OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/23rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 155

Chap. CLV.—An Act authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Potomac, and repealing all acts already passed in relation thereto.
Former acts repealed, except so much as authorized a purchase from the Washington Bridge Comp. Act of 1832, ch. 225. Act of 1833, ch. 65.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 providing for the purchase by the United States of the rights of the Washington Bridge Company, in the District of Columbia, and for the erection of a public bridge on the site thereof,” which passed the fourteenth day of July, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, and the act entitled “An act in relation to the Potomac bridge,” which passed the second day of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-three be, and the same are hereby repealed, except so much of the former as authorized the purchase of the rights of the Washington Bridge Company.
Secretary of Treasury to contract for bridge similar to that formerly built. Size of draws.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and required, to contract for the reconstruction, on the site of the present bridge, across the river Potomac, of a bridge, on the plan of that originally constructed there by the Washington Bridge Company: Provided, That the draw at the southern channel of the river be not less than sixty-six feet, and at the northern channel than thirty-five feet; that a space or spaces not exceeding in all, one thousand six hundred and sixty feet of the shoal or shoals, over which the present bridge passes, may be filled up by a solid embankment; in part, if convenient, of earth obtained by the dredging the river channel: And provided, also,Appropriation. That the entire cost of said embankment, and such reconstruction shall not on the whole exceed one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, which sum is hereby appropriated thereto, out of any money in the treasury not hitherto appropriated.
Claims of O. H. Dibble to be ascertained and actual loss paid, if not exceeding $20,000.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the claims of Orange H. Dibble, for labour, materials, or any other expenses upon the said bridge, be ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury, as nearly as the same can be done, and be laid before Congress at its next session for its examination. And the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to pay him in the mean time such sum as will reimburse to him the actual loss incurred by him, in making preparation for the construction of the said bridge: Provided, The amount paid shall not exceed twenty thousand dollars, said payment to be made out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, June 30, 1834.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/23rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 147

Chap. CXLVII.—An Act to complete the improvements on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Appropriations for Pennsylvania Avenue.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and they are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the following purposes:
To pay outstanding claims for work done on Pennsylvania Avenue, three thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars.
To finish foot pavements, entrances of tunnels or sewers, and side drains, three thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars.
To repair the north end of Tiber bridge, by casting a stone arch over the broken part, and protecting it by a stone wall, one thousand two hundred dollars.
For expenses already incurred in removing the dust and mud from the surface of Pennsylvania Avenue, one hundred and forty-three dollars and seventy three cents.
To keep Pennsylvania Avenue in repair, four hundred dollars.
Approved, June 30, 1834.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/23rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 150

Chap. CL.—An Act making an appropriation for the improvement of the navigation of the Hudson river, in the state of New York.
Appropriation for the improvement of Hudson river.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of seventy thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated towards the improvement of the navigation of the Hudson river, and the removal of obstructions therein, according to the plan submitted to the House of Representatives by the Department of War, under date of March thirty, eighteen hundred and thirty-two; which sum shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and shall be expended under the direction of the President of the United States.
Approved, June 30, 1834.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 42

Chap. XLII.—An Act explanatory of the act entitled An act granting half-pay to widows and orphans where their husbands and fathers have died of wounds received in the military service of the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,The benefits of the act not to be withheld from any widow in consequence of her having married, &c. Act of July 4, 1836, ch. 362. Proviso. That the benefits of the third section of the act entitled “An act granting half-pay to widows and orphans, where their husbands and fathers have died of wounds received in the military service of the United States, and for other purposes,” approved the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, shall not be withheld from any widow, in consequence of her having married after the decease of the husband for whose services she may claim to be allowed a pension or annuity under said act: Provided, That she was a widow at the time it was passed.
Widows of persons who continued in service to 3d November, 1783, and were before that day, &c., entitled.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the widow of any person who continued in the service of the United States until the third day of November, seventeen hundred and eighty-three, and was married before that day, and while her husband was in such service, shall be entitled to the benefits of this third section of the aforesaid act.
Approved, March 3, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 38

Chap. XXXVIII.—An Act for the more equitable administration of the Navy Pension Fund.”
1842, ch. 189. Half-pay to widows and children of officers, seamen, and marines, to commence form the time of death of such officer, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any officer, seaman or marine have died, or may hereafter die, in the naval service, leaving a widow, and, if no widow, a child or children, such widow, and, if no widow, such child or children, shall be entitled to receive half the monthly pay to which the deceased would have been entitled, under the acts regulating the pay of the navy, in force on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, to commence from the time of the death of such officer, seaman, or marine; but in case of the death or intermarriage of such widow, the half-pay shall go to the child or children of such deceased officer, seaman, or marine, Provided, That the half-pay granted to the child or children shall cease on their death, or on their attaining the age of twenty-one years.
Pensions for wounds, &c. to commence from the time of the officer, &s., being disabled.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the pensions which may have been granted, or which may hereafter be granted, to officers, seamen, and marines, in the naval service, disabled by wounds or injuries received while in the line of their duty, shall be considered to commence from the time of their being so disabled, and that the amount of pension to which said officers, seamen, and marines, may be entitled, shall be regulated according to the pay of the navy as it existed on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five.
Acts repealed.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all acts, and parts of acts, which may be inconsistent with the provisions of this act, be, and the same are hereby repealed, so far as they may relate hereto.
Approved, March 3, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 4

Chap. IV.—An Act making appropriations for the payment of the revolutionary and other pensioners of the United States, for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the pensioners of the United States, for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven:
Revolutionary pensioners, &c. May 15, 1828, ch. 53. June 7 1832, ch. 126. July 4, 1836, ch. 362.For the revolutionary pensioners, under the several acts, other than those of the fifteenth of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight; the seventh of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two; and the fourth of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, seven hundred and twelve thousand five hundred and sixty dollars;
Invalid pensioners.For the invalid pensioners, under various laws, three hundred and twenty-five thousand three hundred and seventy-six dollars:
Widows and orphans.For pensions to widows and orphans, under the act of the fourth of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, five hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars:
Widows and orphans.For pensions to widows and orphans, payable through the office of the Third Auditor, four thousand dollars.
Approved, January 18, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 37

Chap. XXXVII.—An Act to continue in force for a limited time the act entitled “An act to carry into effect a convention between the United States and Spain.”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Act of June 7, 1836, ch. 87. The provisions of the act extended to 1st February, 1838. That the provisions of the act, entitled “An act to carry into effect a convention between the United States and Spain,” approved on the seventh day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, be, and the same are hereby, extended until the first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight; and the commissioner appointed under the said act, shall, on or before the said day, terminate his duties.
Approved, March 3, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 43

Chap. XLIII.—An Act to continue the office of Commissioner of Pensions.
1840, ch. 4. Continued to March 4, 1840.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of commissioner of Pensions shall be, and the same is hereby continued, until the fourth day of March, eighteen hundred and forty.
A commissioner to be appointed by the President, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That a Commissioner of Pensions shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and that he shall execute, under the direction of the Secretary of War, such duties in relation to the various pension laws as may be prescribed by the President.
His salary, &c. Act of March 3, 1845, ch. 43.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said Commissioner shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars; and have the privilege of sending and receiving letters and packets by mail free of postage.
Approved, March 3, 1837.
# Vigo's Case

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
88 U.S. 648
Vigo's Case
SUR petition for mandamus.
On the 8th of June, 1872, Congress passed the following act:
'An act referring the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, to the Court of Claims for adjustment.
'Be it enacted, &c., That the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, late of Terre Haute, Indiana, for money and supplies furnished the troops under command of General George Rogers Clarke, in the year 1778, during the Revolutionary war, be, and the same is hereby, referred, along with all the papers and official documents belonging thereto, to the Court of Claims, with full jurisdiction to adjust and settle the same; and, in making such adjustment and settlement, the said court shall be governed by the rules and regulations heretofore adopted by the United States in the settlement of like cases, giving consideration to official acts, if any have heretofore been had in connection with this claim, and without regard to the statutes of limitations.'
On the 31st October, 1873, the heirs of Colonel Vigo filed in the Court of Claims their petition against the United States, under the authority of this act, and with their petition filed 'the papers and official documents belonging' to the claim. Judgment was rendered in the action on the 18th January, 1875, against the United States for $49,898. From this judgment the United States asked the Court of Claims for the allowance of an appeal to this court, which was refused. The present application was for a mandamus from this court directing the judges of that to allow the appeal.
Mr. J. S. Blair, for the United States (with whom were Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. John Goforth, Assistant Attorney-General), cited Meade v. United States, to show that if, as the other side of necessity assumed, the Court of Claims was authorized to enter a judgment which was to be paid out of the appropriations for the judgments of the said court, then the United States was entitled to an appeal and re-examination of the whole case.
Mr. William Penn Clarke, contra, relied on Ex parte Atocha, which case, as he contended, showed that where jurisdiction was given to the Court of Claims by special act-as here-the authority of this court to review its action was limited and controlled by the provisions of the act; arguing, in addition, that the provisions of the present act did not provide for an appeal.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 9 Wallace, 691.
* ↑ 17 Id. 439.
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
# Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 123
Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
See 85 S.Ct. 15.
Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Louis Nizer, New York City, and Morris Wolf, Philadelphia, for respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 403
Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania
Argued: March 14, 1922. --- Decided: April 10, 1922
Messrs. Frank Davis, Jr., of Washington, D. C., and H. S. Dumbauld, of Uniontown, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 403-406 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Geo. E. Alter, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Commonwealth of pennsylvania.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp./Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 123
Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the decision of this case.

## 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. Crescent Amusement Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 173
United States v. Crescent Amusement Company
Argued: Nov. 6, 7, 1944. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1944
See 323 U.S. 818, 65 S.Ct. 437.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee.
[Syllabus from pages 173-175 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Wendall Berge, Asst.Atty.Gen., and Mr. Robert L. Wright, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. William Waller, of Nashville, Tenn., for Crescent Amusement Co. et al.
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. Coxe (58 U.S. 41)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 41
United States v. Coxe
This case cannot be distinguished from the case of United States v. King et al. 7 How. 833, and of United States v. Turner's Heirs, 11 How. 663.
The decree of the district court must therefore be reversed, and a mandate issued to the court below to dismiss the petition.
This cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record, from the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana; and it appearing to the court that this case cannot be distinguished from the case of the United States v. King et al. 7 How. 833, and of the United States v. Turner's Heirs, 11 How. 663, it is thereupon now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said district court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed and annulled, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said district court, with directions to dismiss the petition.

## 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. Creek Nation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 103
United States v. Creek Nation
Argued: Oct. 8, 1934. --- Decided: April 29, 1935
The Attorney General and Mr. George C. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. W. W. Spalding of Washington, D.C., E. J. Van Court, of Eufaula, Okl., and Paul M. Niebell, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 104 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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. Coxe

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Coxe."
* 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. Coxe (58 U.S. 41)
* United States v. Coxe (59 U.S. 100)
# United States v. Coxe (59 U.S. 100)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 100
United States v. Coxe
THIS case was brought up by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Chitton, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Bradley, for the defendant.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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. Cress

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 316
United States v. Cress
Argued: December 13, 1916. --- Decided: March 12, 1917
Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Messrs. P. M. Cox and Seth Shepard, Jr., for plaintiff in error in No. 84.
Assistant Attorney General Thompson for plaintiff in error in No. 718.
No brief was filed for defendant in error in No. 84.
Mr. J. F. Winn for defendant in error in No. 718.
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
# Walden Denn v. Craig

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
22 U.S. 576
Walden Denn v. Craig
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Kentucky.
In 1797, John Den, lessee of Ambrose Walden, instituted an action of ejectment in the United States District Court of the District of Kentucky, against Richard Fen, as casual ejector. The declaration states a demise for the term of ten years from the 15th day of August, 1789. At March term, 1798, Lewis Craig and Jonathan Rose were admitted defendants, in the place of Richard Fen, the casual ejector; and entered into the usual rule, confessing the lease, entry, & c. At June term, 1800, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for his term yet to come, &c. and a writ of hab. fac. poss. was awarded. On the 5th day of September, 1800, Thomas Bodley and others, claiming as landlords of Craig and Rose, obtained an injunction to the above judgment. At May term, 1809, the bill of injunction was dismissed, for want of jurisdiction. In September, 1811, Bodley and others obtained a second injunction to stay execution on the judgment at law in ejectment. At May term, 1812, the injunction was dissolved on hearing, on bill, answers, depositions, and exhibits; and in April, 1813, the complainants dismissed their bill. Walden, on the 22d of May, 1819, took out a writ of hab. fac. poss., which was quashed by the Court, on the ground, it is presumed, that the term stated in the declaration in ejectment had expired. At November term, 1821, Walden moved the Court to enlarge the term stated in the declaration. The Court being divided, the motion was entered as overruled; and the plaintiff (Walden) took out a writ of error to the judgment of the Court on this motion. Feb. 6th.
This cause was argued by Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiff, no counsel appearing for the defendant. Feb. 21st.
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

* ↑ He cited Cro. Jac. 440. 1 Salk. 47. 2 Str. 807. 2 Burr, 1159. 4 Burr, 2447. Str. 1272. Cowp. 841. 7 Cranch, 569. 1 Cranch, 110. 4 Cranch, 237. 4 Cranch, 324. 5 Cranch, 11. 5 Cranch, 15. 6 Cranch, 206. 7 Cranch, 569.
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