OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hogg v. Ruffner

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 115
Hogg v. Ruffner
Cross-appeal, from the decree of the District Court of the United States for the district of Indiana.
Nathaniel B. Hogg brought his bill in the Circuit Court against Benjamin Ruffner and several other defendants, who were collaterally interested. The bill avers that Ruffner made his nineteen promissory notes, for two thousand dollars each, amounting in all to thirty-eight thousand dollars, payable to the order of John W. Brice and James L. Birkey, with interest from their date, and that these notes were delivered to Brice and Birkey; that in order to secure the payment of the notes, Ruffner executed three mortgages to Brice and Birkey, and that some of the notes and so much of the mortgages as secured them were assigned to the plaintiff. The bill prays for a decree against the defendant that he pay the sum due upon the notes, and in default thereof that the mortgaged premises be sold. The notes were to become due as follows: two on January 1, 1856, and two on the 1st of April in each of the years 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865.
The answer of Ruffner is, that the notes and mortgages were given on a contract usurious and corrupt. He was in debt (as he asserts) in the sum of twenty thousand dollars to Brice and Birkey, who took these nineteen notes for two thousand dollars each, with interest, payable as stated in the bill; that he, the defendant, gave the notes and mortgages solely for the debt of twenty thousand dollars, and being much embarrassed and pressed for money, and seeing no other means to prevent the sacrifice of his property by an oppressive and inexorable creditor, agreed to the corrupt and usurious contract, and gave his notes for the extra sum of eighteen thousand dollars for the forbearance of the twenty thousand which were due.
The true character of the contract as proved in the Circuit Court will be found stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Grier

## 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
# Hogg v. Emerson (52 U.S. 587)/Dissent Catron

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Catron
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 587
Hogg v. Emerson
Mr. Justice CATRON.
To the opinion just delivered I dissent. I think the letters patent are for a single improvement on the steam-engine, and that the schedule has added two distinct inventions in addition; the one on the paddle to a wheel propelling machinery or a vessel of any kind in the water; and the second in applying the power of the shaft to turning a capstan by means of a cogwheel. These two claims are entirely independent of the improvement claimed in the letters patent actually granted; this is for inventing a piston and shaft which turn a wheel without employing a crank. And as this controversy depends on a supposed infringement of the improved paddle (which, in my judgment, is not covered by the letters), I therefore think that the suit cannot be maintained on the face of the letters.
Secondly, if these three distinct improvements had been claimed and granted in the letters, and described in the schedule, then the patent would be void, as I think, because no more than one invention, distinct and disconnected from others, can be granted in the same letters. Such is the construction that has been given to the legislation of Congress at the Patent-Office, and is supposed by me to be the correct one. If three independent inventions can be patented and monopolized together, so any number may be; by this means, the grant may cover many fictitious claims, with some valid ones, which latter will stand protected; so that little or no risk will be run by obtaining a grant for that which is not new; and by this mode of proceeding at the Patent-Office, fictitious claims may cover and assume to monopolize the ordinary implements now in use on the farm and in the workshop, and, yet more than is now the case, harass the public with fictitious and ill-founded claims to make and sell exclusively things in daily and extensive use. Although the claim may be fictitious, still this does not protect the public from harassment, as usually men using cheap implements cannot afford to litigate in the United States courts. It would be far better to allow the claim, unjust as it is, and pay the patentee his fraudulent demand, than incur the expense of a suit, which the patentee or his assignee may well afford to prosecute.
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
# Hohenlinden

'This poem was composed in the year 1802, and printed anonymously with "Lochiel," being dedicated to the Rev. A. Alison. It has been described as "the only representation of a modern battle which possesses either interest or sublimity."'—W. A. Hill, The Poetical Works of Thomas Campbell (1856)
* "Hohenlinden" in The Poetical Works of Thomas Campbell (1837) by Thomas Campbell
* "The Battle of Hohenlinden" in The Elocutionist (1815-1830)
* "The Battle of Hohenlinden" in The Elocutionist (1840-1850)
* "Hohenlinden" in Spouter's companion (1840-1850)
* "Hohenlinden" in The Reciter (1840-1850)
* "Hohenlinden" in Poems That Every Child Should Know (1904)
# Hogg v. Emerson (52 U.S. 587)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Catron
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 587
Hogg v. Emerson

## 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
# Hohegan International Corporation v. City of New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 764
Hohegan International Corporation v. City of New York
See 82 S.Ct. 168.
Gerald H. Ullman, for appellant.
Leo A. Larkin and Morris L. Health, 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
# Hohegan International Corporation v. City of New York/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 764
Hohegan International Corporation v. City of New York
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

## 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
# Hogue v. Southern Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 516
Hogue v. Southern Railroad Co.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia
No. 889. Argued: N/A --- Decided: April 1, 1968
Plaintiff under the Federal Employers' Liability Act who attacks a previously executed release on grounds of mutual mistake of fact is not required to tender back to his employer the consideration received for the release in order to maintain the action. Except as the release may otherwise bar recovery, the sum paid shall be deducted from any award determined to be due the injured employee.
116 Ga. App. 194, 156 S.E. 2d 412, reversed and remanded.
Samuel D. Hewlett, Jr., for petitioner.
Charles A. Horsky for respondent.
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
# Hood v. McGehee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 611
Hood v. McGehee
Argued: May 13, 1915. --- Decided: June 1, 1915
Mr. E. Howard McCaleb for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 611-613 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John P. Tillman for appellees.
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
# Hood Sons v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
307 U.S. 588
Hood Sons v. United States
Argued: April 25, 26, 1939. --- Decided: June 5, 1939
Messrs. Charles B. Rugg and Warren F. Farr, both of Boston, Mass., and Edward F. Merrill, of Skowhegan, Me., for petitioners H. P. Hood & Sons and others.
[Argument of Counsel from page 589 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John M. Raymond, of Boston, Mass., and John W. Redmond, of Newport, Vt., for petitioner Whiting Milk Co.
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for respondents.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# How to Know the Ferns (7th ed)/Chapter 5

NOTABLE FERN FAMILIES
OSMUNDA (Flowering Ferns)
Tall swamp ferns, growing in large crowns, with the fertile fronds or portions conspicuously unlike the sterile; sporangia opening by a longitudinal cleft into two valves.
ONOCLEA
Coarse ferns, with the fertile fronds rolled up into necklace-like or berry-like segments, and entirely unlike the broad, pinnatifid sterile ones. Fertile fronds unrolling at maturity, allowing the spores to escape, and remaining long after the sterile fronds have perished; sporangia stalked, ringed, bursting transversely.
WOODSIA
Small or medium-sized ferns, growing among rocks, with 1–2 pinnate or pinnatifid fronds and round fruit-dots; indusium thin and often evanescent, attached by its base under the sporangia, either small and open, or else early bursting at the top into irregular pieces or lobes; sporangia stalked, ringed, bursting transversely.
CYSTOPTERIS (Bladder Ferns)
Delicate rock or wood ferns, with 2–3 pinnate fronds and round fruit-dots; indusium hood-like, attached by a broad base to-the inner side, soon thrown back or withering away; sporangia as above.
ASPIDIUM (Shield Ferns)
Ferns with 1–3 pinnate fronds and round fruit-dots; indusium more or less flat, fixed by its depressed centre; sporangia as above.
PHEGOPTERIS (Beech Ferns)
Medium-sized or small ferns, with 2–3 pinnatifid or ternate leaves, and small, round, uncovered fruit-dots; sporangia as above.
WOODWARDIA (Chain Ferns)
Large and rather coarse ferns of swamps or wet woods, fronds pinnate or nearly twice-pinnate; fruit-dots oblong or linear, sunk in cavities of the leaf and arranged in chain-like rows; indusium lid-like, somewhat leathery, fixed by its outer margin to a veinlet; veins more or less reticulated; sporangia as above.
ASPLENIUM (Spleenworts)
Large or small ferns, with varying fronds and linear or oblong fruit-dots; indusium straight or curved; sporangia as above.
PELLÆA (Cliff Brakes)
Small or medium-sized rock ferns, with pinnate fronds and sporangia borne beneath the reflexed margins of the pinnæ; sporangia as above.
BOTRYCHIUM (Moonworts)
(Belonging to the Fern Allies)
Fleshy plants, with fronds (usually solitary) divided into a sterile and a fertile portion, the bud for the succeeding year embedded in the base of the stem.
# How to Know the Ferns (7th ed)/Chapter 6

HOW TO USE THE BOOK
Before attempting to identify the ferns by means of the following Guide it would be well to turn to the Explanation of Terms, and with as many species as you can conveniently collect, on the table before you, to master the few necessary technical terms, that you may be able to distinguish a frond that is pinnatifid from one that is pinnate, a pinna from a pinnule, a fertile from a sterile frond.
You should bear in mind that in some species the fertile fronds are so unleaf-like in appearance that to the uninitiated they do not suggest fronds at all. The fertile fronds of the Onocleas, for example, are so contracted as to conceal any resemblance to the sterile ones. They appear to be mere clusters of fruit. The fertile fronds of the Cinnamon Fern are equally unleaf-like, as are the fertile portions of the other Osmundas and of several other species.
In your rambles through the fields and woods your eyes will soon learn to detect hitherto unnoticed species. In gathering specimens you will take heed to break off the fern as near the ground as possible, and you will not be satisfied till you have secured ​both a fertile and a sterile frond. In carrying them home you will remember the necessity of keeping together the fronds which belong to the same plant.
When sorting your finds you will group them according to the Guide. The broad-leaved Sensitive Fern, with its separate, dark-green fruit cluster, makes its way necessarily to Group I. To Group II goes your pale-fronded Royal Fern, tipped with brown sporangia. As a matter of course you lay in Group III the leaf-like but dissimilar sterile and fertile fronds of the Slender Cliff Brake. The spreading Brake, its reflexed margin covering the sporangia, identifies itself with Group IV. The oblong fruit-dots of the little Mountain Spleenwort carry it to Group V, while the round ones, like pinheads, of the Evergreen Wood Fern announce it a member of Group VI.
The different ferns sorted, it will be a simple matter to run quickly through the brief descriptions under the different Groups till you are referred to the descriptions in the body of the book of the species under investigation.
# John Barleycorn (London)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
| Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter V Chapter VI Chapter VII Chapter VIII Chapter IX Chapter X Chapter XI Chapter XII Chapter XIII Chapter XIV Chapter XV Chapter XVI Chapter XVII Chapter XVIII Chapter XIX Chapter XX | Chapter XXI Chapter XXII Chapter XXIII Chapter XXIV Chapter XXV Chapter XXVI Chapter XXVII Chapter XXVIII Chapter XXIX Chapter XXX Chapter XXXI Chapter XXXII Chapter XXXIII Chapter XXXIV Chapter XXXV Chapter XXXVI Chapter XXXVII Chapter XXXVIII Chapter XXXIX |
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
# John Brent

This work is a work of fiction. The plot of the novel takes place in the United States in the middle of the 19th century. The scenes range from gold-rush era California, across the American West, and across the Atlantic to London. The work was published posthumously in 1865.

### Contents

* Chapter I • Auri Sacre Fames
* Chapter II • Gerrian’s Ranch
* Chapter III • Don Fulano
* Chapter IV • John Brent
* Chapter V • Across Country
* Chapter VI • Jake Shamberlain
* Chapter VII • Enter, the Brutes
* Chapter VIII • A Mormon Caravan
* Chapter IX • Sizzum and His Heretics
* Chapter X • “Ellen! Ellen!”
* Chapter XI • Father and Daughter
* Chapter XII • A Ghoul at the Feast
* Chapter XIII • Jake Shamberlain’s Ball
* Chapter XIV • Hugh Clitheroe
* Chapter XV • A Lover
* Chapter XVI • Armstrong
* Chapter XVII • Caitiff Baffles Ogre
* Chapter XVIII • A Gallop of Three
* Chapter XIX • Faster
* Chapter XX • A Horse
* Chapter XXI • Luggernel Springs
* Chapter XXII • Champagne
* Chapter XXIII • An Idyl of the Rockys
* Chapter XXIV • Drapetomania
* Chapter XXV • Noblesse Oblige
* Chapter XXVI • Ham
* Chapter XXVII • Fulano’s Blood-Stain
* Chapter XXVIII • Short’s Cut-Off
* Chapter XXIX • A Lost Trail
* Chapter XXX • London
* Chapter XXXI • A Dwarf
* Chapter XXXII • Padiham’s Shop
* Chapter XXXIII • “Cast Thy Bread Upon the Waters”
* Chapter XXXIV • The Last of a Love-Chase
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
# Hosford v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 404
Hosford v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
T. M. Marquett and Isham Reavis, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Hosford v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 404
Hosford v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
In this case I am instructed by the majority of the court to announce its opinion that the warranty concerning incumbrances includes only incumbrances created by the act or with the consent of the assured, and not those created by the law; and therefore the policy was not avoided by the omission to disclose the fact that 'delinquent taxes' on the premises for previous years were due and unpaid, although by the statutes of Nebraska taxes are made a lien on the real estate taxed. Judgment reversed, and case remanded to the circuit court, with directions to render judgment for the plaintiffs upon the special verdict.

## 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
# Hosmer v. Wallace

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 575
Hosmer v. Wallace
ERROR to the Supreme Court of California.
This was a suit to charge the defendant, as trustee of certain land in California, and to compel him to transfer the title to the plaintiff. The District Court of the State, in which it was brought, rendered judgment for the defendant. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed it, and the plaintiff has brought the case here. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Mr. S. F. Leib for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. George A. Nourse, contra.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Hospital Barge

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
Budging the sluggard ripples of the Somme, A barge round old Cérisy slowly slewed. Softly her engines down the current screwed, And chuckled softly with contented hum, Till fairy tinklings struck their croonings dumb. The waters rumpling at the stern subdued; The lock-gate took her bulging amplitude; Gently from out the gurgling lock she swum.
One reading by that calm bank shaded eyes To watch her lessening westward quietly. Then, as she neared the bend, her funnel screamed. And that long lamentation made him wise How unto Avalon, in agony, Kings passed in the dark barge, which Merlin dreamed.
# Hoskin v. Fisher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 217
Hoskin v. Fisher
M. A. Wheaton, for appellants.
J. P. Langhorne and John H. Miller, for appellees.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## 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
# Johnson Et Al v. Moses Et Al

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 994
Johnson et al. v. Moses et al.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
No. 71-319
Motion of Investment Company Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 445 F. 2d 369.

## 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
# Johnson Oil Refining Company v. Oklahoma ex rel. Mitchell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 158
Johnson Oil Refining Company v. Oklahoma ex rel. Mitchell
Argued: Oct. 17, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
Appeals from the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
Messrs. A. A. Davidson and Preston C. West, both of Tulsa, Okl., and Charles Y. Freeman and J. F. Dammann, both of Chicago, Ill., and J. A. McCollum, of Pawnee, Okl., for petitioner.
Messrs. Ed. Waite Clark, of Pawnee, Okl., J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., Carl D. McGee, Co. Atty., of Pawnee, Okl., and F. M. Dudley, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# Johnson Higgins of California v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
287 U.S. 459
Johnson Higgins of California v. United States
Argued: Dec. 9, 1932. --- Decided: Dec 19, 1932
Mr. Cletus Keating, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# Johnson's Style (Wolcot)

I own I like not Johnson's turgid style, That gives an inch the importance of a mile, Casts of manure a wagon-load around, To raise a simple daisy from the ground; Uplifts the club of Hercules—for what? To crush a butterfly or brain a gnat; Creates a whirlwind from the earth, to draw A goose's feather or exalt a straw; Sets wheels on wheels in motion—such a clatter, To force up one poor nipperkin of water; Bids ocean labor with tremendous roar, To heave a cockle-shell upon the shore; Alike in every theme his pompous art, Heaven's awful thunder or a rumbling cart!
# Johnson Et Al v. Moses Et Al/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 994
JOHNSON ET AL. v. MOSES ET AL.
Motion of Investment Company Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 445 F.2d 369.

## 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
# Jones v. St. Louis Land & Cattle Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 355
Jones v. St. Louis Land & Cattle Company
Argued: and submitted January 27, 1914. --- Decided: February 24, 1914
Mr. Andrieus A. Jones for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 355-357 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles A. Spiess and S. B. Davis, Jr., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 357 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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