Howard v. United States, No. 2402.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit |
| Citation | 126 F.2d 667 |
| Parties | HOWARD v. UNITED STATES ex rel. ALEXANDER et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 2402. |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1942 |
126 F.2d 667 (1942)
HOWARD
v.
UNITED STATES ex rel. ALEXANDER et al.
No. 2402.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 13, 1942.
G. F. Howard, pro se.
S. S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Lester Luther, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
G. F. Howard instituted this action in the United States Court for Kansas against the United States ex rel. S. S. Alexander (United States Attorney for Kansas), and C. C. Cook, R. H. Allison, R. A. Davis, C. P. Dugan, D. W. Helt, F. F. Cowley, H. Hemenway, A. H. Jones, R. F. Ray, and J. H. Sylvester, members of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The action was in mandamus to compel the Third Division of the Railroad Adjustment Board to hear and determine
The Railway Labor Act, as amended, 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, prescribes the powers and duties of the National Labor Adjustment Board, and provides the manner in which enforcement of its orders may be obtained. The Board consists of thirty-six members, § 3(a), divided into four divisions, with the third division having jurisdiction over disputes involving inter alia station and telegraph employees, § 3(h); disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances, rules, or working conditions, in case of inability to reach an agreement, may be referred by petition to the appropriate division of the Board, § 3(i); the parties may be heard either in person, by counsel, or by other representatives, as they may respectively elect, § 3(j); the awards of the several divisions shall be stated in writing, § 3(m); if a carrier fails to comply with an order within the time limit fixed therein, the United States Court for the district in which the petitioner or other person for whose benefit such order was made resides, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
...an action. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058; Howard v. United States ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 667, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 699, 62 S.Ct. 1297, 86 L.Ed. 1768, rehearing denied 317 U.S. 705, 63 S.Ct. 25, 86 L.Ed. 563; United States v. D......
-
Blank v. Bitker, No. 8215.
...process may run into any part of the United States, it has not done so by general law. Howard v. United States ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 667. No special statute is applicable here. We are not unaware of the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. ß 41(16), which (1) gives the district courts jurisd......
-
Lone Star Package Car Co. v. Baltimore & OR Co., No. 14336.
...Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 442, 66 S.Ct. 242, 90 L.Ed. 185; Howard v. United States, ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 126 F. 2d 667, 668; Blank v. Bitker, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 962, 965. Professor Moore states that, "Whether a foreign corporation or other business entity is doing bus......
-
Burke v. Union Pac. R. Co., No. 2495.
...So. 509, 519; Smith et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., D.C.W.D.La., 32 F.Supp. 1013; Howard v. United States., ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 126 F. 2d 667; Long v. Van Osdale, Ind.App., 26 N.E.2d 69; Cousins v. Pullman co., Tex. Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 356; Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. v. Pope, 4......
-
In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
...an action. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058; Howard v. United States ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 667, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 699, 62 S.Ct. 1297, 86 L.Ed. 1768, rehearing denied 317 U.S. 705, 63 S.Ct. 25, 86 L.Ed. 563; United States v. D......
-
Blank v. Bitker, No. 8215.
...process may run into any part of the United States, it has not done so by general law. Howard v. United States ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 667. No special statute is applicable here. We are not unaware of the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. ß 41(16), which (1) gives the district courts jurisd......
-
Lone Star Package Car Co. v. Baltimore & OR Co., No. 14336.
...Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 442, 66 S.Ct. 242, 90 L.Ed. 185; Howard v. United States, ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 126 F. 2d 667, 668; Blank v. Bitker, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 962, 965. Professor Moore states that, "Whether a foreign corporation or other business entity is doing bus......
-
Burke v. Union Pac. R. Co., No. 2495.
...So. 509, 519; Smith et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., D.C.W.D.La., 32 F.Supp. 1013; Howard v. United States., ex rel. Alexander, 10 Cir., 126 F. 2d 667; Long v. Van Osdale, Ind.App., 26 N.E.2d 69; Cousins v. Pullman co., Tex. Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 356; Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. v. Pope, 4......