STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY v. PUBLIC,
275 U.S. 489 (1927)
Annotate this Case
- Syllabus |
- Case
U.S. Supreme Court
STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY v. PUBLIC, 275 U.S. 489 (1927)
275 U.S. 489 275 U.S. 537
No. 21.
STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company;
No. 22. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company;
No. 23. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. ST. LOUIS BREWING ASSOCIATION, plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company;
No. 24. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. ST. LOUIS BREWING ASSOCIATION, plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company;
No. 25. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. WAINRIGHT REAL ESTATE COMPANY, plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company; [489-Continued.]
No. 26. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. WAINRIGHT REAL ESTATE COMPANY, plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company;
No. 27. STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. HOTEL STATLER COMPANY, Inc., plaintiff in error,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI and Union Electric Light & Power Company.
Supreme Court of the United States October 24, 1927 and
Messrs. Charles Nagel, Charles M. Polk and Marion C. Early, all of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. J. P. Painter, of Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant in error Public Service Commission of Missouri.
Mr. Theodore Rassieur, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error Union Electric Light & Power Co.
PER CURIAM.
The writs of error are dismissed on the authority of Section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937 (28 USCA 344; Comp. St. 1214)), for lack of jurisdiction. Treating
the writs of error as applications for certiorari, the applications are denied for want of a substantial Federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569, 32 S. Ct. 704; Hull v. Burr, 234 U.S. 712, 720, 34 S. Ct. 892; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U.S. 144, 147, 36 S. Ct. 97.
