Case: John H. Ford v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; Union Iron Works v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; Reginald W. Geare v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; and Frank L. Wagner v. Nicholas Appelbaum, Administrator, etc.
Abbreviation: Ford v. Sturgis
Decision Date: 1924-11-21
Docket Number: No. 277; No. 278; No. 279; No. 280
Citation: 266 U.S. 584
Volume: 266
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: John H. Ford v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; Union Iron Works v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; Reginald W. Geare v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; and Frank L. Wagner v. Nicholas Appelbaum, Administrator, etc.
Judges: 
Pages: 584–584

Head Matter:
No. 277.
No. 278.
No. 279.
No. 280.
John H. Ford v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; Union Iron Works v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; Reginald W. Geare v. Guy Sturgis, Administrator, etc.; and Frank L. Wagner v. Nicholas Appelbaum, Administrator, etc.
On certificate from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued November 21, 1924.
Decided November 21, 1924, and form of order corrected December 1, 1924.
Mr. Daniel Thew Wright, with whom Mr. Philip Ershler was on the brief, for Geare. Mr. John 8. Barbour, Mr. J. C. Gibson and Mr. J. W. Hazell appeared for Ford. Mr. John 8. Barbour appeared for Union Iron Works. Mr. W. C. Sullivan appeared for Wagner. Mr. Hoke Smith, Mr. Charles A. Douglas, Mr. Conrad H. Syme and Mr. Joseph W. Cox appeared for Sturgis, Administrator. Mr. Lawrence Koenigsberger, by leave of Court, filed a brief as amicus curiae in No. 280.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The certificate from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in each case is dismissed for the reason that the questions or propositions of law certified therein are not such as may be certified under § 251 of the Judicial Code. See Biddle v. Luvisch, ante, 173, and cases there cited.