A writ of certiorari, granted under the impression, induced by
the petition, that a question of public importance is involved,
will be dismissed when the argument reveals that the impression was
erroneous.
Writ of certiorari to review, 282 F. 837, dismissed.
Certiorari to a decree of the circuit court of appeals which
reversed in part a decree of the district court in a case removed
from a court of North Carolina. The proceeding was brought by the
Public Service Company and two cities, under North Carolina
statutes, to compel the present petitioner to continue furnishing
electric power to the Public Service Company for use in operating
street cars in the cities, and for the use of the cities and their
citizens for light and power. The decree of the district court, as
modified by the court below, granted this relief.
Page 263 U. S. 509
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor stated that
the cause involved a grave question of vital importance to the
public, and alleged as special reason for its reexamination that
the decree would deprive petitioner of property without due process
of law and of freedom to contract, contrary to the federal
Constitution. The opinion below is reported in 282 F. 837.
The argument developed that the controverted question was
whether the evidence sufficed to establish actual dedication of
petitioner's property to public use primarily a question of fact.
That is not the ground upon which we granted the petition, and, if
sufficiently developed, would not have moved us thereto.
Heretofore, we have pointed out the necessity for clear,
definite, and complete disclosures concerning the controversy when
applying for certiorari.
Furness, withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze
Insurance Association, 242 U. S. 430;
Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works,
261 U. S. 387. The
opinion first cited states that, during the 1915 Term, 154
petitions were presented, and suggests the probability of a largely
increased number. During the last Term (1922), petitions were filed
in 420 causes.
Obviously it is impossible for us critically to examine so many
records before ruling upon applications, and we must rely very
largely upon preliminary papers. Unless the requirements specified
in
Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance
Association are observed, we cannot hope properly to dispose
of an increasing docket.
Dismissed.