OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Morris v. Schoonfield/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
399 U.S. 508
Phillip MORRIS et al., appellants, v. Hiram SCHOONFIELD, Warden, et al.
We noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument with Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in Williams, that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in Williams v. Illinois, supra.
Mr. Justice BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, concurring.
I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented.
However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in Williams also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.
As I understand it, Williams v. Illinois does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines as well as jail sentences will justify imposing an 'equivalent' jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But Williams means, at minimum, that in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence.

## Notes

* ↑ 397 U.S. 960, 90 S.Ct. 990, 25 L.Ed.2d 252.
* ↑ Chapter 147 of the 1970 Laws of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970).
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
# Morris v. Schoonfield

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
399 U.S. 508
Phillip MORRIS et al., appellants, v. Hiram SCHOONFIELD, Warden, et al.
Robert G. Fisher, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
George L. Russell, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for appellees.
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
# Morris v. United States
## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 196
Morris v. United States

## 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
# Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 587
Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo
Argued: April 28, 29, 1936. --- Decided: June 1, 1936
Mr. Henry Epstein, of Albany, N.Y., for petitioner.
Messrs. Nathan L. Miller and Arthur Levitt, both of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 588-601 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Dean G. Acheson, of Washington, D.C., for the States of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, as amici curiae by special leave of Court.
Mr. Paul Windels, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Messrs. Paxton Blair and Paul J. Kern, both of New York City, on the brief), amici curiae.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Moreland v. Page

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 522
Moreland v. Page
THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Badger and Mr. Carlisle for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Bradley for the defendant.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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
# Moreland v. Page/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 522
Moreland v. Page
In a court which is not bound by law to ignore all species of actions, and use only the generic name, this would be called an action of ejectment. Plaintiff's statement alleges that 'he is owner of certain adjoining quarter sections of land, and that the northern boundary thereof is a line surveyed by Joel Baily, as per diagram annexed, and that plaintiff claims the line A B to be the true line, while defendant claims that the line C D is the proper line between them. The defendant, by his plea or answer, denies that A B is the true line, and avers that C D is. On this issue the parties went to trial without a jury, and the court decided in favor of plaintiff. But, on appeal to the Supreme Court of Iowa, the judgment below was reversed, and judgment entered for defendant, establishing the line C D as the true line between the respective patents, according to a survey made by Edward James, 'a copy of a plat of a which is on file in the case, from the original deposited in the office of the surveyor general.'
We have searched this record in vain to discover any authority for this court to assert its jurisdiction to review the judgment of the State court under the power granted by the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. The record does not show that it draws in question any treaty, statute, or authority, exercised under the United States; or the validity of any State statute, for repugnancy to the Constitution of the United States; or the construction of any clause of the Constitution; or of a treaty or statute commission held under the United States. It is a mere question of boundary between two neighbors, both admitted to have valid grants from the United States. It is a question of fact, depending on monuments to be found on the ground, documents in the land office, or the opinion of experts or surveyors appointed by the court or the parties. If the accident to the controversy that both parties claim title under the United States should be considered as sufficient to bring it within our jurisdiction, then every controversy involving the title to such lands, whether it involve the inheritance, partition, devise, or sale of it, may, with equal propriety, be subject to the examination of this court in all time to come.
This question is not new; it was decided in the case of McDonough v. Millaudon, 3 How., 693, where this court refused to entertain jurisdiction to review the judgment of a State court, ascertaining the boundaries between complete grants under the French Government, as it did not call in question either the construction or the validity of the treaty, or the title to the land held under it. (See also Kennedy v. Hunt, 7 How., 593.)
It is therefore ordered that this case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

## 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
# Morehead v. Central Trust Company of Cincinnati

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 584
Morehead v. Central Trust Company of Cincinnati
Mr. George S. Hawke, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners.
Mr. William J. Rielly, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

## 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
# Morehouse v. Phelps

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
62 U.S. 294
Morehouse v. Phelps

## 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
# Morehead v. Central Trust Company of Cincinnati/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 584
Morehead v. Central Trust Company of Cincinnati
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio denied.

## 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
# Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Allen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 351
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Allen
Argued: March 14, 15, 1900. --- Decided: May 28, 1900
Messrs. Julien T. Davies, John B. Allen, Edward Lyman Short, and Frederic D. McKenney for petitioner.
Messrs. Stanton Warburton, Harold Preston, Frederick Bausman, John H. Allen, and Jay C. Allen for respondent.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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
# Motion Pictures, 1912-1939/Main/A
### AA

* AB
* AC
* AD
* AE
* AF
* AG
* AH
* AI
* AL
* AM
* AN
* AP
* AQ
* AR
* AS
* AT
* AU
* AV
* AW
* AX
* AY
* AZ
# Motion Pictures, 1912-1939/Main

Main list
Motion Pictures 1912-1939
An alphabetical list, under title, of the complete entries for the motion pictures which were registered for copyright during the period covered by this catalog. For full information relating to the contents of the entries see How To Use This Catalog, pp. vii.
* A
* B
* C
* D
* E
* F
* G
* H
* I
* J
* K
* L
* M
* N
* O
* P
* Q
* R
* S
* T
* U
* V
* W
* X
* Y
* Z
# Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Liebing

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
259 U.S. 209
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Liebing
Argued: May 29, 1922. ---
Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., Frederick D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., John H. Holliday, of St. Louis, Mo., and Frederick L. Allen, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 210-211 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James J. O'Donohoe, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Sears/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 345
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Sears
Argued: March 14, 15, 1900. --- Decided: May 28, 1900
In view of what had been already decided in the case of Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Phinney, 178 U.S. 327, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906, 44 L. ed. --, it is needless to do more than note the fact that, as shown by the answer, after the insured had once defaulted in May, 1892, and a second default had occurred in May, 1893, application was made to him by the company, through its agents, to restore the policy, and that he declined to make any further payments or to continue the policy, and elected to have it terminated, which election was accepted by the company, and the parties to the contract treated it thereafter as abandoned. As we held in the prior case, there is nothing in the New York statute (if controlling at all) to prevent the parties from dealing with that as any other contract; and if they choose to abandon it, that action is conclusive.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit and of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington are reversed, and the case remanded to the latter court, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to defendant's answer.
Mr. Justice Peckham did not sit in the hearing, and took no part in the decision of this case.

## 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
# Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Sears

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 345
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Sears
Argued: March 14, 15, 1900. --- Decided: May 28, 1900
This, like the case of Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Phinney, just decided, 178 U.S. 327, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906, 44 L. ed. --, is an action on an insurance policy issued by the company, the premiums on which were unpaid for years before the death of the insured. The facts, as disclosed by the pleadings (and the case went off on the pleadings, without any testimony), are that on May 18, 1891, the insurance company issued a policy to Stephen P. Sears, he being the beneficiary named in the policy, as well as the insured. He paid the first annual premium and received the policy, but neglected to pay the premium due on May 18, 1892, and all subsequent premiums. He lived until March 30, 1898, and thereafter his widow, the plaintiff below, was appointed his executrix. The answer alleged nonpayment of the premiums from 1892 onward, and also 'that subsequent to the failure of the said Stephen P. Sears to make payment of the said annual premium falling due on said policy May 18, 1893, and subsequent to the lapsing of said policy for failure to make said payment, and after the said Stephen P. Sears was fully informed and knew that said policy had been by it declared lapsed and void for nonpayment of premium, tis defendant, through its agents, applied to said Stephen P. Sears to make restoration of said policy by making payment of said defaulted premium and having the said policy restored to force, but that said Stephen P. Sears refused to make such payment, and refused longer to continue said policy or make any further payments thereon, and then and there elected to have the same terminated, and this defendant, relying upon the said election and determination of said Stephen P. Sears, at all times subsequent thereto treated said policy as lapsed, abandoned, and terminated, and relying upon the said conduct of said Sears abstained from taking any further action or step in relation to said policy, by way of notice or otherwise, in order to effect the cancelation and termination thereof.'
A demurrer to this answer was sustained, and judgment entered for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the court of appeals (97 Fed. Rep. 986, 38 C. C. A. 696), and the case was thereupon brought to this court on certiorari.
Messrs. Julien T. Davies, John B. Allen, Edward Lyman Short, Frederic D. McKenney, and Robert C. Strudwick for petitioner.
Messrs. Stanton Warburton and Harold Preston for respondent.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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
# Modern reciter/The Death of Sir John Moore

On the Death of Sir John Moore.
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corse o'er the ramparts we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot, O'er the grave where our hero was buried.
We buried him darkly at dead of night, The sods with our bayonets turning, ​By the struggling moonbeam's dusky light, And our lanterns dimly burning.
No useless coffin enclosed his breast, Nor in sheet nor in shroud we wound him; But he lay-like a warrior taking his rest- With his martial cloak around him!
Few and short were the prayers we said, And we spoke not a word of sorrow; But we steadfastly gazed on the face of the dead, And we bitterly thought of to-morrow———
We thought-as we hollow'd his narrow bed, And smooth'd down his lonely pillow- How the foe and the stranger would tread o'er his head, And we far away on the billow!
Lightly they'll talk of the spirit that's gone, And o'er his cold ashes upbraid him; But nothing he'll reck, if they let him sleep on, In the grave where a Briton has laid him.
But half our heavy task was done, When the clock toll'd the hour for retiring, And we heard by the distant and random gun, That the fo was suddenly firing———
Slowly and sadly we laid him down, From the field of his fame, fresh and gory! We carved not a line, we raised not a stone, But left him alone in his glory!
Wolfe
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Modern reciter/Lord Ullin's Daughter

LORD ULLIN'S DAUGHTER.
A chieftain to the Highlands bound, Cries, 'Boatman do not tarry, And I'll give thee a silver pound, To row us o'er the ferry!'—
Now, who he ye would cross Lochgyle, This dark and stormy water?' O I'm the chief of Ulva's isle, And this Lord Ullin's daughter:—
And fast before her father's men, Three day's we've fled together; ⟨For⟩ should he find us in the glen, My blood would stain the heather—
His horseman hard behind us ride Should they our steps discover. ⟨Then⟩, who would cheer my bonny bride, When they have slain her lover?'—
Out spoke the hardy Highland wight, I'll go, my chief— I'm ready:— (illegible text) tis not for your silver bright, But for your winsome lady!
​'And by my word, the bonny bird In danger shall not tarry; So—though the waves be raging wide— I'll row you o'er the ferry!'—
By this the storm grew loud арасе, The water-wraith was shrieking; And in the scowl of heaven, each face Grew dark as they were speaking.
But still as wilder blew the wind, And as the night grew drearer, Adown the glen rode armed men!— Their trampling sounded nearer!
'Oh! haste thee, haste!' the lady cries, 'Though tempests round us gather, I'll meet the raging of the skies, But not an angry father.'—
The boat has left a stormy land, A stormy sea before her— When—oh! too strong for human hand! The tempest gather'd o'er her.
And still they rowed amidst the roar Of waters fast prevailing: Lord Ullin reach'd that fatal shore, His wrath was chang'd to wailing—
For sore dismayed, through storm and shade, His child he did discover!— One lovely arm was stretch'd for aid, And one was round her lover.
​'Come Back! come back!' he cried in grief, 'Across this stormy water: And I'll forgive your Highland chief, My daughter!—Oh! my daughter!'
Twas vain! the loud waves lash'd the shore, Return or aid preventing: The waters wild went o'er his child— And he was left lamenting. Campbell.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Modeste Mignon

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
First published 1844. Included as part of La Comédie humaine.
* Dedication
* Chapter I: THE CHALET
* Chapter II: A PORTRAIT FROM LIFE
* Chapter III: PRELIMINARIES
* Chapter IV: A SIMPLE STORY
* Chapter V: THE PROBLEM STILL UNSOLVED
* Chapter VI: A MAIDEN'S FIRST ROMANCE
* Chapter VII: A POET OF THE ANGELIC SCHOOL
* Chapter VIII: BLADE TO BLADE
* Chapter IX: THE POWER OF THE UNSEEN
* Chapter X: THE MARRIAGE OF SOULS
* Chapter XI: WHAT COMES OF CORRESPONDENCE
* Chapter XII: A DECLARATION OF LOVE,—SET TO MUSIC
* Chapter XIII: A FULL-LENGTH PORTRAIT OF MONSIEUR DE LA BRIERE
* Chapter XIV: MATTERS GROWN COMPLICATED
* Chapter XV: A FATHER STEPS IN
* Chapter XVI: DISENCHANTED
* Chapter XVII: A THIRD SUITOR
* Chapter XVIII: A SPLENDID FIRST APPEARANCE
* Chapter XIX: OF WHICH THE AUTHOR THINKS A GOOD DEAL
* Chapter XX: THE POET DOES HIS EXERCISES
* Chapter XXI: MODESTE PLAYS HER PART
* Chapter XXII: A RIDDLE GUESSED
* Chapter XXIII: BUTSCHA DISTINGUISHES HIMSELF
* Chapter XXIV: THE POET FEELS THAT HE IS LOVED TOO WELL
* Chapter XXV: A DIPLOMATIC LETTER
* Chapter XXVI: TRUE LOVE
* Chapter XXVII: A GIRL'S REVENGE
* Chapter XXVIII: MODESTE BEHAVES WITH DIGNITY
* Chapter XXIX: CONCLUSION
* Addendum
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse