# Petitioners Reply Brief — Bell v. Hood > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386450_0078%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petitioners Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1946 - **Citation:** 327 U.S. 678 ## Text IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - Q@CTOBER TERM, 1945 No. 344 ARTHUR L. BELL ‘ET AL., US. R.B. HOOD EF AL. ae ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES Cie OF APPEALS FOR THE NEN TRE CIROCUT | PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF Reussenn KE. Parsoss, . A. 1. Wry, ~ Conusel for Petitioners. INDEX Suspskcot Ixpex Petitioners’ reply brief Petitioners’ reply to respondents’ statement Reply to respondents” akguiment Tasie or Cases Crrep Gully v. Furst National Bank, 299 U.S. 109 : Ickes v. For, 300 U.S. 82 Mine Safety Appliances Company %. Forrestal; L. Ed. 165 Pu rlo Rico Vv. Risse / & ('o., JSS U’. S. 476 Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605 Rury v. Gandy, 12 F. (2d) 620 Taylor v. De Hart, 22 F. (2d) 206 U.S. 548 U.S. v. Lefkowitz, 286 UL S. 402 Viles v. Symes, 129 F. (2828, 317 US. 711 Sratrupes Cirep California Civil Cor seetion 3274 Coustitution Of the United States, Fourth ment United States Code: ~ Title 5, Section 300(a) — Title 18, Section 555(0) Title 18, Section 651 Tithe 2X, Section 41(1) 4 Title 28, Section BO Title 31, Sectiow224(b) —2696 Teavas and Ne w Orleans Radroad v. Broth: rhood, 2s1 Amend- LL v4 v >} IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES | OCTOBER TERM, 1945 No. 344 ARTHUR L. BELL ET AL., Petitioners, is. R. BL. HOOD ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORART TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COUT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF - t, Petitioners’ Reply to Respondents’ Statement 1. The respondents’ statement is posited largely, not on the allegations contained in the petitioners’ complaint which, the trial court ruled, tailed to disclose jurisdiction (R. 151, but on affidavits and counter-aflidavits’ submitted to the trial court In connection with a motion for saminarys judgment made by the respondents (R. 42). These affi davits, and the portions of: the respondents” statement relying upon the affidavits, should be ignored by this Court - for the following reasons: | (a) Neither the District Court (R. 151) nor the Cireuit Court below (R. 11,°168) based their ruling upon the aft. > ’ davits, nor even considered them. Their deelsions wer arrived at solely upon a consideration of the recitals « tained in the complaint, which comp ylaint the courts bel respectively, ruled, did not state a cause of action conferri: jurisdic tion upon the trial court. No reference is made either court below to the affidavits @&s the basis for their decisions. Cf. Opinion of Distriet Court (Re 145); Opi of Circuit Court (R. 168). (b) The evidence submitted by the respondents, in = port of their motion for summary judgment, constitut defensive material, which under the respondents Tee theory, nav not’ be considere d in ‘determining the jiri OQ i “ F<} KHwts, SO mS. 4 ae ry? « e ‘Saeee (There in nO SNPFCIAL CONZTess ’ ~ ‘ — . . a autherizine the last tWo proceedings - f y a 4A “lilt Tar? elegy? aaire's , if Court. Where Ties 13 76-? cLshittis , - } ae ey: of S500) and henee/the fling ef ‘ a , . ‘ E wt La (rr: neral won the Pisdal wate, reason why, unde ot es . Ss. Cocke} hi rhage’ neit