2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Herman E. Cooper and H. Howard Ostrin for petitioners. Solicitor General Perlman, Robert N. Denham, David P. Findling and Fannie M. Boyls for respondent. Reported below: 175 F.2d 686.

No. 492. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD Co. v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. W. F. Semple for petitioner. Reported below: 177 F. 2d 454.

No. 504.

UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER ET AL. v. BARTGES. Supreme Court of Colorado. Certiorari denied. John P. Akolt for petitioners. John F. Eberhardt for respondent. Reported below: 120 Colo. 317, 210 P. 2d 600.

No. 505. TRANSPORT, TRADING & TERMINAL CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Arthur A. Ballantine and Charles C. MacLean, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Caudle, Ellis N. Slack and Hilbert P. Zarky for respondent. Reported below: 176 F. 2d 570.

No. 508. OWENS v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Caudle and Ellis N. Slack for the United States. Reported below: 177 F. 2d 692.

Nos. 510 and 511. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY V. ILLINOIS ET AL. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Werner W. Schroeder for petitioner. John S. Boyle, Gordon B. Nash and Melvin F. Wingersky for the State of

Illinois; and Thomas Dodd Healy for Sullivan, Trustee, respondents. Reported below: 177 F. 2d 860.

No. 515. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. JENNINGS, ADMINISTRATRIX. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Certiorari denied. Charles Cook Howell for petitioners. Donald Russell for respondent. Reported below: 215 S. C. 404, 55 S. E. 2d 522.

No. 518. DOUGHERTY v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Sheldon E. Bernstein for petitioner. James D. Carpenter and Henry M. Hogan for respondent. Reported below: 176 F. 2d 561.

No. 535. HORNER V. UNITED STATES. Court of Claims. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 114 Ct. Cl. 612, 86 F. Supp. 132.

No. 47, Misc. TOWNSEND V. KANSAS. Supreme Court of Kansas. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General of Kansas, L. P. Brooks and C. Harold Hughes, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. Reported below: 167 Kan. 366, 205 P. 2d 483.

No. 125, Misc. SHELTON V. REED, SUPERINTENDENT. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Perlman for respondent.

No. 279, Misc. BLACK V. ARKANSAS. Supreme Court of Arkansas. Certiorari denied. Joe McCoy and W. H. Glover for petitioner. Reported below: 215 Ark. 618, 222 S. W. 2d 816.

No. 301, Misc. TATE v. HEINZE, WARDEN. Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.

No. 178. BRYAN v. UNITED STATES, ante, p. 552;
No. 474. SMITH ET AL. v. O'DWYER, MAYOR, ET AL.,

ante, p. 937;

No. 260, Misc. PHILLIPS V. RAGEN, WARDEN, ante, p. 939; and

No. 295, Misc.

COPLON v. REEVES ET AL., ante, p. 942.

The petitions for rehearing in these cases are severally denied.

AMENDMENT OF RULES.

ORDER.

IT IS ORDERED that Paragraph 9 of Rule 27 of the Rules of this Court be, and it hereby is, amended to read as follows:

"9. (a)-Brief of an amicus curiae in cases before the Court on the merits:—A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only after order of the Court or when accompanied by written consent of all parties to the case and presented promptly after announcement postponing or noting probable jurisdiction on appeal, granting certiorari, or pertinent action in a case upon the original docket.

"(b)—Brief of an amicus curiae prior to consideration of jurisdictional statement or a petition for writ of certiorari:-A brief of an amicus curiae filed with consent of the parties, or motion, independent of the brief, for leave to file when consent is refused may be filed only if submitted a reasonable time prior to the consideration of a jurisdictional statement or a petition for writ of certiorari. Such motions are not favored. Distribution to the Court under the applicable rules of a jurisdictional statement or a petition for writ of certiorari and its consideration thereof will not be delayed pending the receipt of such brief or the filing of such motion.

"(c)-Motion for leave to file:-When consent to the filing of a brief of an amicus curiae is refused by a party to the case, a motion, independent of the brief, for leave to file may timely be presented to the Court. It shall concisely state the nature of the applicant's interest, set forth facts or questions of law that have not been, or reasons for believing that they will not adequately be, presented by the parties, and their relevancy to the disposition of the case. A party served with such motion may seasonably file in this Court an objection concisely stating the reasons for withholding consent.