OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 23

Chap. XXIII.—An Act to explain an act, entitled “An act to reduce the duties on coffee, tea, and cocoa,” passed the twentieth of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty.
Act of May 20, 1830, ch. 101. Coffee and cocoa in store Dec. 31, 1830, put on same footing as coffee and cocoa imported after said date.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases in which the importers of coffee or cocoa, which remained in the custom-house stores under the bond of the importer on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, shall have paid on the same a greater amount of duty than is imposed by the act passed on the twentieth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, on coffee or cocoa, imported after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to refund, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to such importer, the amount of such excess so collected.
Coffee, tea, and cocoa, in store Dec. 31, 1831, put on same footing as coffee, tea, and cocoa imported after same date.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, in all cases in which the imported of coffee, tea, or cocoa, which remained in the custom-house stores, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, under the control of the proper officer of the customs, shall have been compelled to pay on the same a greater amount of duty than is imposed by said act, on coffee, tea, or cocoa, imported after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to refund, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to such importers, the amount of such excess so collected.
Approved, February 9, 1833.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 31

Chap. XXXI.—An Act to amend an act, entitled “An act supplementary to the act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the revolution.”
Act of June 7, 1832, ch. 126. Invalid pensioners not embraced in 2d section of the former act.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second section of the act, entitled “An act supplementary to the act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the revolution,” approved the seventh day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, shall not be construed to embrace invalid pensioners; and that the pensions of invalid soldiers shall not be deducted from the amount receivable by them under the said act.
Approved, February 19, 1833.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 33

Chap. XXXIII.—An Act for the payment of horses and arms lost in the military service of the United States against the Indians on the frontiers of Illinois and the Michigan territory.
Horses owned by militiamen or volunteers, and lost whilst in the service of the United States, to be paid for.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any mounted militiaman or volutneer whilst in the service of the United States, in the late expeditions against the Indians, on the frontiers of Illinois and the territory of Michigan, who sustained damage by the loss of any horse which was killed in battle, or died in consequence of a wound received therein, or in consequence of a failure, on the part of the United States, to furnish such horse with sufficient forage whilst in the service, or in consequence of the owner being dismounted, or separated and detached from the same, by order of the commanding officer, or in consequence of the rider being killed or wounded in battle, shall be allowed and paid the value of such horse at the time of going into service: Provided, Such loss was not the result of negligence on the part of the owner; the time employed in going to the place of rendezvous, and returning home after being discharged, to be taken and considered as actual service.
Value of arms and military accoutrements to be paid.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any person in the aforesaid service of the United States, as a volunteer or drafted militiaman, who furnishes [?] himself with arms and military accoutrements, and has sustained loss by the capture or destruction of the same, without fault or negligence on his part, shall be allowed and paid the value thereof.
How claims shall be examined. Act of April 9, 1816, ch. 40. Act of March 3, 1817, ch. 110.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all claims arising under this act shall be examined, allowed, and paid in the same manner by the third auditor that similar claims were under “An act to authorize the payment of property lost, captured or destroyed by the enemy, while in the military service of the United States, and for other purposes,” passed the ninth of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, and the act in amendment thereof, passed the third of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen; this act to be and remain in force three years form and after its passage.
Approved, February 19, 1833.
# Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia."
* 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.
* Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia (137 U.S. 62)
* Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia (172 U.S. 361)
See also District of Columbia v. Washington Market Company.
# Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia (137 U.S. 62)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 62
Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia
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
# Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia (137 U.S. 62)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 62
Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia
This is an appeal from the decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia dismissing the bill of complaint filed by appellant therein, the object of the bill having been to restrain the defendants from selling, or attempting to sell, certain property of complainant, on account of certain assessments for street improvements, and also to cancel and annul two tax-lien certificates therein named; and, counsel for appellant having stated in open court that such assessments and lien certificates have been, pending this appeal, quashed and annulled at law by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and that only the disposition of costs is involved herein, it is ordered that said appeal be
dismissed, without costs to either party.
Wm. Birney, for appellant.
Geo. C. Hazelton and S. T. Thomas, for appellees.

## 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
# Washington Law Reporter

The Washington Law Reporter is a periodical, published from 1874 onwards. Certain parts of this work are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before 1929.
* Volume 8 (1881) (transcription project)
* Volume 11 (1888) External scan
* Volume 13 (1885) External scan
* Volume 16 (1889) External scan
* Volume 20 (1893) External scan
* Volume 33 (1905) External scan
* Volume 34 (1906) External scan
* Volume 36 (1908) External scan
# Washington Ice Company v. Wesbter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 426
Washington Ice Company v. Wesbter
A.
P. Gould, for plaintiffs in error.
Benj, F. Butler, for defendant in error.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Washington Lott v. Pittman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 588
Washington Lott v. Pittman
Argued: April 13, 1917. --- Decided: April 30, 1917
Messrs. John Randolph Cooper and T. A. Wallace for appellant.
Mr. Clifford Walker, Attorney General of Georgia, for appellee.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 5/25th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 5

Chap. V.—An Act making an appropriation for the protection of the northern frontier of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriation. That the sum of six hundred and twenty-five thousand five hundred dollars shall be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any unappropriated money in the ​Treasury, to defray any expenses which have been or may be incurred in protecting the northern frontier of the United States, by calling out, under the direction of the President of the United States, any part of the militia or volunteers, according to the provisions of the Constitution and laws;Which sum, if required, shall be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, conformably, &c. 1795, ch. 9. 1836, ch. 44. which sum, if required, shall be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, conformably to the provisions of the act of Congress of January second, seventeen hundred and ninety-five; of the act of April fifth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, making appropriations for the support of the army; and of the act of March nineteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, providing for the payment of volunteers and militia corps in the service of the United States.
Approved, January 30, 1838.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/25th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 56

Chap. LVI.—An Act directing the transfer of money remaining unclaimed by certain pensioners, and authorizing the payment of the same at the Treasury of the United States.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the transfer directed by the first section of this act shall be made by the draft of the Commissioner of Pensions upon the agents for paying pensions, and in favour of the Treasurer of the Untied States; and that the form of said draft shall be prescribed by the Secretary of War.
Approved, April 6, 1838.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/25th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 4

Chap. IV.—An Act making a partial appropriation for the suppression of Indian hostilities for the year eighteen hundred and thirty-eight.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriation. To be expended under direction of Sec. War, conformably, &c. 1836, ch. 44. 1836, ch. 254. That the sum of one million of dollars shall be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to defray any expenses which have been, or may be, incurred, in preventing or suppressing the hostilities of any Indians, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-eight; to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, conformably to the acts of Congress of the nineteenth of March and the second of July, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and of the acts therein referred to.
Approved, January 30, 1838.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/25th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 46

Chap. XLVI.—An Act to restore circuit jurisdiction to the district courts of the western district of Virginia.
All causes transferred from said dist. courts to circuit court at Lewisburg, removed back, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all causes transferred by authority of said act from the said district courts to the circuit court, directed by law to be held in the town of Lewisburg, in the State of Virginia, and which remain undetermined, be removed back to the district courts from whence they were transferred, to be there finally determined.
Appellate jurisdiction from said dist. courts to be exercise by circuit court at Lewisburg.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That appellate jurisdiction from the judgments or decrees of the said district courts of the western district of Virginia, as now authorized by law, shall be exercised by the said circuit court at Lewisburg.
Approved, March 28, 1838.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/25th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 84

Chap. LXXXIV.—An Act making appropriations for the continuation of the Cumberland road in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and for other purposes.
Act of March 3, 1837, ch. 46.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums of money be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury unappropriated, to wit:
In Ohio.For the continuation of the Cumberland road in the State of Ohio, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
In Indiana.For the continuation of the Cumberland road in the State of Indiana, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, including bridges.
In Illinois.For the continuation of the Cumberland road in the State of Illinois, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Bridge over Dunlap’s creek. Terms of the appropriation. 1837, ch. 46.For the completion of the bridge over Dunlap’s creek, on the Cumberland road, in the State of Pennsylvania, the sum of nine thousand dollars; which said appropriations are made upon the same terms, and shall be subject to all the provisions, conditions, restrictions, and limitations, touching appropriations for the Cumberland road, contained in the act entitled “An act to provide for continuing the construction, and for the repair of certain roads, and for other purposes, during the year eighteen hundred and thirty-seven,” approved on the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven.
Approved, May 25, 1838.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/25th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 82

Chap. LXXXII.—An Act to authorize the issuing of Treasury notes to meet the current expenses of the Government.
Act of Oct. 12, 1837, ch. 2. Treasury notes to be issued according to the provisions of act of 12th Oct. 1837, ch. 2, in place of, &c. 1839, ch. 37.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approbation of the President of the United States, is hereby authorized to cause Treasury notes to be issued, according to the provisions of, and subject to, all the conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in an act entitled “An act to authroize the issuing of Treasury notes,” approved the Twelfth day of October last, in place of such notes as have been, or may be, issued under the authority of the act aforesaid, and which have been, or may hereafter be, paid into the Treasury and cancelled.
Approved, May 21, 1838.
# West v. Smith

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "West v. Smith."
* 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.
* West v. Smith (49 U.S. 402)
* West v. Smith (101 U.S. 263)
# West v. Smith (49 U.S. 402)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
49 U.S. 402
West v. Smith

## 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
# West v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 118
West v. United States
Argued: Nov. 12, 1959. --- Decided: Dec 7, 1959
Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Leavenworth Colby, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
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
# West v. Smith (101 U.S. 263)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 263
West v. Smith
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. C. E. Perkins for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. A. P. Hyde, contra.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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
# West v. Standard Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 200
West v. Standard Oil Company
Argued: Oct. 24 and 25, 1928. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1929
Mr. W. C. Morrow, of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 201-202 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Oscar Sutro, of San Francisco, Cal., Louis Titus, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 203-207 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Laws

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 258
United States v. Laws
Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice PECKHAM 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. Laub (37 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
37 U.S. 1
United States v. Laub
Page 2 IN error from the circuit court of the United States of the District of Columbia, in the county of Washington.
The United States instituted two actions of assumpsit against the defendant, to recover the balances stated to be due to the United States, on transcripts regularly certified by the treasury department. The first account was with the defendant, as 'agent for paying the contingent expenses of the office of the secretary of the treasury;' and charges a balance due to the United States, and those warrants drawn by the secretary of the treasury in favour of the defendant, amounting, together, to four thousand dollars. It credits a payment of two hundred and forty-one dollars and fifty-eight cents, paid on the 22d July, 1833, leaving a balance due to the United States, on the 14th November, 1833, of three thousand seven hundred and seventy-six dollars and fifty-eight cents. The other account is against the defendant as 'superintendent of the south-east executive building, in relation to the compensation of superintendent, and watchman of said building;' and after charging a warrant of four hundred and twenty-five dollars, and crediting one hundred and fourteen dollars and ninety-seven cents, paid July 22d 1833, claims a balance of three hundred and ten dollars and three cents. The whole sum claimed to be due to the United States, on the two transcripts, was four thousand and eighty-six dollars and fifty-one cents. In the other action, the United States claimed seven thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents. This account is for a treasury warrant for two thousand dollars, and for five thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents, for balances due by the defendant as 'superintendent of the south-east executive building,' in relation to contingent expenses of the said building, to alterations and improvements thereof, and to enclosing the grounds attached thereto; and also as 'agent for expenditures in relation to insolvent debtors,' and in relation to manufactures.
The defendant pleaded non assumpsit to both actions, and the cases were tried together, in the circuit court; the jury found verdicts for the defendant.
Three bills of exception, entirely similar, were taken in each case, by the plaintiffs, and judgment being given for the defendant, the plaintiffs prosecuted this writ of error. The material facts of the case, in the bills of exception, are stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. Butler, the attorney general, and by Coxe, for the defendant.
Mr. Justice THOMPSON 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. Laub (385 U.S. 475)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 475
United States v. Laub (385 U.S. 475)
Argued: Nov. 16, 1966. --- Decided: Jan 10, 1967
Nathan Lewin, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Leonard B. Boudin, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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. Laughlin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 440
United States v. Laughlin
Argued: Jan. 30 and 31, 1919. --- Decided: April 14, 1919
Mr. C. Edward Wright, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Messrs. Francis W. Clements and William R. Andrews, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Laudani

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
320 U.S. 543
United States v. Laudani
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 16, 1943. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1944
Mr. Chester T. Lane, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Harold Simandl, of Newark, N.J., 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