the decree of this court in United S. In addition to the specific powers herein States v. State of Texas, 162 U. S. 1, 16 Sup. contained, the receiver, until the further or- Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867, final and conclusive der of this court, is hereby given whatever upon the parties to this cause, in so far as additional administrative powers may be it declares that the treaty of 1819 between found to be necessary to properly protect, operate, manage and develop the property within the receivership area and the oil and gas deposits therein. 9. The receiver is directed to report to the court, for such action as it may deem necessary and proper any interference with the property or operations in his charge and any violation of the orders and directions given by him in the performance of his official duties: and he may apply in vacation to the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice of this court for a writ of injunction in any case where an injunction might be granted by the court. 10. Nothing in the order of this court of April 1, 1920, or in this order shall be construed to prevent or in anywise obstruct the duly constituted authorities of the United States and of the states of Texas and Oklahoma in the exercise of their several and respective jurisdictions, as heretofore, in the prevention, detection and punishment of crime within the area embraced within the orders of this court. the United States and Spain (8 Stat. 252) fixed the boundary along the south bank of Red river? (2) If said decree is not conclusive, then did the treaty of 1819, construed in the light of pertinent public documents and acts, fix the boundary along the mid-channel of Red river or along the south bank of said river? It is further ordered that the parties be permitted to take and present testimony in respect of the governmental practice on the part of all governments and states, concerned at the time, bearing upon the construction and effect of said treaty as to the second question above stated. The evidence in chief of the United States and the state of Oklahoma shall be taken and closed on or before August 15, 1920; the evi *472 dence in chief of the state of Texas *shall be taken and closed on or before October 1, 1920; and rebuttal testimony on the part of the United States and the state of Oklahoma shall be taken and closed on or before October 15, 1920. The evidence in each case to be taken on 7 days' notice, unless notice is The parties hereto and their respective waived. officers and agents are requested to afford to the receiver and his agents all reasonable and appropriate assistance in guarding, protecting and conserving the property within said area. Ernest Knaebel, Esq., of the District of Columbia, is hereby appointed as commissioner to take the said evidence and report the same to the court, without findings or conclusions. 1919) (40 Sup.Ct.) MEMORANDUM DECISIONS DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1919 583 (251 U. S. 542) No. 128. OHIO VALLEY WATER COM- PER CURIAM. Restored to the docket for reargument. The attention of counsel is directed to the question of whether under the State law the right to review the action of the commission was limited by the State statutes to the particular remedy which was here resorted to, or whether such statutes left open the right to invoke judicial power by way of independent suit for the purpose of redressing wrongs deemed to have resulted from action taken by the commission. (253 U. S. 477) No. John W. DAVIDGE v. Leo SIMMONS. June 1, 1920. Petition for a writ of error in this case to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia allowed upon petitioner giving bond in the sum of one thousand dollars. (253 U. S. 499) No. 14. The UNITED STATES, appellant, v. The QUAKER OATS COMPANY et al. June 1, 1920. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. For opinion below, see 232 Fed. Mr. Assistant Attorney General for the United States. Dismissed, on motion of Mr. Assistant to the Attorney General Ames for the appellant. 499. (253 U. S. 476) No. 570. John F. DONAHUE, appellant, v. Helen May DONAHUE, alias Helen May Huskey. June 1, 1920. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. Mr. George C. Otto, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Mr. H. W. Huskey, of Reno, Nev., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550. (253 U. S. 476) No. 708. J. D. PURCELL et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The CITY OF LEXINGTON on relation of Thomas E. COYNE, back tax assesJune 1, 1920. In error to the Court of sor. Appeals of the State of Kentucky. For opinion below, see 186 Ky. 381, 216 S. W. 599. Messrs. George C. Webb, George R. Hunt, and James R. Bush, all of Lexington, Ky., for plaintiffs Messrs. Jesse I. Miller, H. E. Ross, in error. for and Harry B. Miller, all of Lexington, Ky., defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) New Orleans Water Works v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 18, 38, 39, 8 Sup. Ct. 741, 31 L. Ed. 607; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 111, 16 Sup. Ct. 80, 40 L. Ed. 91; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 216, 16 Sup. Ct. 1023, 41 L. Ed. 132; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 116, 19 Sup. Ct. 134, 43 L. Ed. 382; Hubert v. New Orleans, 215 U. S. 170, 175. 30 Sup. Ct. 40, 54 L. Ed. 144; Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 187, 32 Sup. Ct. 47, 56 L. Ed. 156; (2) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225. 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Brolan v. United Ct. 580. 53 L. Ed. 914; States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182. 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550. (253 U. S. 490) No. 839. G. W. BOULDIN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. June 1, For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 674. 1920. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 490) No. 851. NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, petitioner, v. LEFLORE COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 325. Mr. Jno. R. Tyson, of Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner. of Greenwood, Miss. Mr. R. C. McBee, (Messrs. Gardner. McBee & Gardner, of Greenwood, Miss., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. No. 862. Hannah T. WILLSON, plaintiff in error. v. Curtis C. MCDONNELL. June 1, 1920. Motion to dismiss denied. (253 U. S. 490) No. 863. Samuel L. SNEIERSON, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 264 Fed. 268. Messrs. Wm. Shaw McCallum, David Stoneman, and Wm. H. Garland, all of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Franklin G. Wixson, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 490) No. 872. H. M. WHEELER, petitioner, v. Charles P. TAFT and H. W. Inscore. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 978. Mr. G. P'. Bullis, of Vidalia, La., for petitioner. Mr. Henry J. Livingston, of Memphis, Tenn. (Messrs. McGehee, Livingston and Farabough, of Memphis, Tenn., of counsel), for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 491) No. 880. F. H. ORCUTT & SON COMPANY et al., petitioners, V. NATIONAL TRUST & CREDIT COMPANY. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 265 Fed. 267. Messrs. Harrison Musgrave and William S. Oppenheim, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Messrs. James W. Hyde, John W. Creekmur, and Donald J. De Wolfe, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 491) No. 885. The CHESAPEAKE STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, owner, etc., et al., petitioners, v. Frank HAND, master, etc. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 266 Fed. 641. Messrs. Hughes, Vandeventer & Eggleston, of Norfolk, Va. (Mr. Floyd Hughes, of Norfolk, Va., of counsel), for petitioners. Messrs. Hughes, Little & Sewaell, of Norfolk, Va. (Mr. R. M. Hughes, of Norfolk, Va., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 490) petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Franklin G. Wixson, for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 491) No. 898. Hiram N. STANCIL et al., petitioners, v. FREDERICK LEYLAND & COMPANY, Limited, claimant, etc., et al. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 264 Fed. 511. Messrs. John D. Grace and M. A. Grace, both of New Orleans, La., for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. (253 U. S. 481) No. 900. PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Amy SMITH. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 110 Atl. 142. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania granted. (253 U. S. 491) No. 907. Arnold Jacob UHL, petitioner, v. (253 U. S. 492) No. 914. CURACAO TRADING COMPANY (Curacaosche Handel Mattschappij), petition- (253 U. S. 482) No. 916. FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS SION, petitioner, v. BEECH-NUT PACKING COMPANY. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 264 Fed. 885. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. No. 938. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILNo. 889. The DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA ROAD COMPANY, appellant. v. Franklin K. & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, pe- LANE. Secretary of the Interior, et al. June titioner, v. Charles S. CANDEE, Jr. June 1, 1920. For opinion below, see 109 Atl. 202. Mr. Frederic B. Scott, of New York City, for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey denied. (253 U. S. 491) 1, 1920. See, also, 263 Fed. 637. Mr. A. A. mo No. 891. Anthony PHILLIPS, petitioner, v. |