States for the Southern District of New York and requiring that certain papers in addition to those contained in the Transcript of Record already filed on this appeal be certified to this Court and that a supplemental return be made containing said papers; and for an order striking out on page 257 of the Transcript of Record on file the words "amended complaint at law," and from page 263 the words " answer at law," and from p. 11, the words "affidavits and papers used to oppose motion for judgment at law," and said motion having come on to be heard; Now, on reading and filing the petition of Christian Dancel and Mary Dancel, verified October 6th and 7th, 1905, and the certificate of the Clerk of the [District] Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, dated September 29th, 1905, filed in support of said motion and the affidavit of Edwards H. Childs, sworn to the 13th day of October, 1905, in opposition thereto, and on the Transcript of Record filed herein upon this appeal, and after hearing Roger Foster, Esq., of counsel for the complainants-Appellees in support of the motion and Edwards H. Childs, Esq., counsel for the defendant-appellant in opposition thereto, it is Ordered that said motion to strike out the said words from the Transcript of Record be and the same hereby is denied. And counsel for the defendant appellant having consented that the Transcript of Record filed in this Court upon the writ of error in the cause entitled The Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company of Portland, Maine, plaintiffs in error against Christian Dancel and another defendants in error may be deemed part of the transcript of record upon this appeal, it is further Ordered that the said Transcript of Record filed upon said writ of error be considered as before this Court upon the argument of this appeal in addition to and as a part of the Transcript of Error filed herein and that counsel be and they hereby are permitted to refer upon this appeal to the papers contained in said Transcript of Error filed on the writ of error. W. J. W. E. H. L. A. C. C. CERTIORARI FORM XX.-PETITION TO STATE COURT FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. [253 U. S. 480.] In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, January Term, 1920. No. 12. PHILADELPHIA AND READING RAILWAY COM PANY, Appellant, vs. MARIA DOMENICA DI DONATO. To the Honorable J. Hay Brown, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and to the other Justices of the said Honorable Court and to the Honorable Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: The petition of Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, Appellant herein, respectfully represents: 1. That on Friday, February 22, 1920, an opinion of this Court was filed affirming the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County in favor of Maria Domenica Di Donato and against Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, Appellant in a cause of action in which the jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation tribunals was challenged on the ground that the claimant's decedent was engaged in interstate commerce. 2. That the questions presented by the assignments of error in this cause, particularly those relating to the exclusive application of the federal employers' Liability Act to cases where an employee of an interstate railroad is engaged in work incident to interstate commerce, are questions of broad general interest to railroad companies throughout the country; and your petitioner is advised by counsel that it is desirable that the Supreme Court of the United States be asked to pass finally upon these questions in order that the management of the said companies be advised as to the proper disposition of similar cases arising in the future. 3. That the Act of Congress and the rules of the Supreme Court in such cases made and provided, fix the time within which petitions for writs of certiorari may be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States at three months. It is further provided by Rule 37 of the Supreme Court of the United States that the party making application for writ of certiorari shall, as a part thereof, furnish the court with a certified copy of the whole record, that 30 printed copies of the petition for the writ of certiorari and brief in support thereof shall be filed and notice of the date of submission of the petition, together with a copy of petition and brief in support of the same, shall be served on the counsel for the respondent at least two weeks before such date. 4. Your petitioner is prepared to perfect the record in this case, and to file its petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on or before the 5th day of April, 1920. 5. That your petitioner is advised that in order that the proceedings may remain in their present status pending the disposition of such a petition for writ of certiorari, a special order of this Court is required to stay the issuing of the mandate. Wherefore your petitioner prays that this Court enter an order directing the prothonotary of your Honorable Court to hold the mandate in this cause pending the filing of the aforesaid petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States until the 5th day of April, 1920, and that if said petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on or before that day the mandate be further held until the Supreme Court of the United States shall act upon the said petition for the writ of certiorari aforesaid. And your petitioner will ever pray, etc. PHILADELPHIA AND READING By GEORGE GOWEN PARRY, Counsel. CERTIORARI FORM XXI.-ORDER OF STATE COURT GRANTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. [253 U. S. 480.] And now, to wit this 9th day of March, A. D., 1920, upon consideration of the foregoing petition and upon motion of George Gowen Parry, Esq., Counsel for Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, appellant, it is ordered that the mandate in the above entitled case shall not issue but shall be stayed until April 5, 1920, and that if on or before that day there shall be filed with the Prothonotary of this Court an affidavit of Counsel for Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company showing that a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed by the said appellant in the SupremeCourt of the United States that the mandate shall be held for a further period thereafter, and shall not issue before final disposition shall be made by the Supreme Court of the United States of the petition for writ of certiorari aforesaid. J. HAY BROWN, Chief Justice. CERTIORARI FORM XXII.-APPLICATION TO DISTRICT COURT FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER MANDATE OF CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PENDING APPLICATION TO SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI. [Stay granted. The decision is not reported. The author was counsel for the complainants. In the Second Circuit the proper practice now is to make to the Circuit Court of Appeals, or during its vacation to a judge thereof the application for the stay. C. C. A. Rule, 2nd Ct. 29, supra § 689d.] CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. EDWARDS H. CHILDS, being duly sworn, deposes and says: On Saturday, March 17th, 1906, an order was made and entered by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the final decree made herein in favor of the complainants and from which an appeal had been taken to said Court of Appeals by the defendant. On Monday, March 19th, 1906, I obtained a certified copy of the record in said cause from the Clerk of said Circuit Court of Appeals and on Tuesday, March 20th, 1906, the same was duly filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington, D. C., together with an original petition by the defendant for a writ of certiorari to the said Circuit Court of Appeals. The rules of the Supreme Court with respect to such petitions provide that they shall be submitted to the Court upon about two weeks' "' notice and that the petitioner's brief must also be served upon the respondents. The brief on behalf of the petitioner is now being made and as soon as the same is prepared and printed, the notice will be served and the said application will be duly brought on before the Supreme Court. The record in the said cause is now being printed under the direction of the Clerk of the Supreme Court in accordance with the rule requiring that fifty copies be printed. I requested the said Clerk to have the printing done as quickly as possible and he has agreed to do so, but the record is long and the printing has not as yet been completed. There has been no delay whatever in this matter and the defendant is proceeding with all the diligence possible to bring the said petition before the Supreme Court at the earliest possible day. WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that all proceedings by this Court on the mandate of said Circuit Court of Appeals may be stayed, pending the determination of said application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and for such other and further relief upon the complainants' application for proceedings on said mandate that may be just. Sworn to before me this 27th day of March, 1906. JOHN P. SHAFER, Notary Public, Kings County. Certificate filed in New York County. EDWARDS H. CHILDS. CERTIORARI FORM XXIII.-ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF Christian Dancel and Mary Dancel, as administrators of the goods, chattels and credits of Christian Dancel, deceased, in answer to the petition for a writ of certiorari herein, which has been filed in this Honorable Court, dated March 19, 1905, respectfully show: I.—They deny the allegation in the fourth paragraph of said petition, that the promise therein mentioned was purely personal; and they deny the allegation in said paragraph contained, that the payments thereunder were to be made to Dancel personally. II. They deny that the action begun by the respondents herein on October 15, 1900, was an action at law. The said action was begun in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Section 3339 of the Code of |