Court Opinion

ID: 8148438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 20:28:09.096762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:34.901993
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam:

The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 183, 185; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29; Erie R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U.S. 427; Zucht v. King, 260 *796U. S. 174; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182; C. A. King & Co. v. Horton, 276 U. S. 600; Bank of Indianola v. Miller, 276 U. S. 605; Roe v. Kansas, 278 U. S. 191.
Mr. Benjamin E. Pierce for appellant.
Messrs. George M. Napier and T. R. Gress for appellee.