...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...its spirit nor within the intention of its makers ' (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457), and if the ruling of the Comptroller of...

...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...spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not...

...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...its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 US 457, 463; Jones v. Guaranty &c. Co., 101 US 622, 626;...

...application to the case at bar. •It is a familiär rule,' said the court, 'that a thing may be within tbe letter of the statute, and yet not within the statute,...spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of 'cases illustrating its application. Tliis is...

...however, to follow the rule generally adopted by the courts, "that a thing may be within the letter of a statute, and yet not within the statute, because not...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...

...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...

...Jurisprudence It has been held j a thing may be within the letter of the law and yet not within the law, because not within its spirit, nor within the Intention of its makers. In the case of Stradling v. Morgan, 2 Ellz. (First Plowden) 205, it was said: "From which" cases it...

...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...spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of cases illustrating its .application. This is not...