OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hospital Sketches (1863)/Adverts

NEW PUBLICATION.
Ready September 1.
SPEECHES, LECTURES,
AND
LETTERS:
BY
WENDELL PHILLIPS.
Fourth Edition
In One Vol., crown octavo, pp. 570; printed on clear new type, and the best tinted linen paper; bound in fine English green or maroon vellum-cloth; with gilt tops, and illuminated title; and illustrated with an excellent portrait of Mr. Phillips, on steel, by H. Wright Smith, of Boston.
PRICE $2,50.
The first three editions of this work were sold as rapidly as they could be bound, and the demand continues unabated.
In his Prospectus, the Publisher guaranteed to produce this work in the best style of Boston manufacture; and that he amply redeemed this pledge, the universal testimony of the subscribers, the Agents, and the Trade attest. It was announced at $2, and intended to be of 500 pages. But it is considerably larger, ​and more expensively gotten up than was originally designed; and hence, and in order, by the last adornments, to make it the very finest Book in the Boston market, its price has been necessarily increased to $2.50.
Due notice having been given to all Agents,—all their subscribers having been supplied at the price first announced,—no injustice is done to any party by this increase of charge.
By mutual agreement, also, between the Publisher and his Agents, he is now at liberty to offer the Book to the Trade, and will be ready to supply cash orders at the shortest notice.
The following is a table of the
CONTENTS OF THE VOLUME:
I. Publisher's Advertisement, containing a Letter from Mr. Phillips.
II. The Murder of Lovejoy. Mr. Phillips' first Speech in Boston, delivered December 8, 1837, which at once established his fame as one of the ablest of living orators.
III. Woman's Rights. Speech at Worcester, October 15, 1851, with the Resolutions, embodying the whole philosophy of the Woman's Rights Movement, prepared and presented by Mr. Phillips.
IV. Public Opinion. Delivered January 28, 1852.
V. Surrender of Sims. January 30, 1852.
VI. Sims' Anniversary. April 12, 1852.
VII. Philosophy of the Abolition Movement. January 27, 1853.
VIII. Removal of Judge Loring. February 20, 1855.
IX. The Boston Mob. October 21, 1855.
X. The Pilgrims. December 21, 1855.
XI. Letter to Judge Shaw and President Walker. August 1, 1859.
XII. Idols. October 4, 1859.
XIII. Harper's Ferry. November 1, 1859.
XIV. Burial of John Brown. Delivered at the Grave of the Martyr, December 8, 1859.
XV. Lincoln's Election. November 7, 1860.
XVI. Mobs and Education. December 21, 1860.
XVII. Disunion. January 20, 1861.
XVIII. Progress. February 17, 1861.
XIX. Under the Flag. April 21, 1861.
XX. The War for the Union. December, 1861.
XXI. The Cabinet. August 1, 1862.
XXII. Letter to the New York Tribune. August 16, 1862.
XXIII. Toussaint L'Ouverture. December, 1861.
XXIV. A Metropolitan Police. April 25, 1863.
XXV. The State of the Country. May 11, 1863.
Copies will be sent by mail on receipt of the retail price.
JAMES REDPATH, Publisher,
221 Washington Street. Boston.
# Hospital Sketches (1863)

Hospital Sketches (1863) is a compilation of four sketches based on letters Louisa May Alcott sent home during the six weeks she spent as a volunteer nurse for the Union Army during the American Civil War in Georgetown.Warning: template has been deprecated.
Transcription is of the first edition, which was published in 1863.
HOSPITAL SKETCHES.
BY
L. M. ALCOTT.
"Which, naming no names, no offence could be took."— Sairy Gamp.
BOSTON:
JAMES REDPATH, Publisher,
221 Washington Street.
1863.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by
JAMES REDPATH,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
THESE SKETCHES
ARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
TO HER FRIEND
MISS HANNAH STEVENSON,
BY
L. M. A.
PUBLISHER'S ADVERTISEMENT.
A considerable portion of this volume was published in successive numbers of The Commonwealth, newspaper, of Boston. The sudden popularity the Sketches won from the general public, and the praise they received from literary men of distinguished ability, are sufficient reasons,—were any needed,—for their republication, thus revised and enlarged, in this more convenient and permanent form. As, besides paying the Author the usual copyright, the publisher has resolved to devote at least five cents for every copy sold to the support of orphans made fatherless or homeless by the war, no reproduction of any part of the contents now first printed in these pages, will be permitted in any journal. Should the sale of the little book be large, the orphans' percentage will be doubled.
Boston, August, 1863.
CONTENTS.
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
# Harten v. Loffler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 397
Harten v. Loffler
Argued: and submitted January 26, 1909. --- Decided: February 23, 1909
The defendant in error, hereafter called the plaintiff, commenced this action against the plaintiff in error, hereafter called the defendant, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant to perform a written agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant and his wife, by which the defendant agreed to convey certain premises on Brightwood avenue, or Seventh street, in the District of Columbia, to the plaintiff for the sum of $12,000.
The defendant denied the alleged agreement, and also pleaded a set-off to recover $20,000 damages against the plaintiff for the plaintiff's own failure to perform the agreement set up by defendant.
The plaintiff replied, denying the defendant's averments as to set-off, and the latter joined issue on plaintiff's replication.
A trial was had before a jury, and terminated in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,250, with interest on $250 from April 27, 1905, upon which judgment was entered.
Upon appeal to the court of appeals of the District, that court affirmed the judgment (29 App. D. C. 490), and the defendant sued out a writ of error from this court.
The material facts in the case are as follows:
The defendant, on the 27th of April, 1905, was the owner of a lot or parcel of land on Brightwood avenue, or Seventh street, a half mile north of Brightwood in the District of Columbia. On the date named the parties entered into an agreement, and the defendant and his wife signed the same, as follows:
'For and in consideration of the sum of twelve thousand dollars, two hundred and fifty dollars whereof is hereby acknowledged, I hereby agree to sell to Ernest Loffler the property, good will, license, and fixtures, located on Brightwood avenue near Battle Ground Cemetery, fronting on Brightwood avenue about sixty feet, with a depth of about two hundred feet, title and transfer of license guaranteed or deposit refunded. I agree to use my best efforts to secure the signers for the transfer of said license, and to give said Loffler a clear title to all of above property.'
To understand more readily the applicability of the evidence a diagram showing the shape of the lot and the location of the building is given below.
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
The principal questions on the trial arose in regard to the admission and exclusion of certain evidence by parol and upon exceptions taken to the charge.
The opinion of the court of appeals was delivered by the late Mr. Justice McComas, who made a synopsis of the facts and evidence, which is herewith inserted:

## 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
# Harter v. Kernochan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 562
Harter v. Kernochan
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. W. J. Henry for the appellant.
Mr. George A. Sanders, contra.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN 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
# Hartell v. Tilghman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Bradley
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 547
Hartell v. Tilghman
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William Henry Rawle and Mr. M. D. Connolly for the appellants.
The court below had no jurisdiction. The parties were all citizens of the same State. The suit was founded upon a contract between them, and did not arise under a statute of the United States. Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99; Hartshorn v. Day, 19 id. 211; Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 164; Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288; Goodyear v. Day, 1 Blatchf. 565; Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 6 id. 356; Goodyear v. Union India-rubber Co., 4 id. 63; Burr v. Gregory, 2 Paine, 426; Hill v. Whitcomb, 1 Holmes, 317; Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 328; Curtis, Patents, sect. 496.
When the defendant's original use of a machine or a process for which letters-patent have been granted to another is unlawful, he is prima facie an infringer, and the Federal jurisdiction attaches to prevent a violation of a right secured by the laws of the United States. But where such use is lawful, he is prima facie not an infringer, and that jurisdiction does not attach. The rights involved rest solely upon contract, and it is only when a breach of it is shown that the continued exercise of them can be enjoined.
Mr. George Harding, contra.
The bill is founded on letters-patent. The relief sought is an injunction, a discovery, and an account, and not the rescission, the enforcement, or the construction of a contract of license: The court below therefore had jurisdiction. Brooks v. Stolley, 3 McLean, 523; Woodworth v. Weed, 1 Blatchf. 165; Wilson v. Sherman, id. 538; Woodworth v. Cook, 2 id. 160; Wilson v. Sanford, 10 How. 99; Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 336; Day v. Hartshorn, 3 Fish. 32; Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Company, 3 Blatchf. 453; Judson v. Union Rubber Company, 4 id. 66; Bloomer v. Gilpin, 4 Fish. 54; Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288; Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 3 Fish. 483; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205; Magic Ruffle Company v. Elm City Company, 13 Blatchf. 157.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# Humes v. Scruggs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 22
Humes v. Scruggs
APPEAL from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama.
This is a suit by the assignee in bankruptcy of John W. Scruggs to set aside a conveyance of certain real estate made by the latter to his wife, as being in fraud of the rights of creditors. The court below dismissed the bill; whereupon the assignee appealed here.
The facts upon which the decision of the court is based are set forth in its opinion.
Mr. Thomas C. Fullerton and Mr. F. P. Ward for the appellant.
No counsel appeared for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT 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
# Humes v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Humes v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Humes v. United States (170 U.S. 210)
* Humes v. United States (276 U.S. 487)
# Humes v. United States (170 U.S. 210)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
170 U.S. 210
Humes v. United States
There are eleven assignments of error The first part of the eighth and eleventh assignments relate to a failure on the part of the court to give certain instructions. The record does not show that there was a request for such instructions. The second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, part of the eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments relate to alleged error in the instructions given by the court. No exception is shown by the record to have been taken. The twelfth and thirteenth assignments of error are based upon the alleged fact that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The third assignment of error is based upon the refusal of the court to give an instruction which was requested.
The statement of the record is: 'The defendant asked the following special instruction, which was refused: 'Unless you find from the evidence that the defendant was the attorney, agent, or other person engaged in prosecuting the pension claims of Anderson, Haynes, and Bloodson, the court instructs you to find for the defendant.' 'I think I have given this instruction in the general charge, and, believing the charge on this point is sufficient full, further instruction is declined. Clark, J.' To which action and ruling of the court in so refusing to give said special instructions the defendant then and there excepted.' J. M. Greer, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States.
Mr. Justice McKENNA, after stating the case, 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
# Humes v. United States (170 U.S. 210)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
170 U.S. 210
Humes v. United States
We cannot regard as error the omission of the court to give instructions which were not asked. In Isaacs v. U.S., 159 U.S. 487, 491, 16 Sup. Ct. 51, Mr. Justice Brown said: 'It is no ground for reversal that the court omitted to give instructions, where they were not requested by the defendant. It is sufficient that the court gave no erroneous instructions. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 15; Railway Co. v. Volk, 151 U.S. 73, 78, 14 Sup. Ct. 239.' Nor are instructions which were given, but not excepted to, subject to review. Tucker v. U.S., 151 U.S. 164, 14 Sup. Ct. 299; St. Clair v. U.S., 154 U.S. 134, 153, 14 Sup. Ct. 1002.
We are confined, therefore, to the consideration of the second assignment of error. It is not well taken. As the court said in refusing it, the charge of the court was 'sufficiently full.' The court read to the jury section 5485 of the Revised States, and stated that the indictment was predicated on it. The statute provides that 'any agent or attorney, or any other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for pension or bounty land, who shall wrongfully withhold or wrongfully demand from a pensioner or claimant any portion of the pension or claim allowed, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor.'
And then, after explaining the indictment, and stating the rules of evidence, degrees of proof required, the court said: 'o w, with these general observations that are applicable and will be kept in mind by you throughout the case, we come to the testimony in the case, and in respect to that it appears from the statute, as you have observed, that it is necessary in order to make the case against the defendant [first] that he must have been the agent or attorney of the pensioner, or he must have been instrumental in the prosecution of the pension claim before he falls within the category of the persons who are subject to the provisions of the statute, and [secondly] he must withhold from the pensioner all or a part of what was due the pensioner claimant; so that two propositions are necessary to be established: The defendant was an agent or instrumental in the prosecution of the claim, and, secondly, that he withheld from the pensioner money that belonged to the pensioner, some part of the pension that was allowed.'
The language of the court was explicit and unmistakable. It is fuller and more elaborate than the instruction requested.
The alleged fact that the verdict was against the weight of evidence we are precluded from considering, if there was any evidence proper to go to the jury in support of the verdict. Crumpton v. U.S., 138 U.S. 361, 11 Sup. Ct. 355; Moore v. U.S., 150 U.S. 57, 61, 14 Sup. Ct. 26.
In this case there was certainly evidence proper to go to the jury.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

## 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
# Humes v. United States (276 U.S. 487)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 487
Humes v. United States (276 U.S. 487)
Argued: March 9, 1928. --- Decided: April 9, 1928
Under Revenue Act 1918, § 403, par.(a), subpar. 3 (Comp. St. § 6336 3/4 d), present value of contingent bequests to charities in will, as determined by combination and adjustment of mortality tables as to whether 15 year old girl would marry, or, if she did, would die without issue before age of 30, 35, or 40, is not deductible from gross amount in determining value of net estate in computing estate tax, since neither taxpayer nor revenue officer could do more than guess at value of contingency.
Mr. A. Lowry Humes, of New York City, for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 488 intentionally omitted]
Mr. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from page 489 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Humility, the Mother of Charity

Frail creatures are we all! To be the best, Is but the fewest faults to have:— Look thou then to thyself, and leave the rest To God, thy conscience, and the grave.
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
# Humility

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Humility."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Humility, a work by George Herbert
* Humility, a work by Andrew Murray
* Humility, a work by Christopher Smart
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/3/Counties/Grimes

​ GRIMES COUNTY was created by act of the Sixteenth General Assembly in 1876, embracing twelve townships lying in ranges thirty-eight, thirty-nine and forty in Pottawattamie County. The act provided in compliance with a provision of the Constitution, that the proposition should be submitted to a vote of the electors in Pottawattamie County at the general election of 1876. The division of the county was defeated at that election and the new county was never organized. It was named for Ex-Governor James W. Grimes, for many years a distinguished member of the United States Senate.
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/3/Counties/Hamilton

​ HAMILTON COUNTY lies in the fourth tier south of Minnesota and in the sixth east of the Missouri River. When first created in 1851 the county was named Risley. The Fourth General Assembly changed the name to Webster. At the same session Webster County was enlarged by consolidating it with Yell county which joined it on the west. In 1857 Hamilton County was created by taking from Webster the territory on the east formerly embraced in Risley. It was named for W. W. Hamilton, then president of the State Senate. The new county of Hamilton contained sixteen congressional townships making an area of five hundred seventy-six square miles. Webster City was made the county-seat.
​Wilson Brewer and Nathan and William Stanley were the first settlers within the limits of the county; they made claims on the Boone River in November, 1850, where Brewer and William Frake laid out a town which they named Newcastle. In 1851 Peter Lyon, Isaac Hook, S. Bell and Jacob Crooks settled along the Boone River. The first school was taught by John Hancock in a log cabin three miles north of Newcastle in the winter of 1854.
The first store in the county was opened by Isaac Hook in 1852 near the Des Moines River, at a place called Hook’s Point. The first physician was Dr. H. Corbin who located at Homer which was the county-seat of Webster when it embraced the present counties of Hamilton, Webster and a part of Humboldt and was at that time one of the best and most promising towns in northern Iowa. The division of the county, however, ruined its prospects. The county-seat was lost and for many years it was a deserted village fast going to decay. In 1856 Brewer and Frake sold their interest in Newcastle to Walter C. and Sumler Wilson who changed the name to Webster City.
In 1857 the county was organized by the election of the following officers: John D. Maxwell, judge; Cyrus Smith, treasurer; Charles Leonard, sheriff. The first newspaper was established in June, 1857, by Charles Aldrich and named the Hamilton Freeman. The Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad was built through the county from east to west on the line of Webster City.