departmental oil and gas lease on the land so purchased to G. L. Sandlin, which lease was thereafter assigned to E. L. Robinson and Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation, defendants in error herein. Operating under said lease, defendants in error have produced oil upon which the state auditor of Oklahoma has levied and assessed gross production taxes in the total sum of $20,923.01, which said taxes were paid the state auditor by defendants in error under protest, and this suit was instituted to recover the same.

Because of the importance of the matters in issue here to the state of Oklahoma, and because of the frequency with which the same situation arises in that state, this court deemed it wise to certify the issues herein to the Supreme Court in order that there might be a final authoritative determination thereof. The questions certified to that court were as follows:

"1. Had the Secretary of the Interior, on October 24, 1915, when this land was purchased, power to exempt from such state taxation land purchased under his supervision for a full-blood Creek Indian with trust funds of that Indian, where the land so purchased was, at that time, subject to all state taxes?

"2. Is this tax a forbidden tax upon a federal instrumentality?"

In a clear, exhaustive opinion (Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation et al., 48 S. Ct. 333, 72 L. Ed. —, decided April 9, 1928), Mr. Justice Stone reviewed the law and answered both of the above questions in the negative. Those answers and that opin

ion dispose of the issues in this case and require a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for proceedings in accordance with this opinion and the above opinion of the Supreme Court.

Shoun, Swingle & Milligan and Susong, Susong & Parvin, all of Greeneville, Tenn., for appellees.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed pursuant to motion of counsel for appellant.

2

J. H. SMALLING v. UNITED STATES. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 8, 1928.

No. 5157.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of

Tennessee.

George C. Taylor, U. S. Atty., of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Docketed and dismissed, pursuant to motion of counsel for appellee.

3

W. E. STANSBURY v. J. S. TOBIN, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of COLUMBIA MORTGAGE & TRUST COMPANY.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 9, 1928.

No. 5087.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee; Harry B. Anderson, Judge.

Holmes, Canale, Loch & Glankler, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

J. W. Canada and Chas. M. Bryan, both of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed pursuant to agreement of counsel.

United States court may retain jurisdiction foreign vessel, whether collision occurred in of damage suit, acquired through attachment of

open sea or territorial water.-Id.

5 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Court may permit trial of suit for damages by collision in foreign waters in district wherein vessel was attached, if deemed necessary to do justice.-Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. v Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro, 27 F. (2d) 1002.

em

5 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Longshoreman, in ploy of stevedoring company, injured on Italian vessel in navigable waters of United States, could recover under statute (Merchant Marine Oceanic Stevedoring Co., 27 F.(2d) 905. Act, § 33 [46 USCA § 688]).-Williams v.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Admiralty court held without jurisdiction to reach assets transferred by corporate charterer to new corporation in shipowner's suit for demurrage (Admiralty Central Argentine Ry., 27 F. (2d) 795, modifyRule 56 [see title 28, § 723]).-Yone Suzuki v. ing decree (D. C.) Yone Suzuki Co. v. Central Argentine Ry., 19 F. (2d) 645.

ACTION.

III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDATION, AND SEVERANCE.

50 (9) (U.S.D.C.Va.) Joinder of causes of action to cancel, for false statements in application, policies on life of one payable to different persons, held permissible (Equity Rule 26). Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 27 F. (2d) 753.

53(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Party has but one action on single cause.-Van Norden v. Charles R. McCormock Lumber Co. of Delaware, 27 F. (2d) 881.

(U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Charterer's agreement to ship coal in vessels sailing 10 days apart, and to deliver coal on land, held nonmaritime, and not enforceable in admiralty (Admiralty Rule 56 [see title 28, § 723]).-Yone Sumodifying decree (D. C.) Yone Suzuki Co. v. zuki v. Central Argentine Ry., 27 F. (2d) 795, Central Argentine Ry., 19 F. (2d) 645.

for wrongful death can be enforced in suit in 16 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Statutory lien on ship admiralty (Code Va. 1919, § 5786).-Lewis v. Jones, 27 F. (2d) 72.

21 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) State death statute held 1919, § 5786).-Lewis v. Jones, 27 F. (2d) 72. to create lien on ship causing death (Code Va.

Rule prescribed by statute relating to death on high seas applies to wrongful death occurring in navigable waters (46 USCA § 761).—Id. Where man was killed on navigable stream by ship, question involved was maritime one.-Id.

II. REMEDIES IN PERSONAM AND IN

REM.

28 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Ship is liable as principal for negligence of any one in lawful possession, whether as owner or charterer.-Turner v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 134.

Refrigerator held part of vessel, to which persons damaged may look for reimbursement for vessel's torts.-Id.

29 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Pendency of libel in rem does not bar suit in personam on same facts.-Turner v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 134.

IX. APPEAL.

X. COSTS.

122 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Respondent, impleading one found without fault, is liable for costs to such party.-O'Brien Bros. v. City of New York, 27 F. (2d) 989.

ALIENS.

II. EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION.

25 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Adopted son of nativeborn citizen, both belonging to Chinese race, held not entitled to admission prior to enactment of Immigration Act (8 USCA § 145 et seq.).-Mar Fow Lun v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 129.

32 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Immigration tribunals, though not bound by rules of evidence, are bound by rules of reason and logic.-Mason ex rel. Lee Wing You v. Tillinghast, 27 F.(2d) 580.

in

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Discrepancies testimony and alterations in record on father's admission warranted denial of admission to Chinese as foreign-born son of American citizen. Chew Toy v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 513.

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Illegitimate foreign-born Chinese son of American citizen held not shown to have been legitimated by father in accordance with state statute (8 USCA § 6; Civ Code Cal. § 230).-Louie Wah You v. Nagle, 27 F (2d) 573.

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Discrepancies in testimony held not such as to authorize denial of applications of Chinese persons for admission on ground fathers were citizens-Nagle v. Wong Ngook Hong, 27 F. (2d) 650.

out inspection (Immigration Act 1917, §§ 3, 19 [8 USCA §8 136, 155]).—Id.

54(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Warrant for arrest held not fatally defective for failure to state time and place of acts charged, where alien received copy of statements on which warrant was issued.-Maltez v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 835.

54 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Decree closing alien's restaurant under Prohibition Act was immaterial, in proceedings to deport alien for managing house of prostitution.-Maltez v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 835.

54(9) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Evidence in deportation proceedings relative to alien's conviction for larceny held not to prove "moral turpitude." -Ex parte Edmead, 27 F. (2d) 438.

54(10) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Whether petty larceny involves moral turpitude is fact question, to be determined from circumstances of theft.Ex parte Edmead, 27 F. (2d) 438.

54(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal on deportation hearing to produce for cross-examination persons whose ex parte statements were relied on deprived alien of fair trial.-Maltez v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 835.

Refusal to permit alien's cross-examination of witnesses, whose ex parte statements were used in deportation proceedings, rendered trial unfair, though no demand to cross-examine was made until after hearing.-Id.

56 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) To "harbor," or "conceal" aliens, within act, means to shelter and protect improperly admitted aliens, to shield from observation and prevent discovery of such aliens (Immigration Act. § 8 [8 USCA § 144]). Susnjar v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 223.

IV. NATURALIZATION.

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) One claiming citizenship through father held properly excluded, in view of discrepancies in testimony and in applicant's claimed and apparent age.-Tom Him v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 885.

32 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence held sufficient to support decision of immigration authorities that alleged father's citizenship and parentage of Chinese applying for admission were not established.-Chin Fong ex rel. Nge Ark Lai v. Tillinghast, 27 F. (2d) 217.

32(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Immigration officials, in excluding Chinese person seeking admission as foreign-born son of native-born American citizen, on ground relationship was not established, held to have acted arbitrarily. (8 USCA § 6).-Mason ex rel. Lee Wing You v Tillinghast, 27 F. (2d) 580.

32 (9) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Finding that applicant for admission as son of citizen was not entitled thereto, because of inconsistencies in testimony, held arbitrary and unreasonable.Lew Sun Soon v. Tillinghast, 27 F. (2d) 775. ~32(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Secretary of Labor, on appeal from denial of application for admission, may consider all facts shown by record before Board of Special Inquiry.-Chew Toy v. Nagle, 27 F. (2d) 513.

32(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Where substantial evidence supports conclusion of immigration officials excluding alien, court must affirm decision on habeas corpus.-Mason ex rel. Lee Wing You v. Tillinghast, 27 F.(2d) 580.

III. IMMIGRATION.

54(5) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Five-year limitation held applicable to deportation of alien, procuring passage for consideration paid seamen, without signing on ship's crew, and landing in defiance of rules (Immigration Act 1917, §§ 1, 3, 19, 34 [8 USCA §§ 136, 155, 166, 173]).—U. S. ex rel. Candreva v. Smith, 27 F. (2d) 642.

Limitation on deportation of stowaways is not affected by limitation as to aliens entering with

62(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Fifty year old woman, applicant for citizenship, held not disqualified because of her expressed unwillingness to personally bear arms in defense of United States (Naturalization Act, § 4(4): 8 USCA § 382).-Schwimmer v. U S., 27 F. (2d) 742.

68(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Applicant for citizenship had right to have her petition and evidence considered by court in accordance with settled rules of law.-Schwimmer v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 742.

68 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Mere views of alien applicant for citizenship are not alone ground for denying petition (Naturalization Act, § 4(4); 8 USCA § 382).-Schwimmer v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 742.

712 (3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) False oath as to residence and mental reservation in renunciation of allegiance held ground for cancellation of certificate of naturalization.-U. S. v. De Tolna, 27 F. (2d) 984.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(D) Finality of Determination.

78(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Order denying application to intervene is interlocutory, and not Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayappealable.-Board of Drainage Com'rs of ette Southside Bank of St. Louis, 27 F. (2d) 286.

78(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Interlocutory order, confirming master's report denying recov ery on trust theory, but retaining jurisdiction, held not appealable, and no bar to claim of trust on appeal from judgment.-In re Pacat Finance Corporation, 27 F.(2d) 810, affirming order (D. C.) 295 F. 394.

(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision. 87 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) No appeal lies from order denying petition to intervene.-Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage