OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Cutting

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
70 U.S. 441
United States v. Cutting
THE Internal Revenue Act of 30th June, 1864, declares by its 99th section as follows:
'All brokers and bankers doing business as brokers, shall be subject to pay the following duties and rates of duty upon the sales of merchandise, produce, gold and silver bullion, foreign exchange, promissory notes, stocks, bonds, or other securities, &c., and shall also be subject to all the provisions, &c., of the act for making returns, assessments, and collection of the duties.'
The ninth paragraph of the 79th section says:
'Brokers shall pay $50 for each license. Every person, firm, or company (except such as hold a license as banker), whose business it is as a broker to NEGOTIATE purchases or sales of stocks, exchange, bullion, coined money, bank notes, promissory notes, or other securities, shall be regarded as a broker, [and shall make oath or affirmation that all their transactions are made for a commission.']
On the 3d March, 1865, Congress passed an act to amend the former act. This last act amends the former, by inserting, after the words 'other securities' (given above in italics) the words 'for themselves or others;' and by striking out from the paragraph that part of it included above in brackets.
In this state of the statutes, as assumed by the court, Cutting & Co., duly licensed as 'brokers,' besides having bought and sold stocks, bonds, and securities for others, had sold on their own account other stocks, bonds, and securities, of which they were themselves the owners at the time. On these last they refused to pay any duty; and suit being brought by the United States to recover the duty, the question here, on error to the New York Circuit, was, whether they had refused rightfully; in other words, whether one licensed as a 'broker' only, was liable to pay duty on his own stocks sold on his own account. The Circuit Court thought that he was not.
The case, which largely concerned, of course, both the government and great numbers of persons in all our large cities, was thoroughly and ably argued by Mr. Speed, A. G., for the United States, and by Messrs. Allen, Burrill, and Evarts, contra. The matter involving, however, nothing but the construction of a statute of immense length hastily drawn of necessity in many of its provisions, and liable to be amended indefinitely, even the ability which marked the discussion would not compensate the general reader for the space which any presentation of it would require.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 13 Stat. at Large, 218.
* ↑ 13 Stat. at Large, 469.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Curtis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 671
United States v. Curtis
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.
Chester H. Krum, for Curtis.
HARLAN, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 325

UNITED STATES REPORTS
VOLUME 325
CASES ADJUDGED
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1944
FROM APRIL 23, 1945 (CONCLUDED) TO AND INCLUDING (IN PART) JUNE 18, 1945
united states government printing office WASHINGTON: 1946
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
* 325 U.S. 1 (1945) Cramer v. United States
* 325 U.S. 77 (1945) Herb v. Pitcairn
* 325 U.S. 79 (1945) Hoover Company v. Coe
* 325 U.S. 91 (1945) Screws v. United States
* 325 U.S. 161 (1945) Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America
* 325 U.S. 196 (1945) United States v. United States
* 325 U.S. 212 (1945) De Beers Consol Mines v. United States
* 325 U.S. 226 (1945) Williams v. North Carolina
* 325 U.S. 279 (1945) Esenwein v. Pennsylvania ex rel. Esenwein
* 325 U.S. 283 (1945) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bedford's Estate
* 325 U.S. 293 (1945) Angelus Milling Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 325 U.S. 300 (1945) Finn v. Meighan
* 325 U.S. 304 (1945) Chase Securities Corporation v. Donaldson
* 325 U.S. 317 (1945) Ambassador v. United States
* 325 U.S. 327 (1945) Sinclair Carroll Company v. Interchemical Corporation
* 325 U.S. 335 (1945) International Union of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers Locals No. 15 v. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Company
* 325 U.S. 357 (1945) United States v. Capital Transit Company
* 325 U.S. 365 (1945) Bingham's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 325 U.S. 385 (1945) American Power & Light Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission
* 325 U.S. 398 (1945) Akins v. Texas
* 325 U.S. 410 (1945) Bowles v. Seminole Rock Sand Company
* 325 U.S. 419 (1945) Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Company
* 325 U.S. 427 (1945) Walling v. Harnischfeger Corporation
* 325 U.S. 442 (1945) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Disston
* 325 U.S. 478 (1945) Keegan v. United States
* 325 U.S. 507 (1945) North Carolina v. United States
* 325 U.S. 535 (1945) Alabama v. United States (325 U.S. 535)
* 325 U.S. 538 (1945) Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson
* 325 U.S. 561 (1945) In re Summers
* 325 U.S. 578 (1945) 10 East 40th Street Building Incorporated v. Callus
* 325 U.S. 589 (1945) Nebraska v. Wyoming (325 U.S. 589)
* 325 U.S. 665 (1945) Nebraska v. Wyoming (325 U.S. 665)
* 325 U.S. 673 (1945) Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Read
* 325 U.S. 679 (1945) Borden Company v. Borella
* 325 U.S. 687 (1945) Goldstone v. United States
* 325 U.S. 697 (1945) Inland Empire District Council, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. Millis
* 325 U.S. 711 (1945) Elgin Railway Company v. Burley
* 325 U.S. 761 (1945) Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan
* 325 U.S. 797 (1945) Allen Bradley Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
* 325 U.S. 821 (1945) Hunt v. Crumboch
* 325 U.S. 841 (1945) Coy v. United States
* 325 U.S. 882 (1945) Warehime v. Varney
* 325 U.S. 897 (1945) Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America (325 U.S. 897)
* 325 U.S. 898 (1945) Garrett v. Greenberg
# United States Reports/Volume 328

UNITED STATES REPORTS
VOLUME 328
CASES ADJUDGED
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1945
FROM APRIL 22, 1946 (CONCLUDED) TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 10, 1946 (END OF TERM)
WALTER WYATT REPORTER
united states government printing office WASHINGTON: 1947
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
* 328 U.S. 1 (1946) Swanson v. Marra Bros
* 328 U.S. 8 (1946) Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. United States
* 328 U.S. 12 (1946) El Dorado Oil Works v. United States
* 328 U.S. 25 (1946) Burton-Sutton Oil Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 328 U.S. 39 (1946) Utah Junk Company v. Porter
* 328 U.S. 46 (1946) Collins v. Porter
* 328 U.S. 50 (1946) Thomas Paper Stock Company v. Porter
* 328 U.S. 61 (1946) Girouard v. United States
* 328 U.S. 80 (1946) Queenside Hills Realty Company v. Saxl
* 328 U.S. 85 (1946) Seas Shipping Company v. Sieracki
* 328 U.S. 108 (1946) Schulte v. Gangi
* 328 U.S. 123 (1946) Smith v. Hoboken Railroad, Warehouse, & Steamship Connecting Company
* 328 U.S. 134 (1946) Thompson v. Texas Mexican Railway Company
* 328 U.S. 152 (1946) First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission
* 328 U.S. 189 (1946) Howitt v. United States
* 328 U.S. 193 (1946) Federal Trade Commission v. A.P.W. Paper Company
* 328 U.S. 204 (1946) Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Beaver County
* 328 U.S. 211 (1946) Woods v. Nierstheimer
* 328 U.S. 217 (1946) Thiel v. Southern Pacific Company
* 328 U.S. 234 (1946) United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Company
* 328 U.S. 246 (1946) Porter v. Lee
* 328 U.S. 252 (1946) Porter v. Dicken
* 328 U.S. 256 (1946) United States v. Causby
* 328 U.S. 275 (1946) Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corporation
* 328 U.S. 293 (1946) Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Company
* 328 U.S. 303 (1946) United States v. Lovett
* 328 U.S. 331 (1946) Pennekamp v. Florida
* 328 U.S. 373 (1946) Morgan v. Virginia
* 328 U.S. 395 (1946) Porter v. Warner Holding Company
* 328 U.S. 408 (1946) Prudential Insurance Company v. Benjamin
* 328 U.S. 440 (1946) Robertson v. California
* 328 U.S. 463 (1946) Fisher v. United States
* 328 U.S. 495 (1946) Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
* 328 U.S. 549 (1946) Colegrove v. Green
* 328 U.S. 575 (1946) Universal Oil Products Company v. Root Refining Company
* 328 U.S. 582 (1946) Davis v. United States
* 328 U.S. 624 (1946) Zap v. United States
* 328 U.S. 633 (1946) Bihn v. United States
* 328 U.S. 640 (1946) Pinkerton v. United States
* 328 U.S. 654 (1946) Knauer v. United States
* 328 U.S. 680 (1946) Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Company
* 328 U.S. 699 (1946) United States v. Anderson
* 328 U.S. 707 (1946) Hust v. Lines
* 328 U.S. 750 (1946) Kotteakos v. United States
* 328 U.S. 781 (1946) American Tobacco Company v. United States
# United States Reports/Volume 327

UNITED STATES REPORTS
VOLUME 327
CASES ADJUDGED
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1945
FROM JANUARY 29, 1946, TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 22, 1946
WALTER WYATT REPORTER
united states government printing office WASHINGTON: 1947
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
* 327 U.S. 1 (1946) Yamashita v. Styer
* 327 U.S. 82 (1946) Canizio v. New York
* 327 U.S. 92 (1946) Case v. Bowles Opa
* 327 U.S. 103 (1946) Hulbert v. Twin Falls County
* 327 U.S. 106 (1946) United States v. Johnson
* 327 U.S. 114 (1946) Estep v. United States
* 327 U.S. 146 (1946) Hannegan v. Esquire
* 327 U.S. 161 (1946) Meyer v. Fleming
* 327 U.S. 173 (1946) Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Company
* 327 U.S. 178 (1946) Mabee v. White Plains Pub Company
* 327 U.S. 186 (1946) Oklahoma Press Pub Company v. Walling US News Printing Company
* 327 U.S. 220 (1946) Griffin v. Griffin
* 327 U.S. 251 (1946) Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures
* 327 U.S. 269 (1946) American Surety Company of New York v. Sampsell
* 327 U.S. 274 (1946) Ashcraft v. Tennessee
* 327 U.S. 280 (1946) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tower
* 327 U.S. 293 (1946) Lusthaus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 327 U.S. 304 (1946) Duncan v. Kahanamoku
* 327 U.S. 358 (1946) Social Security Board v. Nierotko
* 327 U.S. 372 (1946) United States v. Petty Motor Company
* 327 U.S. 385 (1946) National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney California Lumber Company
* 327 U.S. 392 (1946) Holmberg v. Armbrecht
* 327 U.S. 399 (1946) Poff v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
* 327 U.S. 404 (1946) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wilcox
* 327 U.S. 416 (1946) Nippert v. City of Richmond
* 327 U.S. 437 (1946) United States v. American Union Transport
* 327 U.S. 463 (1946) Boutell v. Walling
* 327 U.S. 474 (1946) Wilson v. Cook
* 327 U.S. 499 (1946) Duggan v. Sansberry National Aircraft Corporation
* 327 U.S. 512 (1946) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fisher
* 327 U.S. 515 (1946) United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines
* 327 U.S. 536 (1946) Cherry Cotton Mills v. United States
* 327 U.S. 540 (1946) Macauley v. Waterman Steamship Corporation
* 327 U.S. 546 (1946) United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch
* 327 U.S. 558 (1946) Sra v. Minnesota
* 327 U.S. 573 (1946) Kennecott Copper Corporation v. State Tax Commission Silver King Coalition Mines Company
* 327 U.S. 582 (1946) American Federation of Labor v. Watson
* 327 U.S. 608 (1946) Jacob Siegel Company v. Federal Trade Commission
* 327 U.S. 614 (1946) Kraus Bros. v. United States
* 327 U.S. 633 (1946) United States v. Carbone
* 327 U.S. 645 (1946) Lavender v. Kurn
* 327 U.S. 655 (1946) McAllister Lighterage Line v. United States
* 327 U.S. 661 (1946) Elgin Railway Company v. Burley
* 327 U.S. 678 (1946) Bell v. Hood
* 327 U.S. 686 (1946) North American Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission
* 327 U.S. 711 (1946) Williams v. United States
* 327 U.S. 726 (1946) Heiser v. Woodruff
* 327 U.S. 742 (1946) United States v. Rice
* 327 U.S. 759 (1946) Homma v. Patterson
# United States v. Frerichs (106 U.S. 160)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 160
United States v. Frerichs
This case was an information filed in the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York against a distillery, claiming that it was forfeited to the United States for violation of the revenue laws. Frerichs, the defendant, appeared as claimant and denied the forfeiture. Upon the trial the district court was of opinion that there was no evidence of any violation of the revenue laws for which the seizure had been made, and directed a verdict for the claimant, which having been brought in, judgment was rendered thereon in his favor. Thereupon the United States, by their attorney, moved the court to enter of The following sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States are pertinent to the controversy in this case:
'Sec. 909. In suits or informations brought, where any seizure is made pursuant to any act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, if the property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant: provided, that probable cause is shown for such prosecution, to be judged of by the court.
'Sec. 970. When, in any prosecution commenced on account of the seizure of any vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise, made by any collector or other officer under any act of congress authorizing such seizure, judgment is rendered for the claimant, but it appears to the court that there was a reasonable cause of seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered, and the claimant shall not in such case be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure nor the prosecutor be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or prosecution: provided, that the vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise be, after judgment, forthwith returned to such claimant or his agent.'
record a certificate that there was a reasonable cause of seizure. The motion was denied. The case was then carried by writ of error to the circuit court, where it was adjudged that there was no error in the record. To reverse this latter judgment this writ of error is prosecuted. The only question raised in this court is whether the district court erred in refusing to enter the certificate of reasonable cause.
Mr. Phillips, Sol. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
Edward Salomon, for defendant in error.
WOODS, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Frerichs (106 U.S. 160)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 160
United States v. Frerichs
We are of opinion that the refusal of the district court to grant a certificate of reasonable cause is not a matter which can be reviewed in the circuit court or in this court. It is only from final judgments that a writ of error lies from the district to the circuit court, or from the latter court to the supreme court. The granting or the refusal to grant the certificate is not a final judgment in the sense of the statute which allows writs of error. The certificate, when granted, is no part of the original case. It is a collateral matter which arises after final judgment. It is granted to protect the person at whose instance the seizure was made, should an action of trespass be brought against him by the claimant for the wrongful seizure of the latter's property. The granting of the certificate of reasonable cause is, therefore, only antecedent and ancillary to another suit, and is not a final judgment in the case in which it is given. It is not final or effectual for any purpose unless certain facts subsequent to the judgment are shown, namely, the immediate return to the claimant or his agent of the property seized in the original suit. This court has decided that a refusal to enter an exoneratur on a bail bond, that judgments awarding or refusing to award or setting aside writs of restitution in actions of ejectment, that a judgment on a writ of error coram nobis, that a judgment refusing a writ of venditioni exponas, that a refusal to quash an execution or to quash a forthcoming bond, were not final judgments to which a writ of error would lie. Morsell v. Hull, 13 How. 212; Smith v. Trabue, 9 Pet. 4; Barton v. Forsyth, 5 Wall. 190; Gregg v. Forsyth, 2 Wall. 56; Pickett's Heirs v. Legerwood, 7 Pet. 144; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648; Evans v. Gee, 14 Pet. 1; McCargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555; Amis v. Smith, 16 Pet. 303. See, also, Barker Hollier, 8 Mees. & W. 513.
These authorities lead to the opinion we have expressed in this case. We think the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Frerichs (124 U.S. 315)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 315
United States v. Frerichs
Atty. Gen. Garland and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for appellant.
Edward Solomon, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Freights

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 466
United States v. Freights
Argued: April 14, 1927. --- Decided: May 31, 1927
The Attorney General and Mr. George R. Farnum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 466-468 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Thomas Hunt and John W. Lowrance, both of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 468 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Frerichs

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Frerichs."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Frerichs (106 U.S. 160)
* United States v. Frerichs (124 U.S. 315)
# United States v. Fremont

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 30
United States v. Fremont

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 45

Chap. XLV.—An Act to amend an act entitled “An act to reorganize the General Land Office.”
Act of July 4, 1836, ch. 352. Office of Solicitor of the General Land Office abolished. Duties to be performed by the Recorder, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passing of this act, the office of Solicitor of the General Land Office shall be, and the same is hereby, abolished; and that all the duties heretofore by law required to be performed by the said Solicitor shall hereafter be performed by the Recorder, or by such other person or persons in the employ of the United States in said General Land Office, as the Commissioner of the said General Land Office may from time to time direct.
Acts inconsistent herewith repealed.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the fifth section of the act entitled “An act to reorganize the General Land Office,” and all other acts and parts of acts contrary to the provisions of this act, be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Approved, June 12, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 5

Chap. V.—An Act to repeal the act entitled “An act to amend the act of the tenth of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, entitled ‘An act to change the time of holding the circuit and district courts in the district of Ohio.’”
Act of June 1, 1842, ch. 31. Act of 1st June 1842 repealed.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled “An act to amend the act of the tenth of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, entitled ‘An act to change the time of holding the circuit and district courts in the district of Ohio,’” approved June 1st, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, be, and the same is hereby, repealed:Proviso. Provided, That this act shall not take effect until from and after the next July term of said court at Cincinnati.
Approved, March 26, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 38

Chap. XXXVIII.—An Act to alter the places of holding the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,District Court of U. S. for New Jersey to be held at Trenton. That the district court of the United States, in and for the district of New Jersey, shall hereafter be held at the city of Trenton, in said State, instead of the cities of New Brunswick and Burlington, the places heretofore established by law. And all indictments, informations, recognizances,Indictments, &c. to be tried at Trenton. writs, suits, pleas, actions, motions, and all other proceedings, civil and criminal, shall be heard, tried, proceeded with, and determined by the said court at the said city of Trenton, in the same manner as might and ought to have ​been done had the said court been holden at the places heretofore directed by law.
Approved, June 4, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 4

Chap. IV.—An Act changing the time of holding the courts at Clarksburg and at Wheeling, in the western district of Virginia, and the circuit court of the United States for the district of Arkansas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,To be held at Clarksburg, when. That the district court of the United States, required by law to be holden at Clarksburg, in the western district of Virginia, shall hereafter commence its sessions on the last Mondays of March and of August of every year; and that the sessions of said courtAt Wheeling. required by law to be held at Wheeling, within said district, shall hereafter commence on the Wednesdays after the first Mondays in April and September of every year, instead of the times now fixed by law for holding said courts, respectively; and that the circuit court of the United States for the district of Arkansas,Circuit court of Arkansas, to be held when. shall hereafter be held on the second Monday of April of each year, instead of the time now designated by law; and that all actions, suits, recognizances, processes, writs, and proceedings whatever, pending, or which may be pending, in said courts, respectively, or returnable thereto, shall have day therein, and be heard, tried, proceeded with, and decided, in like manner as if the time of holding said sessions had not been hereby altered.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act be in force from and after the passage thereof.
Approved, March 4, 1844.
* ↑ See notes of the acts relating to the District Courts of Virginia, vol. 3, 479.
* ↑ Act of April 17, 1828, chap. 29.