# Answer to Petition for Certiorari — Miles v. Tomlinson

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_1135%3A4

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Answer to Petition for Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1963
- **Citation:** 375 U.S. 828

## Text

| Otfice-Supreme

Cs:

pT von ‘FIL

ie

-IN THE

S. AUG 16 1063

DAVIS, CLERK ©

Supreme Court of the United Staths—

Octonss Team, 11 1963. -

No. 290

STEWART OIL COMPANY, a Conronattos ; M#CHIGAN

OIL COMPANY, a Corvoration; STEWART PRO-

ca INC., a Corporation; KENNETH PATTER-
_ SON; F. STEWART; W. ROLLAND STEWART;
. FR ANK J. TIERN AN axp MORRIS YARBROVE,

“Plaintiff s-PRe sponde nts,

Us.

SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY, . ;
Defendant and Counter Clatmant,
v8.

WALTER’ FE. KLINE; STELLA P. KLINE: R. E.
HAYES; W. T. FREDERKING axp A. P. W AGEM AXN,

Counter De fe ndants- Petitioners,
and

CARL E. MOSES: DAVID R. STEWART asp DONK
BROS. “COAL & COKE COMPANY, :

ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
. TO THE UNITED. STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIROUIT.

C.

RALPH DPD. WALKER, b, 3 CHARLES. WHAM, Ss
WAYNE P. WiLLIAMS, JOHN DP. WHAM,
Watkin & WILLIAMS, , WiamM & WHAM,
- 1S Illinois Aventie, ., viz East Broadway,
East St. Louis, [inois, Centralia, [linois,
Attornena for Counter- :
defendant-Respondent TOM E: GRACE, .
Donk Bros, Coal & Coke ~° 11814 South 17th Street,
‘Company. Mattoon, Illinois...
JOHN J. YELVINGTON, Attorneys. for Plaintiffs-

1161S Broadway, Respondents.

Mattoon, Hlinois, , ;
Attornen for Counterdefend- Be
ants-Respondents Carl E.
Moses and Darid R.,
Stewart. ‘

THES ‘THORP-WARRER PRINTING COMPANY, CHICAGO ’

Counter Defe seated Re -sponde nts. -

Cc

>
INDEX. -
%
a
Opinions Below ........... Ranguxaes parc ee ewe ;
Jurisdiction for Rev iew. Seeeve ns phpnce ae eo Mee eRe
Questions Presented * Soe Pee ret eee eres ee

Grounds in Objection to Review:
1. The Petition Shouid Not Be Entertained. .
II. ‘The Distriet-Court Had Jurisdiction .......
Ill. The Deed Construction is Governed by Ih- ,
nois Law and Has Been in Accordance

A: ; Ge (asc bwiee s whee acne aes
IV. The Findings of Fact Are Supported and
Further Review Is Unwarranted ..%.......

Aipeiitin: A‘*—Statutes and Court Rules lavabeud.

: Cirations.
Adkins v. Adams, 7-Cir., 152 F. 2d 489, 492° (1945)...
Bierman ¥ _ Mareus, 3rd Cir., 246 F.: 2d_ 200, 205,_e¢ ,
de nied 336 U. 9. 93 41957) Be Ag naa Nana ers

Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. Ss. Si, 105, 106,.11 s. Ct. -
960, 966, 35 L. Ed. 640, 647 (1891) wats ees joaaes
Eichel v. U.S. F:& G. Co., 245 U.S. 102; 104, 62 L. Ed.

ek gs eer ree

Fall v. Eastin, 215 (7S. 1, 8, 30 s. Ct. 3, 6, 54 L. Ed.

65, 69 et seq. (1909) ...... A PEReN eeu ys cavee Ent
Glenn Falls Indemnity Co. v. U. S., Sth Cir., 229 F. 2
BIO, FISSTE- (IBN) «vo oes eck gu ccae eee oer ae
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vae Co., 321

U.S. 279, 278, 88 L. Ed. 421, 724 S. Ct. (1944)...

. oO
R-

a |

oN

qr

Vig. ye ee
Gordon v. Gordon, 1955, 6:IlL. 2d 572, 576-577 .....,..
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Prod-
” ucts Co., 336 ©. S. 271, 270,98 L. Ed. 676 ery oe

Hardy v. Greathouse, 406 Iil. 365, 373, 94.N EL 2d 134,
BO CE i oles Seeds cows ooo bas Caw eg aed wees

Heleomb v. Aetna Life. Insurance Company, 10th Cir.,
Loa BF. Dd D77, OS2Z (1958), cert. de nied 358 U. S.-879 ©

Jilek v. Chicago, Wilmington ’& Franklin Coal Co., 382

lll. 241, 245; 47 N. E. 2d 96, 98 (1943).....%......
Keen v. Cleveland, C. C. & Si. L. Ry. Co., 392 Ml 362,
71. 64 N. E. 2d 499, 503 (1945) .. 0... oe et Pan

Me Allister v. United States, 348 U. S. 19, 20, 99. L. Ed.
90, Bh, 75. BB. CR. 6 CUBS) 2.5 22s ee Cee ea L aa
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Mason, 3rd Cir., 98 F.
2d 668: 669'°(1988) .......2..6 i.
gee
:

ies;

“7. Venne—Publie corporations—Loeal actions——

Hibel —Insurance, companies, .* * * (1) °° * (2) Any
action to quiet title to real estate, or to partition or

recover possession thereof or to foreclose a mortgage

ISHS, Rules of ¢ iil Procedure, Rule 13 in-pertinent

°

ea

14

or other lien thereon, must be brought i in the comity. it
which: the real estate or some part of it is situated*’

“8 Wrong court or venue—Waiver—Motion to.

transfer. (1) No order, judgment or decree is void
because rendered in the wrong venue, except in case
of judgment by confession as provided in section 50(4)
of this Act. No action shall abate or be dismissed
because commenced in the wrong venue or court if
there is a proper venue or court of competent juris-
diction to which the cause may be transferred,

42) All objections of improper venue are waived
by a defendant ‘unless a motion to transfer to a proper
venue is made by him on or before the date upon which
he is required to appear or within any: further time

that may be granted him to answer or move with re-

is iat

spect to the complaint

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_1135%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.