Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/194/104/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/194/104/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Smith v. Payne, 194 U.S. 104 (1904)
Smith v. Payne
No. 481
Argued March 10, 1904
Decided April 11, 1904
194 U.S. 104
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
What are periodicals and second class matter decided on authority of Houghton v. Payne, ante, p. 194 U. S. 88.
This was also a bill, filed by the firm of Street & Smith, to enjoin the Postmaster General from cancelling certain certificates of entry admitting the publications of complainant firm to the mail as second-class mail matter. This case took the same course as the preceding one.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiffs are the publishers of several different series of novels under the names of The Columbia Library, The Bertha Clay Library, The Magnet Detective Library, The Medal Library, The Undine Library, The Eden Series, The Arrow Library, and some others. The books of these series are apparently of an inferior class of literature, and are numbered consecutively; but the only thing to indicate that they are issued periodically is a notice upon the outside of the back cover, in small type, that they are weekly or semi-monthly publications.
The considerations moving us to affirm the decree of the court of appeals in the case of Houghton v. Payne, just decided, apply with much greater persuasiveness to this case, and the decree dismissing the bill is therefore
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and the CHIEF JUSTICE dissent in this case for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Houghton v. Payne, ante, p. 194 U. S. 88, and Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, post, 194 U. S. 106.
