OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/Appendix/Appendix 2

No. II.
BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
Act of Gen. Ass. of Va., passed 27th Feb. 1829.“An act further to amend the act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company―Passed February twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and twenty-nine.”
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal company may in lieu of bridges substitute boats, &c.“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company be, and they are hereby empowered, whenever it shall be, in the judgment of the president and directors thereof, expedient, in lieu of bridges, to substitute boats, properly fitted, for the transportation of persons, wagons and carriages of every description, across the canal, whenever a public or private road shall render a bridge or ferry necessary, and such road cannot be conveniently conducted under the canal.
President and Directors may, with consent of company, sell, &c. any surplus water.Be it further enacted, That the said president and directors, acting in behalf of the said company, and with the consent and approbation thereof, expressed at some general meeting thereof, in which a majority in interest of said stock is represented, may sell, let, or otherwise dispose of, any surplus water in any part of the said canal, or of any feeder or reservoir thereof, if they shall be of opinion that no injury will result therefrom to the navigation of the canal.
​The ground formed in constructing embankments may be sold, &c.“Be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary to form heavy embankments, piers, or moles, at the mouths of creeks, or along the river shore, for basins and other purposes, and the president and directors may deem it expedient to give a greater strength to the same, by widening them, and constructing them of the most solid materials, the ground so formed for such useful purpose may by them, when so improved, be sold out, or let for terms of years, as they may deem most expedient for the company, on such conditions as may direct the application of the proceeds thereof to useful purposes, and at the same time repay the necessary expense of the formation of such embankments, piers, or moles: Provided,Proviso. That this power shall in no case be exercised as to injure the navigation of the canal.
This act to be in force when, &c.“This act shall be in force so far as relates to the eastern section of the canal, on its receiving the assent of the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Congress of the United States; and shall be valid as relates to both sections, on its receiving the further assent of the Legislature of Pennsylvania.”
“Approved, March 3, 1837.”
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 3

No. 3. A Resolution to suspend a part of the third section of the joint resolution of the eleventh of September, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, relating to armories.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Suspended in case of the naval depot at Memphis. Act of March 3, 1843, ch. 93. That so much of the third section of the joint resolution of the eleventh of September, one thousand eight hundred and forty one, as requires the consent of the State before the expenditure of any public money, upon any site or land purchased by the United States, for the purpose of armories, arsenals, posts, fortifications, navy-yards, custom-houses, light-houses, or other public buildings of any kind, be, and the same is hereby, suspended, so far as the same is applicable to the naval depot at Memphis, in the State of Tennessee, until after the adjournment of the first session of the legislature of said State which may be held after the passage of this resolution.
Approved, February 13, 1845.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/Front Matter

BY AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS.
THE
Public Statutes at Large
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FROM THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1845.
ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
WITH
REFERENCES TO THE MATTER OF EACH ACT AND TO THE SUBSEQUENT ACTS ON THE SAME SUBJECT,
AND
COPIOUS NOTES OF THE DECISIONS
OF THE
Courts of the United States
CONSTRUING THOSE ACTS, AND UPON THE SUBJECTS OF THE LAWS.
WITH AN
INDEX TO THE CONTENTS OF EACH VOLUME,
AND A
FULL GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE WORK, IN THE CONCLUDING VOLUME.
TOGETHER WITH
The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States;
AND ALSO,
TABLES, IN THE LAST VOLUME, CONTAINING LISTS OF THE ACTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY, IMPOSTS AND TONNAGE, THE PUBLIC LANDS, ETC.
EDITED BY
RICHARD PETERS, ESQ., COUNSELLOR AT LAW.
The rights and interest of the United States in the stereotype plates from which this work is printed, are hereby recognised, acknowledged, and declared by the publishers, according to the provisions of the joint resolution of Congress, passed March 3, 1845.
VOL. V.
BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 1856.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by Charles C. Little & James Brown, in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
* PHILADELPHIA:
* STEREOTYPED BY J. FAGAN.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 7

No. 7. A Resolution amendatory of the resolution passed April thirty, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, “respecting the application of certain appropriations heretofore made.”
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Payment of supplies, &c. for defence of inhabitants of Florida. Resolution of April 30, 1844, ante, p. 716. That nothing contained in the joint Resolution of April thirty, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, or in any other act or Resolution, shall be understood or construed to prevent the Secretary of War from allowing and paying any just and equitable claims for supplies furnished, or advances or loans of money made to provide for the defence of the inhabitants and suppression of Indian hostilities in the Territory of Florida, provided that the amount so allowed and paid shall not exceed the sums already appropriated by law.
Approved, March 1, 1845.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/Appendix

| Public Acts of Congress (and session) | 1st · 2nd · 3rd · 4th · 5th · 6th · 7th · 8th · 9th · 10th · 11th · 12th · 13th · 14th · 15th · 16th · 17th · 18th · 19th · 20th · 21st · 22nd · 23rd · 24th · 25th · 26th · 27th · 28th · 29th · 30th · 31st · 32nd · 33rd · 34th · 35th · 36th · 37th · 38th · 39th · 40th · 41st · 42nd · 43rd · 44th · 45th · 46th · 47th · 48th · 49th · 50th · 51st · 52nd · 53rd · 54th · 55th · 56th · 57th · 58th · 59th · 60th · 61st · 62nd · 63rd · 64th · 65th · 66th · 67th · 68th · 69th · 70th · 71st · 72nd · 73rd · 74th · 75th (1st 2nd 3rd) · 76th (1st 2nd 3rd) · 77th (1st 2nd) · 78th (1st 2nd) · 79th (1st 2nd) · 80th (1st 2nd) · 81st (1st 2nd) · 82nd (1st 2nd) · 83rd (1st 2nd) · 84th (1st 2nd) · 85th (1st 2nd) · 86th (1st 2nd) · 87th (1st 2nd) · 88th (1st 2nd) · 89th (1st 2nd) · 90th (1st 2nd) · 91st (1st 2nd) · 92nd (1st 2nd) · 93rd (1st 2nd) · 94th (1st 2nd) · 95th (1st 2nd) · 96th (1st 2nd) · 97th (1st 2nd) · 98th (1st 2nd) · 99th (1st 2nd) · 100th (1st 2nd) · 101st (1st 2nd) · 102nd (1st 2nd) · 103rd (1st 2nd) · 104th (1st 2nd) · 105th (1st 2nd) · 106th (1st 2nd) · 107th (1st 2nd) · 108th (1st 2nd) · 109th (1st 2nd) · 110th (1st 2nd) · 111st (1st 2nd) · 112nd (1st 2nd) · 113rd (1st 2nd) · 114th (1st 2nd) · 115th (1st 2nd) · 116th (1st 2nd) · 117th (1st 2nd) · 118th (1st 2nd) · 119th (1st 2nd) · |

## Appendix

| Resolution | Date |
| No. I. Proclamation issued by the President of the United States, under the act of June 7, 1836, chap. 86. | March 28, 1837 |
| No. II. Act of the General Assembly of Virginia “An act further to amend the act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company―Passed February twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and twenty-nine.” | March 3, 1837 |
# United States v. Ryerson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 260
United States v. Ryerson
Argued: Jan. 7, 1941. --- Decided: Feb 3, 1941
The question here is the same as that in Guggenheim v. Rasquin, 312 U.S. 254, 61 S.Ct. 507, 85 L.Ed. --, decided this day. Consequently the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals holding that cash-surrender value on the dates of the gifts was the proper method of valuing single-premium life insurance policies for gift-tax purposes (7 Cir., 114 F.2d 150) must be reversed, unless the elapse of time between the issuance of the policies and the making of the gifts calls for a different result. The single-premium policies here involved were taken out by the insured in 1928 and 1929. They were assigned as gifts in December, 1934, when the insured was 79 years old. The cost of the policies was less than their cash-surrender value at the dates of the gifts. But the cost of replacing the policies at the then age of the insured would have been in excess of their cash-surrender value. We think that such cost of replacement, as held by the District Court, is the best available criterion of the value of the policies for the purposes of the gift tax. The elapse of time between issuance and assignment of the policies does not justify the substitution of cash-surrender value for replacement cost as the criterion of value. We cannot assume with respondents that at the dates of the gifts the policies presumably had no insurance, as distinguished from investment value to the donor. Here, as in the case where the issuance of the policies and their assignment as gifts are simultaneous, cash-surrender value reflects only a part of the value of the contracts. The cost of dupli- cating the policies at the dates of the gifts is in absence of more cogent evidence the one criterion which reflects both their insurance and investment value to the owner at that time. Cf. Vance on Insurance, 2d Ed., pp. 332, 333; Speer v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 36 Hun. 322. The fact that the then condition of an insured's health might make him uninsurable emphasizes the conclusion that the use of that criterion will result in placing a minimum value upon such a gift.
Reversed.

## 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. Ryerson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 260
United States v. Ryerson
Argued: Jan. 7, 1941. --- Decided: Feb 3, 1941
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. William N. Haddad, of Chicago, Ill., 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. Ryan (350 U.S. 299)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 299
United States v. Ryan (350 U.S. 299)
Argued: Jan. 19, 1956. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1956
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Louis Waldman, New York City, for respondent.
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. Ryder

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 729
United States v. Ryder
The bill was filed at the suit of the United States to obtain payment of a recognizance for $10,000 from the property of one Edward P. Williams, or the proceeds thereof, in the hands of Seth B. Ryder, one of the defendants. The recognizance was entered into on the eighth day of November, 1876, by Williams and three other persons, conditioned that Williams 'should appear in person at Trenton, before the United States district court there, and submit to such sentence as the said court should order and direct.'
Williams did not appear according to the condition of the recognizance, but absconded, and, as the bill alleges, 'became a fraudulent, absconding, concealed, and absent debtor, and at the same time was a convicted criminal, and a fugitive from justice,' and never has since appeared nor been found. The bill further alleges that a scire facias was issued, and a judgment entered upon the recognizance, and an execution issued to the marshal of the district against the goods and lands of the cognizors; and that certain real estate of the sureties was levied upon, insufficient (as alleged) to satisfy the execution; but that no levy was made upon the goods and lands of Williams, for the reason that they were in the possession of said Ryder, who claimed the right to hold the same partly as assignee under a general assignment made by Williams for the benefit of his creditors, in July, 1876, and partly as auditor in attachment, appointed by the circuit court for the county of Union, in the state of New Jersey, under an attachment issued against Williams on the fifteenth of November, 1876, and levied on the twenty-third of same month. The bill alleges that Ryder has since sold the property in his possession by order of the Circuit Court of Union county, and has in his hands the proceeds, amounting to several thousand dollars.
J. H. Ashton, for appellant.
John R. Emery, for appellees.
BRADLEY, 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. Ryan (402 U.S. 530)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 530
United States v. Ryan
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 758. Argued: April 26, 1971 --- Decided: May 24, 1971
District Court's order denying respondent's motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of records under his control in Kenya was not final and therefore not appealable, Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323; nor was it rendered an appealable temporary injunction by inclusion of a provision requiring respondent to seek permission from Kenyan authorities to remove some documents from Kenya and if such permission was denied to grant United States agents access to the documents in that country. Pp. 532-534.
430 F. 2d 658, reversed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jerome M. Feit argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Philip R. Monahan.
Herbert J. Miller, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Raymond G. Larroca and Nathan Lewin.

## 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. S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company of Pennsylvania

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 398
United States v. S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company of Pennsylvania
Argued: April 22, 1927. --- Decided: May 16, 1927
The Attorney General and Mr. Herman J. Galloway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. John Hampton Barnes, of Philadelphia, Pa., and John F. McCarron, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STONE 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. Behan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 338
United States v. Behan
Sol. Gen. Phillips and John. S. Blair, for appellant.
J. W. Douglass, for appellee.
BRADLEY, 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. Bell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 477
United States v. Bell
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. F. Benjamin and Richard McAllister, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. 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. Behrens

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 162
United States v. Behrens
Argued: Oct. 17, 1963. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1963
Louis F. Claiborne, for petitioner.
Mr. Aribert L. Young, Indianapolis, Ind., 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
# United States v. Behrman

United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 280
United States v. Behrman
Argued: March 7, 1922. --- Decided: March 27, 1922
Mr. Wm. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from page 281-282 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Thomas C. Spelling, of New York City, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 282-285 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
# United States v. Bekins Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 27
United States v. Bekins Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District
Argued: April 7, 1938. --- Decided: April 25, 1938
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California; Leon R. Yankwich, Judge.

## 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 Code/Title 2/Chapter 14/Subchapter II

From the Cornell Law School U.S. Code Collection

### § 451. Extension of credit by regulated industries; regulations

The Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Surface Transportation Board shall each maintain,[1] its own regulations with respect to the extension of credit, without security, by any person regulated by the Secretary under subpart II of part A of subtitle VII of title 49, or such Commission or Board, to any candidate for Federal office, or to any person on behalf of such a candidate, for goods furnished or services rendered in connection with the campaign of such candidate for nomination for election, or election, to such office.

### § 452. Prohibition against use of certain Federal funds for election activities

No part of any funds appropriated to carry out the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.] shall be used to finance, directly or indirectly, any activity designed to influence the outcome of any election to Federal office, or any voter registration activity, or to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the Office of Economic Opportunity who, in his official capacity as such an officer or employee, engages in any such activity.

### § 453. State laws affected

(a) In general Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.
(b) State and local committees of political parties Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State or local committee of a political party may, subject to State law, use exclusively funds that are not subject to the prohibitions, limitations, and reporting requirements of the Act for the purchase or construction of an office building for such State or local committee.

### § 454. Partial invalidity

If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

### § 455. Period of limitations

(a) No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any violation of subchapter I of this chapter, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within 5 years after the date of the violation.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
    (1) the period of limitations referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall apply with respect to violations referred to in such subsection committed before, on, or after the effective date of this section; and
    (2) no criminal proceeding shall be instituted against any person for any act or omission which was a violation of any provision of subchapter I of this chapter, as in effect on December 31, 1974, if such act or omission does not constitute a violation of any such provision, as amended by the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974.
Nothing in this subsection shall affect any proceeding pending in any court of the United States on January 1, 1975.
# United States Code/Title 2/Chapter 17A/Subchapter II

From the Cornell Law School U.S. Code Collection
* Part A—General Provisions
* Part B—Federal Mandates
# United States v. Atkinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 157
United States v. Atkinson
Argued: Jan. 8, 1936. --- Decided: Feb 3, 1936
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Will G. Beardslee, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STONE 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. Atherton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 372
United States v. Atherton
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William J. Johnston and Mr. James K. Redington for the appellant.
No counsel appeared for the appellees.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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