Per Curiam:
The appeal is dismissed (1) for want of a substantial federal question on.the authority of Shul*582this v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1912-06-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/shulthis-v-mcdougal-97678?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="97678">225 U. S. 561, 569; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1926-11-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hebert-v-louisiana-100929?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="100929">272 U. S. 312, 316-317; (2) because the affirmance below was based on a nonfederal ground adequate to support it. Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U.S. 255" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1918-03-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bilby-v-stewart-99116?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="99116">246 U. S. 255, 257.
Mr. L. C. Crofton for appellee in support of the'motion;
Messrs. W. E. Kay, Thomas B. Adams, and Henry C. Clark for appellant in opposition thereto.