The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - BestLightNovel.com
You’re reading novel The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 66 online at BestLightNovel.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit BestLightNovel.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[1356] United States _v._ Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922).
[1357] Wight _v._ Davidson, 181 U.S. 371, 384 (1901); _Cf._ Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923) overruled by West Coast Hotel Co. _v._ Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
[1358] Kendall _v._ United States ex rel. Stokes, 12 Pet. 524, 619 (1838); Shoemaker _v._ United States, 147 U.S. 282, 300 (1893); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers _v._ United States, 286 U.S. 427, 435 (1932); O'Donoghue _v._ United States 289 U.S. 516, 518 (1933).
[1359] 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).
[1360] Ibid. 428.
[1361] Loughborough _v._ Blake, 5 Wheat. 317 (1820).
[1362] Gibbons _v._ District of Columbia, 116 U.S. 404, 408 (1886); Welch _v._ Cook, 97 U.S. 541 (1879).
[1363] Loughborough _v._ Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 320 (1820); Heald _v._ District of Columbia, 259 U.S. 114 (1922).
[1364] Thompson _v._ Roe ex dem. Carroll, 22 How. 422, 435 (1860); Stoutenburgh _v._ Hennick, 129 U.S. 141, 147 (1889).
[1365] Willard _v._ Presbury, 14 Wall. 676, 680 (1870); Briscoe _v._ Rudolph, 221 U.S. 547 (1911).
[1366] Was.h.i.+ngton Market Co. _v._ District of Columbia, 172 U.S. 361, 367 (1899).
[1367] Mattingly _v._ District of Columbia, 97 U.S. 687, 690 (1878).
[1368] 129 U.S. 141, 148 (1889).
[1369] Keller _v._ Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923).
[1370] O'Donoghue _v._ United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933).
[1371] Embry _v._ Palmer, 107 U.S. 3 (1883).
[1372] James _v._ Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).
[1373] Battle _v._ United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908).
[1374] Arlington Hotel Co. _v._ Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929).
[1375] James _v._ Dravo Contracting Co, 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).
[1376] Collins _v._ Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 530 (1938).
[1377] Ibid. 528.
[1378] Battle _v._ United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908); Johnson _v._ Yellow Cab Co., 321 U.S. 383 (1944); Bowen _v._ Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1939).
[1379] Surplus Trading Co. _v._ Cook, 281 U.S. 647 (1930).
[1380] Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Chiles, 214 U.S. 274 (1909); Arlington Hotel Co. _v._ Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929); Pacific Coast Dairy _v._ Dept. of Agri., 318 U.S. 285 (1943).
[1381] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 545 (1885); James Stewart & Co. _v._ Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (1940).
[1382] Palmer _v._ Barrett, 162 U.S. 399 (1896).
[1383] United States _v._ Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138 (1930).
[1384] Benson _v._ United States, 146 U.S. 325, 331 (1892).
[1385] Palmer _v._ Barrett, 162 U.S. 399 (1896).
[1386] S.R.A., Inc. _v._ Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 564 (1946).
[1387] Ibid. 570, 571.
[1388] Fort Leavenworth R. Co. _v._ Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 532 (1885); United States _v._ Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142 (1930); Surplus Trading Co. _v._ Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930).
[1389] United States _v._ Cornell, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,867 (1819).
[1390] James _v._ Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 145 (1937).
[1391] Silas Mason Co. _v._ Tax Commission of Was.h.i.+ngton, 302 U.S. 186 (1937). _See also_ Atkinson _v._ State Tax Commission, 303 U.S. 20 (1938).
[1392] 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).
[1393] Ibid. 420. This decision had been clearly foreshadowed fourteen years earlier by Marshall's opinion in United States _v._ Fisher, 2 Cr.
358, 396 (1805). Upholding an act which gave priority to claims of the United States against the estate of a bankrupt he wrote: "The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittances, by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe."
[1394] _See_ pp. 74-82, _supra_.
[1395] Neely _v._ Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 121 (1901). _See also_ Missouri _v._ Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
[1396] _See_ p. 426, _supra_.
[1397] Den ex dem. Murray _v._ Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How.
272, 281 (1856).
[1398] Kohl _v._ United States, 91 U.S. 367, 373 (1876); United Slates _v._ Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 320 (1877).
[1399] _See_ pp. 110-117, 266-267.
[1400] United States _v._ Fox, 95 U.S. 670, 672 (1878); United States _v._ Hall, 98 U.S. 343, 357 (1879); United States _v._ Worrall, 2 Dall.
384, 394 (1790); McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). That this power has been freely exercised is attested by the 180 pages of the United States Code (1950 ed.) devoted to t.i.tle 18, ent.i.tled "Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure." In addition numerous regulatory measures prescribe criminal penalties for infractions thereof.
[1401] Ex parte Carll, 106 U.S. 521 (1883).
[1402] United States _v._ Marigold, 9 How. 560, 567 (1850).
[1403] Logan _v._ United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892).
[1404] United States _v._ Barnow, 239 U.S. 74 (1915).
