Case: W. F. Richardson, Jr., Company, Inc. v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; Mayo Milling Company, Inc. v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; Adams Grain & Provision Company v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; and Adams Grain & Provision Company v. John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads, etc
Abbreviation: W. F. Richardson, Jr., Co. v. Hines
Decision Date: 1924-04-07
Docket Number: No. 603; No. 604; No. 605; No. 606
Citation: 264 U.S. 573
Volume: 264
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: W. F. Richardson, Jr., Company, Inc. v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; Mayo Milling Company, Inc. v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; Adams Grain & Provision Company v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; and Adams Grain & Provision Company v. John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads, etc.
Judges: 
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
No. 603.
No. 604.
No. 605.
W. F. Richardson, Jr., Company, Inc. v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; Mayo Milling Company, Inc. v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; Adams Grain & Provision Company v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, etc; and Adams Grain & Provision Company v. John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads, etc.
No. 606.
Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Motion to dismiss submitted March 17, 1924.
Decided April 7, 1924.
Mr. David H. Leake and Mr. Walter Leake, for defendants in error, in support of the motion. Mr. Robert H. Talley, for plaintiffs in error, in opposition to the motion.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of United States v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385, 389-391; German National Bank v. Speckert, 181 U. S. 405, 409; United States v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463, 466; Arnold v. Guimarin & Co., 263 U. S. 427. And see decision this day announced in Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, ante, 456.