OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Reports/Volume 476

* 476 U.S. 1 (1986) Skipper v. South Carolina
* 476 U.S. 16 (1986) McLaughlin v. United States
* 476 U.S. 19 (1986) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
* 476 U.S. 28 (1986) Turner v. Murray
* 476 U.S. 54 (1986) Diamond v. Charles
* 476 U.S. 79 (1986) Batson v. Kentucky
* 476 U.S. 140 (1986) Smalis v. Pennsylvania
* 476 U.S. 147 (1986) Poland v. Arizona
* 476 U.S. 162 (1986) Lockhart v. McCree
* 476 U.S. 207 (1986) California v. Ciraolo
* 476 U.S. 227 (1986) Dow Chemical Company v. United States
* 476 U.S. 253 (1986) Brock v. Pierce County
* 476 U.S. 267 (1986) Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
* 476 U.S. 321 (1986) Henderson v. United States (476 U.S. 321)
* 476 U.S. 340 (1986) Bowen v. Owens
* 476 U.S. 355 (1986) Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission
* 476 U.S. 380 (1986) International Longshoremen's Association v. Davis
* 476 U.S. 409 (1986) Square Company v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc.
* 476 U.S. 426 (1986) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Philadelphia Gear Corporation
* 476 U.S. 445 (1986) Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
* 476 U.S. 447 (1986) Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists
* 476 U.S. 467 (1986) Bowen v. City of New York
* 476 U.S. 488 (1986) City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc.
* 476 U.S. 498 (1986) South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.
* 476 U.S. 530 (1986) Lee v. Illinois
* 476 U.S. 558 (1986) United States v. Hemme
* 476 U.S. 573 (1986) Brown-Forman Distillers Corporation v. New York State Liquor Authority
* 476 U.S. 593 (1986) United States v. Hughes Properties, Inc.
* 476 U.S. 610 (1986) Bowen v. American Hospital Association
* 476 U.S. 667 (1986) Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians
* 476 U.S. 683 (1986) Crane v. Kentucky
* 476 U.S. 693 (1986) Bowen v. Roy
* 476 U.S. 734 (1986) United States v. Dion
* 476 U.S. 747 (1986) Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
* 476 U.S. 834 (1986) United States v. Mottaz
* 476 U.S. 852 (1986) Reed v. Campbell
* 476 U.S. 858 (1986) East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc.
* 476 U.S. 877 (1986) Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering
* 476 U.S. 898 (1986) Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez
* 476 U.S. 926 (1986) Lyng v. Payne
* 476 U.S. 953 (1986) Nantahala Power and Light Company v. Thornburg
* 476 U.S. 974 (1986) Young v. Community Nutrition Institute
* 476 U.S. 1126 (1986) Norvell v. Miller
* 476 U.S. 1129 (1986) Private Truck Council of America Inc v. Quinn
* 476 U.S. 1132 (1986) Straight v. Wainwright
* 476 U.S. 1145 (1986) Monroe v. Blackburn
* 476 U.S. 1151 (1986) Texas Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. United States
* 476 U.S. 1152 (1986) Ramirez v. California
* 476 U.S. 1174 (1986) Mulligan v. Hazard
* 476 U.S. 1176 (1986) Moore v. Blackburn
* 476 U.S. 1187 (1986) Coughlin v. Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc.
* 476 U.S. 1301 (1986) California v. Hamilton
# United States Reports/Volume 478

* 478 U.S. 1 (1986) Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside
* 478 U.S. 30 (1986) Thornburg v. Gingles
* 478 U.S. 109 (1986) Davis v. Bandemer
* 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Bowers v. Hardwick
* 478 U.S. 221 (1986) Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society
* 478 U.S. 251 (1986) Acosta v. Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources
* 478 U.S. 255 (1986) Allen v. Hardy
* 478 U.S. 265 (1986) Bh Papasan v. Allain
* 478 U.S. 310 (1986) Library of Congress v. Shaw
* 478 U.S. 328 (1986) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
* 478 U.S. 364 (1986) Allen v. Illinois (478 U.S. 364)
* 478 U.S. 385 (1986) Bazemore v. Friday
* 478 U.S. 421 (1986) Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
* 478 U.S. 501 (1986) Local Number 93, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland
* 478 U.S. 546 (1986) Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air
* 478 U.S. 570 (1986) Rose v. Clark
* 478 U.S. 597 (1986) United States v. James
* 478 U.S. 621 (1986) Baker v. General Motors Corporation
* 478 U.S. 647 (1986) Randall v. Loftsgaarden
* 478 U.S. 675 (1986) Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
* 478 U.S. 697 (1986) Arcara v. Cloud Books Inc
* 478 U.S. 714 (1986) Bowsher v. Synar
* 478 U.S. 788 (1986) University of Tennessee v. Elliott
* 478 U.S. 804 (1986) Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson
* 478 U.S. 833 (1986) Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
* 478 U.S. 1011 (1986) Kansas Gas and Electric Company v. Brock
* 478 U.S. 1012 (1986) Michigan v. Essa
* 478 U.S. 1023 (1986) Huffington v. Maryland
* 478 U.S. 1040 (1986) Rook v. Rice
* 478 U.S. 1044 (1986) Davis v. Wainwright
* 478 U.S. 1050 (1986) Stewart v. Wainwright
* 478 U.S. 1301 (1986) Araneta v. United States
* 478 U.S. 1306 (1986) Mikutaitis v. United States
* 478 U.S. 1311 (1986) Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Flanigan
# United States Reports/Volume 472

* 472 U.S. 1 (1985) Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
* 472 U.S. 14 (1985) Williams v. Vermont
* 472 U.S. 38 (1985) Wallace v. Jaffree
* 472 U.S. 115 (1985) Atkins v. Parker
* 472 U.S. 159 (1985) Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System
* 472 U.S. 181 (1985) Lowe v. Securities and Exchange Commission
* 472 U.S. 237 (1985) Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Pueblo of Santa Ana
* 472 U.S. 284 (1985) Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Company
* 472 U.S. 299 (1985) Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner
* 472 U.S. 320 (1985) Caldwell v. Mississippi
* 472 U.S. 353 (1985) Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
* 472 U.S. 372 (1985) Baldwin v. Alabama
* 472 U.S. 400 (1985) Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell
* 472 U.S. 424 (1985) Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller
* 472 U.S. 445 (1985) Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill
* 472 U.S. 463 (1985) Maryland v. Macon
* 472 U.S. 478 (1985) Jensen v. Quaring
* 472 U.S. 479 (1985) McDonald v. Smith
* 472 U.S. 491 (1985) Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.
* 472 U.S. 511 (1985) Mitchell v. Forsyth
* 472 U.S. 559 (1985) Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.
* 472 U.S. 585 (1985) Aspen Skiing Company v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation
* 472 U.S. 612 (1985) Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor
* 472 U.S. 634 (1985) In re Snyder
* 472 U.S. 648 (1985) Cornelius v. Nutt
* 472 U.S. 675 (1985) United States v. Albertini
* 472 U.S. 703 (1985) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
* 472 U.S. 713 (1985) United States v. National Bank of Commerce
* 472 U.S. 749 (1985) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.
* 472 U.S. 797 (1985) Phillips Petroleum Company v. Shutts
* 472 U.S. 846 (1985) Jean v. Nelson
* 472 U.S. 1001 (1985) Village Publishing Corporation v. North Carolina Department of Revenue
* 472 U.S. 1033 (1985) Milton v. McCotter
# United States Reports/Volume 479

* 479 U.S. 1 (1986) Rose v. Arkansas State Police
* 479 U.S. 6 (1986) North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Crest Street Community Council, Inc.
* 479 U.S. 27 (1986) O'Connor v. United States
* 479 U.S. 36 (1986) Kelly v. Robinson
* 479 U.S. 60 (1986) Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook
* 479 U.S. 84 (1986) Cerbone v. Conway
* 479 U.S. 85 (1986) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hector
* 479 U.S. 92 (1986) City of Newport v. Iacobucci
* 479 U.S. 104 (1986) Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.
* 479 U.S. 130 (1986) R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Durham County, North Carolina
* 479 U.S. 157 (1986) Colorado v. Connelly
* 479 U.S. 189 (1986) Munro v. Socialist Workers Party
* 479 U.S. 208 (1986) Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut
* 479 U.S. 238 (1986) Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.
* 479 U.S. 272 (1987) California Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Guerra
* 479 U.S. 305 (1987) West Virginia v. United States
* 479 U.S. 314 (1987) Griffith v. Kentucky
* 479 U.S. 335 (1987) 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy
* 479 U.S. 361 (1987) Burke v. Barnes
* 479 U.S. 367 (1987) Colorado v. Bertine
* 479 U.S. 388 (1987) Clarke v. Securities Industry Association
* 479 U.S. 418 (1987) Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
* 479 U.S. 442 (1987) Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States
* 479 U.S. 450 (1987) Interstate Commerce Commission v. Texas Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
* 479 U.S. 462 (1987) City of Pleasant Grove v. United States
* 479 U.S. 481 (1987) International Paper Company v. Ouellette
* 479 U.S. 511 (1987) Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri
* 479 U.S. 523 (1987) Connecticut v. Barrett
* 479 U.S. 538 (1987) California v. Brown
* 479 U.S. 564 (1987) Colorado v. Spring
* 479 U.S. 871 (1986) McKay v. Texas
* 479 U.S. 873 (1986) Grandison v. Maryland
* 479 U.S. 891 (1986) Dufour v. Mississippi
* 479 U.S. 894 (1986) Bundy v. Florida
* 479 U.S. 898 (1986) Porter v. Illinois
* 479 U.S. 902 (1986) Buttrum v. Black
* 479 U.S. 903 (1986) Boliek v. Missouri
* 479 U.S. 906 (1986) Wiley v. Mississippi
* 479 U.S. 918 (1986) Aldrich v. Wainwright
* 479 U.S. 940 (1986) Brown v. North Carolina
* 479 U.S. 954 (1986) Reed v. United States (479 U.S. 954)
* 479 U.S. 966 (1986) Amoco Oil Company v. Jim Heilig Oil & Gas, Inc.
* 479 U.S. 972 (1986) Maxwell v. Florida
* 479 U.S. 996 (1986) Thomas v. Kemp
* 479 U.S. 1043 (1987) Martin County, Florida v. Makemson
* 479 U.S. 1301 (1986) Curry v. Baker
* 479 U.S. 1303 (1986) Kentucky v. Stincer
* 479 U.S. 1305 (1986) Hicks Feiock v. Feiock
* 479 U.S. 1308 (1986) Kleem v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
* 479 U.S. 1312 (1986) Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
# United States v. Champlin Refining Company

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Black
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 290
United States v. Champlin Refining Company
Argued: March 8, 9, 1951. --- Decided: May 7, 1951
Mr. Charles H. Weston, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. Dan Moody, Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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. Chaires

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 308
United States v. Chaires
APPEAL from the superior court for East Florida.
This case was submitted to the court by Mr Butler, attorney-general, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellees.
Mr Justice BALDWIN 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. Chambers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 217
United States v. Chambers
Argued: Jan. 16, 17, 1934. --- Decided: Feb 5, 1934
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of North Carolina.
[Syllabus from pages 217-218 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. Crawford Biggs, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 218-221 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Z. I. Walser, of High Point, N.C., and William M. Hendren, of Winston-Salem, N.C., for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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. Chaboya

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 593
United States v. Chaboya
These were cross appeals taken from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.
Mr. Wills, of Washington City, for the United States.
Mr. Hepburn, and Mr. Wilkins, of California, contra.
Mr. Justice MILLER.

## 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. Chaires/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 308
United States v. Chaires
This is an appeal from the decree of the judge of the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, confirming the claim of the appellee to twenty thousand acres of land, pursuant to the acts of congress for the adjustment of land claims in Florida. In the court below, the petition was in the form prescribed by law, presenting a proper case for the jurisdiction of the court. The claim of the petitioner was founded on an application to the governor of East Florida, made by Don Jose de la Moza Arredondo, for a grant of twenty thousand acres of land, in consideration of his services to the Spanish government; which was granted on the 20th of March 1817, at the place solicited, with a promise of a title in absolute property; and surveyed in one tract on the 14th of September 1819. The petitioners also allege that they claim the whole land by purchase from Arredondo. On an inspection of the record we are of opinion that the title of Arredondo was valid to all the land contained in the survey; and (without deciding on the claim of the petitioner as derived from him) that the claim of the petitioner to the same ought to be confirmed.
The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the district of East Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court for the district of East Florida in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

## 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. Stone (39 U.S. 524)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
39 U.S. 524
United States v. Stone
The Court have examined the record in this case, and it is evident that in the form in which it comes before us, we have no jurisdiction.
The suit appears to have been brought in the District Court, and to have been carried on in that Court until a verdict was rendered. It was then by consent of counsel transferred to the Circuit Court, precisely in the state in which it then was; and a division of opinion then entered, pro forma, to send the case to this Court.
All of this appears on the record; and is exceedingly irregular. The suit was brought originally in the District Court, and the verdict rendered there. The judgment or other proceeding on that verdict, ought to have been entered there also; and it was altogether irregular to transfer the proceedings, in that condition, to the Circuit Court.
We are aware that in some cases, where the point arising is one of importance and difficulty, and it is desirable for the purposes of justice to obtain the opinion of this Court, the judges of the Circuit Court have sometimes, by consent, certified the point to this Court, as upon a division of opinion; when in truth they both rather seriously doubted than differed about It. We do not object to a practice of this description, when applied to proper cases, and on proper occasions. But they must be cases sanctioned by the judgment of one of the judges of this Court, in his circuit. A loose practice in this respect, might render this Court substantially a Court for the original decision of all causes of importance; when the Constitution and the laws intended to make it altogether appellate in its character; except in the few cases of original jurisdiction enumerated in the Constitution.
The case, as sent here, involves a constitutional question, which is argued at some length in the printed brief; and this furnishes a still stronger objection to the manner in which the point is brought before us. It would hardly be proper for this Court to express opinions upon constitutional questions; when it appears, clearly, by the record that there is no suit legitimately before it.
The case is therefore remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings, according to law.
The case of the United States vs. Charles A. Woolsey, having been sent here in like manner; must also be remanded for the reasons above stated.

## 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. Stewart

United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 60
United States v. Stewart
Argued: Oct. 17, 1940. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1940
See 311 U.S. 729, 61 S.Ct. 390, 85 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. W. Glenn Harmon, of San Francisco, Cal., and Ernest L. Wilkinson, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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. Stone

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Stone."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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. Stone (39 U.S. 524), ( 10 L.Ed. 572 ), ( 14 Pet. 524 )
* United States v. Stone (69 U.S. 525), ( 17 L.Ed. 765 ), ( 2 Wall. 525 )
# United States v. Stone & Downer Company (274 U.S. 225)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 225
United States v. Stone & Downer Company
Argued: Feb. 24, 1927. --- Decided: May 16, 1927
[Argument of Counsel from pages 225-227 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. William W. Hoppin, of New York City, for the United States.
Mr. Edward P. Sharretts, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 227-229 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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. Stone (39 U.S. 524)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
39 U.S. 524
United States v. Stone
ON a certificate of division from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.
An action of debt was instituted in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, by the United States against the defendant, as master of the steamboat New York, to recover the penalty of three hundred dollars imposed by the ninth section of the act of Congress, of the 7th of July, 1838, entitled, 'An act for the better security of the lives of passengers on board vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam.'
The cause was tried in the District Court, in June, 1839.
On the trial of the cause in the District Court, exceptions were taken by the counsel for the defendant to the decision of the Court, on questions of evidence which arose in the trial. Evidence was offered by the defendant, which was overruled by the Court; to which decisions, the counsel for the defendant also excepted.
The district judge charged the jury in favour of the plaintiffs, on a case agreed upon; but for the more full consideration of the questions in the cause, he recommended, with the consent of the counsel on both sides, that the jury should find a verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon a case to be made; with leave to either party to turn the same into a bill of exceptions or special verdict. Upon which the jury found such verdict, accordingly.
No judgment was entered on the verdict; but by consent of the counsel in the cause, it was transferred to the Circuit Court, without any other proceedings in the District Court.
The record stated that on the argument of the cause, the Circuit Court were divided in opinion on questions presented on the argument of the counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant; and at the request of the counsel for the parties, they were ordered to be certified to the Supreme Court for their decision. This division of opinion was in fact made pro forma, and for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Supreme Court on the points certified.
For the United States, Mr. Gilpin, Attorney General; for Samuel B. Stone, Mr. Sullivan, who submitted a printed argument.
The case was not argued, it having been remanded to the Circuit Court.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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. Stinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
197 U.S. 200
United States v. Stinson
Argued: January 25, 26, 1905. --- Decided: March 13, 1905
This suit was commenced in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Wisconsin, on February 25, 1895, to set aside the patents for fourteen quarter sections of land, charged to have been fraudulently acquired by the defendant James Stinson. The lands were entered under the pre-emption laws, in 1854-55, by different individuals, and immediately thereafter conveyed by them to James Stinson. The government, as admitted, received $1.25 per acre, the statutory price for lands so entered. The frauds charged are that the entrymen did not occupy and improve the lands as required by law, and did not enter them for their own benefit, but were employed by James Stinson to make the entries; that he paid the purchase price to the government, and also paid the entrymen for their services, and thus, in defiance of the provisions of the statutes, obtained title to the lands. James Stinson, in his answer, under oath, denied specifically the alleged frauds. Quite a volume of testimony was taken. Upon this the circuit court found that it was not true, as alleged, that James Stinson had been guilty of fraud in obtaining the title to the lands and dismissed the bill. This dismissal was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (60 C. C. A. 615, 125 Fed. 907), from whose decree the United States appealed to this court.
Messrs. Marsden C. Burch, John B. [202]
Simmons, and Solicitor General Hoyt for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 202-203 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. R. M. Bashford, John O. Spooner, A. L. Sanborn,
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 203-204 intentionally omitted]
William E. Church, Robert McMurdy, and Roger Sherman for appellees.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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