...persuade a court that Congress did not intend words of common meaning to have their literal effect. E. g., Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457, 459 (1892); United States v. Ryan, 284 US 167, 175 (1931). Sole reliance on the "plain language" of § 401 (a)...

...standing of these employees must terminate if the statute is not to be interpreted according to the ' familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers ' (Church of the...

...New York and enter into its service as rector and pastor of the church. In that case the court said: "It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often...

...excess. It seems to us that the allowance of the plaintiffs claim would directly tend to defeat both. It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of a statute, and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit or Intention. Holy Trinity...

...181 US 283, 294; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 US 1, 176; Dooley v. United States, 183 US 151, 154, 155. A thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. Holy Trinity Church...

...courts, "that a thing may be within the letter of a statute, and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." Church of Holy Trinity v. US, 143 US 457, 12 Sup. Ct Rep. 511. In the case just cited many instances are mentioned...

...which to correctly interpret a statute. In Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374, 380, this court declared that " a thing may be within the letter of the statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the...

...intended to denounce with penalties a transaction like the one in that case. The court went on to say that it Is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of a statute, and yet not be within the statute, because not within its spirit or the intention of its...

...cannot think Congress intended to denounce with penalties a transaction like that in the present case. It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often...

...the idea that every other kind of labor or service was intended to be reached by the first section. It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute, and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This is not the...