OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Reports/Volume 332

UNITED STATES REPORTS
VOLUME 332
CASES ADJUDGED
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1946 AND OCTOBER TERM, 1947
OPINIONS OF JUNE 23, 1947 (END OF 1946 TERM) DECISIONS FROM BEGINNING OF 1947 TERM THROUGH JANUARY 19, 1948
WALTER WYATT REPORTER
united states government printing office WASHINGTON: 1948
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
* 332 U.S. 1 (1947) United States v. Petrillo
* 332 U.S. 19 (1947) United States v. California
* 332 U.S. 46 (1947) Adamson v. California
* 332 U.S. 126 (1947) Bartels v. Birmingham
* 332 U.S. 134 (1947) Foster v. Illinois
* 332 U.S. 145 (1947) Gayes v. New York
* 332 U.S. 155 (1947) Caldarola v. Eckert
* 332 U.S. 168 (1947) Atlantic Coast Line Company v. Phillips
* 332 U.S. 174 (1947) Sunal v. Large Alexander
* 332 U.S. 194 (1947) Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation
* 332 U.S. 218 (1947) United States v. Yellow Cab Company
* 332 U.S. 234 (1947) United States v. Munsey Trust Company of Washington Dc
* 332 U.S. 245 (1947) Fahey v. Mallonee
* 332 U.S. 258 (1947) Ex parte Fahey et al
* 332 U.S. 261 (1947) Fay v. New York ex rel. Bove
* 332 U.S. 301 (1947) United States v. Standard Oil Company of California
* 332 U.S. 319 (1947) United States v. National Lead Company
* 332 U.S. 371 (1947) Rodgers v. United States
* 332 U.S. 380 (1947) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill
* 332 U.S. 388 (1947) Delgadillo v. Carmichael
* 332 U.S. 392 (1947) International Salt Company v. United States
* 332 U.S. 407 (1947) Priebe Sons v. United States
* 332 U.S. 422 (1947) Morris v. McComb
* 332 U.S. 442 (1947) Cox v. United States
* 332 U.S. 459 (1947) Lillie v. Thompson
* 332 U.S. 463 (1947) Patton v. Mississippi
* 332 U.S. 469 (1947) Silesian American Corporation v. Clark
* 332 U.S. 480 (1947) Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation
* 332 U.S. 490 (1947) Williams v. Fanning
* 332 U.S. 495 (1947) Aero Mayflower Transit Company v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of Montana
* 332 U.S. 507 (1947) Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana
* 332 U.S. 524 (1947) Jones v. Liberty Glass Company
* 332 U.S. 535 (1947) Kavanagh v. Noble
* 332 U.S. 539 (1947) Blumenthal v. United States
* 332 U.S. 561 (1947) Marino v. Ragen
* 332 U.S. 571 (1948) Globe Liquor Company v. San Roman
* 332 U.S. 575 (1948) Sealfon v. United States
* 332 U.S. 581 (1948) United States v. Di Re
* 332 U.S. 596 (1948) Haley v. Ohio
* 332 U.S. 625 (1948) Callen v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
* 332 U.S. 631 (1948) Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma
* 332 U.S. 633 (1948) Oyama v. California
* 332 U.S. 689 (1948) United States v. Sullivan
* 332 U.S. 708 (1948) Von Moltke v. Gillies
* 332 U.S. 742 (1948) Lee v. Mississippi
* 332 U.S. 793 (1947) Chase National Bank of New York v. Cheston
* 332 U.S. 804 (1947) United States v. California
* 332 U.S. 826 (1947) Chase National Bank of New York v. Cheston
* 332 U.S. 855 (1948) Gately v. Hariton
# United States Reports/Volume 333

UNITED STATES REPORTS
VOLUME 333
CASES ADJUDGED
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1947
FROM FEBRUARY 2 TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 26, 1948
WALTER WYATT REPORTER
united states government printing office WASHINGTON: 1948
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
* 333 U.S. 1 (1948) Le Maistre v. Leffers
* 333 U.S. 6 (1948) Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan
* 333 U.S. 10 (1947) Johnson v. United States
* 333 U.S. 18 (1948) United States v. Brown
* 333 U.S. 28 (1948) Bob-Lo Excursion Company v. Michigan
* 333 U.S. 46 (1948) Johnson v. United States
* 333 U.S. 56 (1948) Maggio v. Zeitz Luma Camera Service
* 333 U.S. 95 (1948) Musser v. Utah
* 333 U.S. 103 (1948) Chicago Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Steamship Corporation
* 333 U.S. 118 (1948) Seaboard Air Line Company v. Daniel
* 333 U.S. 127 (1948) Funk Bros Seed Company v. Kalo Inoculant Company
* 333 U.S. 138 (1948) Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Company
* 333 U.S. 147 (1948) Fisher v. Hurst
* 333 U.S. 153 (1948) King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America
* 333 U.S. 163 (1948) Suttle v. Reich Bros Const Company
* 333 U.S. 169 (1948) United States v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
* 333 U.S. 178 (1948) Donaldson v. Read Magazine
* 333 U.S. 196 (1948) Cole v. Arkansas
* 333 U.S. 203 (1948) McCollum v. Board of Education
* 333 U.S. 257 (1948) In re Oliver
* 333 U.S. 287 (1948) United States v. Line Materials Company
* 333 U.S. 364 (1948) United States v. United States Gypsum Company
* 333 U.S. 411 (1948) Mitchell v. Cohen
* 333 U.S. 424 (1948) Mogall v. United States
* 333 U.S. 426 (1948) Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village Cal
* 333 U.S. 437 (1948) Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 33 v. Wagshal
* 333 U.S. 445 (1948) Francis v. Southern Pacific Company
* 333 U.S. 472 (1948) Woods v. Stone
* 333 U.S. 483 (1948) United States v. Evans
* 333 U.S. 496 (1948) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Company
* 333 U.S. 507 (1948) Winters v. New York
* 333 U.S. 541 (1948) Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Moore
* 333 U.S. 565 (1948) Moore v. New York
* 333 U.S. 571 (1948) Parker v. Illinois
* 333 U.S. 586 (1948) Shade v. Downing
* 333 U.S. 591 (1948) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen
* 333 U.S. 611 (1948) Massachusetts v. United States
* 333 U.S. 640 (1948) Bute v. Illinois
* 333 U.S. 683 (1948) Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
* 333 U.S. 740 (1948) Andres v. United States
* 333 U.S. 771 (1948) United States v. South Buffalo Railway Company
* 333 U.S. 795 (1948) United States v. Scophony Corporation of America
* 333 U.S. 821 (1948) Anderson v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company
# United States Reports/Volume 334

UNITED STATES REPORTS
VOLUME 334
CASES ADJUDGED
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 1947
OPINIONS FROM MAY 3, 1948 THROUGH JUNE 14, 1948 DECISIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM MAY 3, 1948 THROUGH JUNE 21, 1948
WALTER WYATT REPORTER
united states government printing office WASHINGTON: 1948
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
* 334 U.S. 1 (1948) Shelley v. Kraemer
* 334 U.S. 24 (1948) Hurd v. Hodge Urciolo
* 334 U.S. 37 (1948) Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Company
* 334 U.S. 62 (1948) Republic Natural Gas Company v. Oklahoma
* 334 U.S. 100 (1948) United States v. Griffith
* 334 U.S. 110 (1948) Schine Chain Theatres v. United States
* 334 U.S. 131 (1948) United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
* 334 U.S. 182 (1948) Schwabacher v. United States
* 334 U.S. 210 (1948) Woods v. Hills
* 334 U.S. 219 (1948) Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Company
* 334 U.S. 249 (1948) Kennedy v. Silas Mason Company
* 334 U.S. 258 (1948) United States v. United States District Court for Southern District of New York
* 334 U.S. 266 (1948) Price v. Johnston
* 334 U.S. 302 (1948) Hunter v. Martin
* 334 U.S. 304 (1948) Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
* 334 U.S. 314 (1948) Paterno v. Lyons
* 334 U.S. 323 (1948) Hilton v. Sullivan
* 334 U.S. 343 (1947) Sherrer v. Sherrer Coe
* 334 U.S. 385 (1948) Toomer v. Witsell
* 334 U.S. 410 (1948) Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission
* 334 U.S. 431 (1948) Phyle v. Duffy
* 334 U.S. 446 (1948) Bay Ridge Operating Company v. Aaron Huron Stevedoring Corporation
* 334 U.S. 495 (1948) United States v. Columbia Steel Company
* 334 U.S. 541 (1948) Estin v. Estin
* 334 U.S. 555 (1948) Kreiger v. Kreiger
* 334 U.S. 558 (1948) Saia v. New York
* 334 U.S. 573 (1948) United States v. National City Lines
* 334 U.S. 602 (1948) United States v. Zazove
* 334 U.S. 624 (1948) United States v. John J. Felin & Company
* 334 U.S. 653 (1948) Central Greyhound Lines Inc of New York v. Mealey
* 334 U.S. 672 (1948) Wade v. Mayo
* 334 U.S. 699 (1948) Trupiano v. United States
* 334 U.S. 717 (1948) West v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
* 334 U.S. 728 (1948) Gryger v. Burke
* 334 U.S. 736 (1948) Townsend v. Burke
* 334 U.S. 742 (1948) Lichter v. United States
* 334 U.S. 804 (1948) Loftus v. Illinois
* 334 U.S. 806 (1948) Hedgebeth v. North Carolina
* 334 U.S. 839 (1948) Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
* 334 U.S. 856 (1948) Boyles v. Hudspeth
# United States v. Bradley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 343
United States v. Bradley

## 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. Bramblett

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 503
United States v. Bramblett
Argued: Feb. 7, 1955. --- Decided: April 4, 1955
Mr.
Charles F. Barber, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice REED 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. Braverman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 405
United States v. Braverman
Argued: April 22, 1963. --- Decided: May 27, 1963
Frank I. Goodman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
No appearance for appellee.
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. Breitling

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 252
United States v. Breitling
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the United States, and Mr. Percy Walker for the defendant.
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. Breward

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
41 U.S. 143
United States v. Breward

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 41

Chap. XLI.—An Act to authorize the laying out and constructing a road from Line Creek to the Chatahooche, and for repairing the road on which the mail is now transported.
Appropriation for post-road.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of twenty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury, for the purpose of laying out and making a post-road through the Creek nation of Indians, commencing at Line creek, in the state of Alabama, and terminating at the Chatahoochie, opposite Columbus, in the state of Georgia.
Superintendent to be appointed.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, for the early accomplishment of this object, the President shall appoint a superintendent of said road, whose duty it shall be, under the direction of the President, to divide the same into sections of not more than ten miles each, to contract for, and personally superintend the opening and making the said road, as well as to receive, disburse, and faithfully account with the treasury for all sums of moneys by him received by virtue of this act,Salary. and the said superintendent shall receive, during the time he is so employed, at the rate of one thousand dollars per annum.
Repairs.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, for the repairs of the road through said Creek nation, on which the mail is now transported, until the road authorized by this act is completed, the further sum of two thousand dollars, to be expended under the direction of the Postmaster General, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated.
Approved, February 20, 1833.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 42

Chap. XLII.—An Act to authorize the legislature of the state of Ohio to sell the land reserved for the support of religion in the Ohio Company’s, and John Cleves Symmes’ purchases.
Sale of reserved land. Vol. i. 251. Act of April 21, 1792, ch. 25. [Private act.] Application of proceeds.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the legislature of the state of Ohio shall be, and is hereby, authorized to sell and convey, in fee simple, all or any part of the lands heretofore reserved and appropriated by Congress for the support of religion within the Ohio Company’s, and John Cleeves Symmes’ purchases, in the state of Ohio, and to invest the money arising from the sale thereof, in some productive fund; the proceeds of which shall be for ever annually applied, under the direction of said legislature, for the support of religion within the several ​ships for which said lands were originally reserved and set apart, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever, according to the terms and stipulations of the contracts of the Ohio Company’s and John Cleeves Symmes’ purchases within the United States:Proviso. Provided, Said land, or any part of it, shall, in no case, be sold without the consent of the person who may be the lessee thereof, nor without the consent of the inhabitants of the township within which any such land may be situated, to be obtained in such manner as the legislature of said state shall, by law, direct:Proviso. And provided also, That in the apportionment of the proceeds of said fund, each township within the districts of country aforesaid, shall be entitled to such portion thereof, and no more, as shall have accrued from the sum or sums of money arising from the sale of the church land belonging to such township.
Approved, February 20, 1833.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 43

Chap. XLIII.—An Act further to extend the time for entering certain donation claims to land in the territory of Arkansas.
Time for entering donation claims to land extended. Act of May 24, 1828, ch. 108.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the eighth and ninth sections of the act of Congress, approved the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, entitled “An act to aid the state of Ohio in extending the Miami canal from Dayton to Lake Erie, and to grant a quantity of land to said state to aid in the construction of canals authorized by law, and for making donations of land to certain persons in the Arkansas territory,” and the provisions of the act, entitledAct of January 6, 1829, ch. 2. Act of January 13, 1830, ch. 3. “An act restricting the location of certain land claims in the territory of Arkansas, and for other purposes,” approved the sixth of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine; and, also, the provisions of an act, entitled “An act to extend the time for locating certain donations in Arkansas,” approved the thirteenth January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, be, and the same are hereby, continued in force for the term of five years, from the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three:Proviso. Provided, That nothing in this act, or the foregoing acts, shall be so construed as to prevent the President of the United States from bringing the said lands in Arkansas into market under the existing laws; and all claims to donations under the before-recited act, which shall not have been presented and allowed by the proper authorities on or before the day which shall be fixed on by the President for the sale of said land, are hereby declared forfeited to the United States.
Approved, February 20, 1833.
# Uphaus v. Wyman (364 U.S. 388)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Black Douglas
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 388
Uphaus v. Wyman
In view of the Court's decision in Uphaus v. Wyman. 360 U.S. 72, 79 S.Ct. 1040, 3 L.Ed.2d 1090, rehearing denied, 361 U.S. 856, 80 S.Ct. 40, 4 L.Ed.2d 95, the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal herein is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in that the judgment sought to be reviewed is based on a non-federal ground.
Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held in this proceeding that the New Hampshire Legislature still wanted Dr. Uphaus' answers on December 14, 1959, notwithstanding the omission from Laws 1957, c. 178, of the provision of Laws 1955, cc. 340 and 197, authorizing the Attorney General 'to determine whether subversive persons * * * are presently located within this state,' Wyman v. Uphaus, 102 N.H. 461, 159 A.2d 160, on denial of motion for bail, 102 N.H. 517, 162 A.2d 611. We are bound by the highest state court's construction of the pertinent New Hampshire statutes. We must therefore consider the substantiality of the federal constitutional questions presented on this appeal on the basis of that construction and not upon the premise urged by Dr. Uphaus that the 1957 statute shows that the legislature on December 14, 1959, no longer wanted him to produce the list of names. In consequence, while I remain of the view that the Court in Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, 79 S.Ct. 1040, 3 L.Ed.2d 1090, incorrectly sustained the previous order of civil contempt made against Dr. Uphaus, see dissent at page 82, of 360 U.S., at page 1047 of 79 S.Ct., that holding, while it stands, also sustains the order challenged on this appeal. Solely under compulsion of that decision, I think that the appeal must be dismissed as not presenting a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concur, dissenting.

## 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
# Upon Cupid

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Upon Cupid."
* 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.
* "Upon Cupid" by Robert Herrick (As lately I a garland bound)
* "Upon Cupid" by Robert Herrick (Love, like a beggar, came to me)
* "Upon Cupid" by Robert Herrick (Love like a gipsy lately came)
* "Upon Cupid" by Robert Herrick (Old wives have often told how they)
# Uphaus v. Wyman (360 U.S. 72)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 72
Uphaus v. Wyman
Argued: Nov. 17, 18, 1958. --- Decided: June 8, 1959
See 80 S.Ct. 40.
Messrs. Royal W. France and Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Louis C. Wyman, Manchester, N.H., 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
# Upon Blanch

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Upon Blanch."
* 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.
* "Upon Blanch" (Blanch swears her husband's lovely; when a scald) by Robert Herrick
* "Upon Blanch" (I have seen many maidens to have hair) by Robert Herrick
# Uphaus v. Wyman (364 U.S. 388)

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 388
Uphaus v. Wyman
Louis Lusky, Grenville Clark, Marvin H. Morse, Dudley W. Orr, Royal W. France, Hugh H. Bownes and Leonard B. Boudin, for appellant.
Louis C. Wyman, Atty. Gen. of New Hampshire, appellee pro se.
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
# Upon Himself

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Upon Himself."
* 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.
* Upon Himself (Come, leave this loathed country life, and then) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (I am sieve-like, and can hold) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (I could never love indeed) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (I dislik'd but even now) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (I lately fri'd, but now behold) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (Mop-eyed I am, as some have said) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (Thou shalt not all die; for, while love's fire shines) by Robert Herrick
* Upon Himself (Thou'rt hence removing (like a shepherd's tent)) by Robert Herrick

## See also

* On Himself
# United States v. Mock/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 273
United States v. Mock
The only errors alleged are in the charge. The specific portions to which the attention of the court was called at the time, and exceptions taken, are that which refers to the history of the attitude of the government towards pioneers and others who took timber from government lands for domestic use, and that which declared that no verdict could be returned in favor of the government, except for the value of the lumber manufactured. In these there was obvious error. Although there was no direct evidence of the value of the standing trees, yet it did appear that they were manufactured into lumber, and that the lumber had commanded a price of from eight to nine dollars a thousand feet; and when the government proved, or defendant admitted, that he cut and carried away some of the timber on this tract, the government was entitled to at least a verdict for nominal damages. As to any further right of recovery, see Wooden-Ware Co. v. U.S., 106 U.S. 432, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 398; Benson Min., etc., Co. v. Alta Min., etc., Co., 145 U.S. 428, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 877.
Nor were the observations of the court in reference to the attitude of the government justifiable. Whatever propriety there might be in such a reference, in a case in which it appeared that the defendant had simply cut timber for his own use, or the improvement of his own land, or development of his own mine, (and in respect to that matter, as it is not before us, we express no opinion,) there certainly was none in suggesting that the attitude of the government upheld or countenanced a party in going into the business of cutting and carrying off the timber from government land, manufacturing it into lumber, and selling it for profit; and that was this case. There is no pretense that the defendant cut timber for his own use. He says himself he sold it all. He ran a sawmill, cut timber, manufactured it into lumber, and made profit out of the sale of the lumber. There is nothing in the legislation of congress, or the history of the government, which carries with it an approval of such appropriations of government property as that.
The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
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