Howard v. United States, No. 2402.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit
Citation126 F.2d 667
PartiesHOWARD v. UNITED STATES ex rel. ALEXANDER et al.
Docket NumberNo. 2402.
Decision Date13 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

126 F.2d 668
a proceeding which plaintiff had lodged with the Board wherein he sought reinstatement as agent and telegrapher for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, at Oberlin, Kansas, with restoration of rights of seniority and reimbursement for monetary losses sustained by his wrongful dismissal from such employment. Service of summons was had on the United States Attorney in Kansas but no service was had on any of the other defendants. The court dismissed the action, and plaintiff appealed

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
13 practice notes
  • In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • December 7, 1956
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1943
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1954
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 30, 1942
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • December 7, 1956
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1943
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1954
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 30, 1942
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT