OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Denver & R. G. R. Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Denver & R. G. R. Company."
* 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. Denver & R. G. R. Company (150 U.S. 1)
* United States v. Denver & R. G. R. Company (150 U.S. 16)
# United States v. Denver Pacific Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 460
United States v. Denver Pacific Railway Company
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Joseph K. McCammon for the appellant.
Mr. John P. Usher and Mr. S. W. Sanderson, contra.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Company/Dissent Holmes

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Holmes McReynolds
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 441
Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Company
Argued: Nov. 10-14, 1921. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1922
Mr. Justice HOLMES dissenting.
There are obvious limits of propriety to the persistent expression of opinions that do not command the agreement of the Court. But as this case presents a somewhat new field-the determination of what is unfair competition within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act-I venture a few words to explain my dissent. I will not recur to fundamental questions. The ground on which the respondent is held guilty is that its conduct has a dangerous tendency, unduly to hinder competition or to create monopoly. It is enough to say that this I cannot understand. So far as the Sherman Act is concerned I had supposed that its policy was aimed against attempts to create a monopoly in the doers of the condemned act or to hinder competition with them. Of course there can be nothing of that sort here. The respondent already has the monopoly of its own goods with the full assent of the law and no one can compete with it with regard to those goods, which are the only ones concerned. It seems obvious that the respondent is not creating a monopoly in them for anyone else, although I see nothing to hinder its doing so by conveying them all to one single vendee. The worst that can be said, so far as I see, is that it hinders competition among those who purchase from it. But it seems to me that the very foundation of the policy of the law to keep competition open is that the subject-matter of the competition would be open to all but for the hindrance complained of. I cannot see what that policy has to do with a subject-matter that comes from a single hand that is admitted to be free to shut as closely as it will. And to come back to the words of the statute I cannot see how it is unfair competition to say to those to whom the respondent sells and to the world, you can have my goods only on the terms that I propose, when the existence of any competition in dealing with them depends upon the respondent's will. I see no wrong in so doing, and if I did I should not think it a wrong within the possible scope of the word unfair. Many unfair devices have been exposed in suits under the Sherman Act, but to whom the respondent's conduct is unfair I do not understand.
Mr. Justice McKENNA and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS concur in this opinion.

## 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Holmes
    McReynolds
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 441
Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Company
Argued: Nov. 10-14, 1921. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1922
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles W. Dunn, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 442-443 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice DAY 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 536
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.
Argued: March 2, 1960. --- Decided: June 20, 1960
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Edgar Barton, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Shoe Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 316
Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Shoe Company
Argued: April 25, 1966. --- Decided: June 6, 1966
Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Robert H. McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Borden Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 637
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. The BORDEN COMPANY.
Argued: Jan. 19, 1966. --- Decided: March 23, 1966
Robert B. Hummel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
John E. F. Wood, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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. St. Paul, M. & M. Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 310
United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Railway Company
Argued: Jan. 15 and 16, 1918. --- Decided: June 3, 1918
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful, for the United States.
Messrs. I. Parker Veazey, Jr., of Great Falls, Mont., and E. C. Lindley, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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. Stahl

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
151 U.S. 366
United States v. Stahl
Statement by Mr. Justice GRAY:
This was a claim for $1,000, alleged to be due for longevity pay as an assistant engineer in the navy from June 10, 1882, to August 10, 1887. The petitioner alleged that he was entitled to this amount, 'after deducting all just credits and offsets.' The answer was a general traverse.
The findings of fact by the court of claims were as follows: 'Claimant entered the naval academy, September 14, 1876; graduated June 10, 1880; and was commissioned assistant engineer June 10, 1882. On August 10, 1887, he resigned his commission as assistant engineer. On August 11, 1887, he was duly appointed and commissioned an assistant naval constructor. Claimant has never received any credit upon his commission as assistant engineer for his service in the navy from his entry into the naval academy, September 14, 1876, till the date of his said commission, June 10, 1882. On December 30, 1888, claimant was given credit for his prior service at the naval academy, and as assistant engineer, upon the commission then held by him of assistant naval constructor. The amount due claimant is $1,000 as unpaid longevity pay.'
Upon these facts, the court of claims decided, as a conclusion of law, that the claimant was entitled to recover the sum claimed, and gave judgment accordingly. The United States appealed to this court.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge and Felix Brannigan, for the United states.
John Paul Jones, for appellee.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, 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. Standard Brewery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 210
United States v. Standard Brewery
Argued: Dec. 11, 1919. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1920
[Syllabus from pages 210-211 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson and Mr. Solicitor General King, of Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.
[Arguments of Council on 211-214 intentionally omitted]
Mr. William L. Marbury, of Baltimore, Md., for defendant in error Standard Brewing Co.
Mr. Justice DAY 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. Stafoff Brooks

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 477
United States v. Stafoff Brooks
Argued: Nov. 29, 1922. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1923
Chris Elioff Stafoff, alias Chris Elioff, was indicted with another for having in possession a still intended for the production of distilled spirits for beverage and commercial purposes, without having registered it, and for having unlawfully manufactured on premises other than an authorized distillery a mash fit for the production of distilled spirits. A demurrer to both counts was sustained (268 Fed. 417), and the United States brings error. Affirmed.
James L. Brooks was convicted of having in possession a still, and of manufacturing a mash, and of having carried on the business of a distiller without having given th bond required by law, and he brought error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified to the Supreme Court questions as to whether the statutes on which the indictment was based had been repealed by the National Prohibition Act, and as to whether defendant could be sentenced under the National Prohibition Act. Questions as to the repeal answered 'Yes,' and question as to the sentence answered 'No.'
George Remus and others were indicted for having carried on the business of a liquor dealer and rectifier without having paid the special tax required by law. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained as to six of the seven counts of the indictment (283 Fed. 685), and the United States brings error. Judgment on counts 2, 4, and 6 affirmed, and that on counts 3, 5, and 7 reversed.
Mrs. Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt, for the United states.
Samuel Herrick, of Washington, D. C., for Brooks.
E. N. Zoline, of New York City, for Remus and others.
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. Stahl/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
151 U.S. 366
United States v. Stahl
The claimant, as is implied in the facts found and is admitted by the counsel of the United States, was continuously in active service in the navy from September 14, 1876, to August 10, 1887, first in the naval academy as a cadet midshipman, then, it would seem, as a midshipman or a cadet engineer, and then as assistant engineer. See Rev. St. §§ 1512, 1521-1525, 1536, ad fin. On August 10, 1887, he resigned his commission as assistant engineer, and on August 11, 1887, he was appointed an assistant naval constructor. While the pay of a cadet midshipman, of a midshipman, or of a cadet engineer is not, the pay of an assistant engineer or of an assistant naval constructor is, graduated by length of service. Rev. St. § 1536. The claimant's whole service from the time of his entering the naval academy, and notwithstanding his resignation of one commission the day before he received another, must be considered a continous service, for the reasons stated in the opinion just delivered in U.S. v. Alger, 14 Sup. Ct. 346. He has been given credit for his whole prior service upon his last commission, upon which he was not entitled to it; and has been allowed no credit upon his commission as assistant engineer, upon which he was entitled to it. The court of claims, applying the same rule that it did in U.S. v. Alger, apparently considered him entitled to both.
As this court holds him to be entitled to longevity pay as assistant engineer only, there should be deducted from the sum due him for such pay the sum which has been mistakenly and improperly paid to him. McElrath v. U.S., 102 U.S. 426; U.S. v. Burchard, 125 U.S. 176, 8 Sup. Ct. 832.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

## 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 75

8 Wall.[ace], ( 19 L.Ed. )
* 75 U.S. 1 Thorington v. Smith
* 75 U.S. 14 Dean v. Younell's Aministrator
* 75 U.S. 15 The Eagle
* 75 U.S. 27 Mills v. Smith
* 75 U.S. 33 (1842) Stansbury v. United States
* 75 U.S. 38 Reeside v. United States
* 75 U.S. 44 (1866) Furman v. Nichol
* 75 U.S. 64 Memphis City v. Dean
* 75 U.S. 77 (1861) United States v. Speed
* 75 U.S. 85 (1868) Ex Parte Yerger
* 75 U.S. 107 Nailor v. Williams
* 75 U.S. 110 Waring v. The Mayor
* 75 U.S. 123 Woodruff v. Parham
* 75 U.S. 148 Hinson v. Lott
* 75 U.S. 153 Propeller Mohawk
* 75 U.S. 163 McKee v. United States
* 75 U.S. 168 Paul v. Virginia
* 75 U.S. 185 United States v. Lane
* 75 U.S. 202 Seymour v. Freer
* 75 U.S. 230 Morey v. Lockwood
* 75 U.S. 242 Drakely v. Gregg
* 75 U.S. 269 Gibbons v. United States
* 75 U.S. 276 Hudson Canal Company v. Pennsylvania Coal Company
* 75 U.S. 292 Patterson v. De La Ronde
* 75 U.S. 302 The Carroll
* 75 U.S. 307 The Lucy
* 75 U.S. 310 Mandelbaum v. The People
* 75 U.S. 314 Gibson v. Chouteau
* 75 U.S. 325 The Lady Franklin
* 75 U.S. 330 United States v. Gilmore
* 75 U.S. 333 Wood-Paper Company v. Heft
* 75 U.S. 337 Alviso v. United States
* 75 U.S. 342 Express Company v. Kountze Brothers
* 75 U.S. 354 Young v. Martin
* 75 U.S. 358 Gilbert Secor v. United States
* 75 U.S. 362 Kempner v. Churchill
* 75 U.S. 370 Mattingly v. Nye
* 75 U.S. 376 Avendano v. Gay
* 75 U.S. 377 The Baltimore
* 75 U.S. 393 Bardley v. Rhines' Administrators
* 75 U.S. 397 (1866) Insurance Company v. Mosley
* 75 U.S. 420 (1862) Blanchard v. Putnam
* 75 U.S. 430 (1845) Home of the Friendless v. Rouse
* 75 U.S. 439 The Washington University v. Rouse
* 75 U.S. 444 Bronson v. Kimpton
* 75 U.S. 445 Bennet v. Fowler
* 75 U.S. 448 The Camanche
* 75 U.S. 480 Allen v. Killinger
* 75 U.S. 489 Parish v. United States
* 75 U.S. 491 Aldrich v. Aetna Company
* 75 U.S. 498 Kennedy v. Gibson
* 75 U.S. 507 Morris's Cotton
* 75 U.S. 513 Carpenter v. Dexter
* 75 U.S. 533 (1864) Veazie Bank v. Fenno
* 75 U.S. 557 Willard v. Tayloe
* 75 U.S. 575 (1851) Butz v. City of Muscatine
* 75 U.S. 587 United States v. Smith
* 75 U.S. 590 The Potomac
* 75 U.S. 595 Drehman v. Stifle
* 75 U.S. 603 Hepburn v. Griswold
* 75 U.S. 639 Broderick's Executor v. Magraw
* 75 U.S. 640 McVeigh v. United States
* 75 U.S. 641 Chicopee Bank v. Philadelphia Bank
* 75 U.S. 650 (1794) Maguire v. Tyler
# United States Reports/Volume 67

2 Black, ( 17 L.Ed. )
* 67 U.S. 17 (1851) The United States v. Andres Castillero Andres Castillero
* 67 U.S. 372 (1792) Calais Steamboat Co v. Scudder Adm'r of Van Pelt
* 67 U.S. 394 (1852) United States v. Galbraith et al.
* 67 U.S. 408 King v. Ackerman
* 67 U.S. 418 Chicago City v. Robbins
* 67 U.S. 430 (1828) Ward et al. v. Chamberlain et al.
* 67 U.S. 448 Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal Company v. Beers
* 67 U.S. 458 Chilton v. Braiden's Administratrix
* 67 U.S. 461 (1842) Curtis's Administratrix v. Fiedler
* 67 U.S. 481 Taylor v. Morton
* 67 U.S. 485 Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company v. Ward
* 67 U.S. 499 (1847) Noonan v. Lee
* 67 U.S. 510 (1857) Gilman v. The City of Sheboygan
* 67 U.S. 519 Griffing v. Gibb
* 67 U.S. 524 Bronson v. Railroad Company
* 67 U.S. 532 Sumner et al. v. Hicks et al.
* 67 U.S. 535 (1858) Wright v. Bales
* 67 U.S. 539 Ogilvie et al. v. Knox Insurance Company et al.
* 67 U.S. 541 Callan v. May
* 67 U.S. 544 Wright et al. v. Sill
* 67 U.S. 545 (1808) Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton and Woollen Company
* 67 U.S. 554 (1838) Lindsey et al. v. Hawes et al.
* 67 U.S. 563 Dredge et al. v. Forsyth
* 67 U.S. 571 Kellogg v. Forsyth Reynolds
* 67 U.S. 574 Congdon et al. v. Goodman and Bledsoe
* 67 U.S. 575 Russell v. Ely et al.
* 67 U.S. 581 The Ship Potomac
* 67 U.S. 585 Randall v. Howard
* 67 U.S. 590 Nebraska City v. Campbell
* 67 U.S. 593 (1862) The United States v. Chaboya Chaboya
* 67 U.S. 599 Leffingwell v. Warren
* 67 U.S. 606 Lessee of Parrish v. Ferris et al.
* 67 U.S. 610 The United States v. Grimes
* 67 U.S. 613 Rothwell v. Dewees
* 67 U.S. 620 (1862) The People of New York v. The Commissioners of Taxes for the City and County of New York
* 67 U.S. 635 (1862) Prize Cases
* 67 U.S. 699 Appleton v. Bacon North
* 67 U.S. 704 (1816) De Krafft v. Barney
* 67 U.S. 715 Koehler v. The Black River Falls Iron Company
* 67 U.S. 721 Mesa v. The United States
* 67 U.S. 722 Moran et al. v. The Commissioners of Miami County
# United States Reports/Volume 7

3 Cranch, ( 2 L.Ed. )
* 7 U.S. 1 Huidekoper's Lessee v. Douglass
* 7 U.S. 73 (1805) The United States v. Hoe et al.
* 7 U.S. 92 (1805) Peyton v. Brooke
* 7 U.S. 97 (1799) Lambert's Lessee v. Paine
* 7 U.S. 140 Hodgson v. Butts
* 7 U.S. 159 United States v. More
* 7 U.S. 174 Faw v. Roberdeau's Executor
* 7 U.S. 179 Ray v. Law
* 7 U.S. 180 (1797) Levy v. Gadsby
* 7 U.S. 187 The Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Wilson
* 7 U.S. 193 (1801) Wilson v. Executor
* 7 U.S. 210 Hallet and Bowne v. Jenks
* 7 U.S. 220 (1784) Milligan Administrator of Milligan v. Milledge Wife
* 7 U.S. 229 Cooke v. Graham's Administrator
* 7 U.S. 241 (1798) Dobynes Morton v. United States
* 7 U.S. 242 Hannay v. Eve
* 7 U.S. 249 (1791) Sarah and Abigail Silsby v. Thomas Young and Enoch Silsby
* 7 U.S. 267 Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al.
* 7 U.S. 268 Gordon v. Caldcleugh et al.
* 7 U.S. 270 M'Ferran v. Taylor and Massie
* 7 U.S. 283 Wilson v. Speed
* 7 U.S. 293 Buddicum v. Kirk
* 7 U.S. 298 Douglass Mandeville v. McAllister
* 7 U.S. 300 Simms and Wise v. Slacum
* 7 U.S. 311 Harris v. Johnston
* 7 U.S. 319 Dixon's Executors v. Ramsay's Executors
* 7 U.S. 324 Scott v. Negro London
* 7 U.S. 331 Wise v. Withers
* 7 U.S. 337 (1792) The United States v. Grundy and Thornburgh
* 7 U.S. 357 The Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. John and James H Tucker
* 7 U.S. 399 The United States v. Heth
* 7 U.S. 415 Manella Pujals and Company v. James Barry
* 7 U.S. 448 Ex Parte Burford
* 7 U.S. 454 Hopkirk v. Bell
* 7 U.S. 458 William Maley v. Jared Shattuck
* 7 U.S. 492 Lawrason v. Mason
* 7 U.S. 496 Knox and Crawford v. Summers and Thomas
* 7 U.S. 499 Sands v. Knox
* 7 U.S. 503 (1769) Randolph v. Ware
# United States Reports/Volume 71

4 Wall.[ace], ( 18 L.Ed. )
* 71 U.S. 1 Stearns v. The United States
* 71 U.S. 2 (1802) Ex Parte Milligan
* 71 U.S. 2 Brobst et al. v. Brobst
* 71 U.S. 143 McGee v. Mathis
* 71 U.S. 158 United States v. Hoffman
* 71 U.S. 163 Walker v. United States
* 71 U.S. 165 (1863) Brown v. Wiley
* 71 U.S. 172 Locke v. New Orleans
* 71 U.S. 174 Sturdy v. Jackaway
* 71 U.S. 177 Railroad Company v. Rock
* 71 U.S. 182 United States v. Dashiel
* 71 U.S. 186 United States v. Allsbury
* 71 U.S. 187 Leftwitch v. Lecanu
* 71 U.S. 189 Mayor v. Sheffield
* 71 U.S. 196 Christy v. Pridgeon
* 71 U.S. 204 Lanfear v. Hunley
* 71 U.S. 210 Witherspoon v. Duncan
* 71 U.S. 220 Rutherford v. Geddes
* 71 U.S. 224 Evans v. Patterson
* 71 U.S. 232 Hughes v. United States
* 71 U.S. 237 (1823) Mitchell v. St. Maxent's Lessee
* 71 U.S. 244 (1866) People v. The Commissioners
* 71 U.S. 259 Graham v. United States
* 71 U.S. 262 Brown v. Bass
* 71 U.S. 270 Mitchell v. Burlington
* 71 U.S. 275 Larned v. Burlington
* 71 U.S. 277 (1862) Cummings v. Missouri
* 71 U.S. 333 Ex Parte Garland
* 71 U.S. 399 Barrows v. Kindred
* 71 U.S. 404 United States v. Hathaway
* 71 U.S. 408 United States v. Quimby
* 71 U.S. 409 Gilman v. Lockwood
* 71 U.S. 411 The Moses Taylor
* 71 U.S. 431 Semple v. Hagar
* 71 U.S. 435 Supervisors v. United States
* 71 U.S. 447 Davidson v. Lanier
* 71 U.S. 459 Bradley v. The People
* 71 U.S. 463 Thompson v. Bowie
* 71 U.S. 475 Mississippi v. Johnson
* 71 U.S. 502 Saulet v. Shepherd
* 71 U.S. 509 Bentley v. Coyne
* 71 U.S. 513 Purcell v. Miner
* 71 U.S. 522 Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley
* 71 U.S. 535 Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy
* 71 U.S. 555 The Hine v. Trevor
* 71 U.S. 572 Newell v. Nixon
* 71 U.S. 584 Sparrow v. Strong
* 71 U.S. 598 Bell v. Railroad Company
* 71 U.S. 603 Ryan v. Thomas
* 71 U.S. 605 Pearson v. Duane
* 71 U.S. 617 (1862) Ware v. United States
* 71 U.S. 634 (1862) The Nassau
* 71 U.S. 642 United States v. Le Baron
* 71 U.S. 650 Railroad Company v. Lindsay
* 71 U.S. 657 Robbins v. Chicago City
* 71 U.S. 680 United States v. McMasters