Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of
jurisdiction upon the authority of Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U.S. 89" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1905-01-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/courtney-v-pradt-96177?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="96177">196 U. S. 89, 91; Farrugia v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 233 U, S. 352, 353; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. *543Western Union Telegraph Co., 234 U.S. 369" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1914-06-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/louis--nash-rr-v-west-un-tel-co-98234?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="98234">234 U. S. 369, 371-372; Male v. Atchison, Topeka & Sarda Fe Ry. Co., 240 U.S. 97" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1916-02-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/male-v-atchison-topeka--santa-fe-railway-co-98641?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="98641">240 U. S. 97, 99. Mr. J. S. Ashworth, with whom Mr. H. G. Peters was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, with whom The Solicitor General was on the brief, for appellees.