OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Gondibert: An Heroick Poem/Canto 3

CANTO the Third.
The Argument.
# Gondibert: An Heroick Poem/Canto 4

CANTO the Fourth.
# Gondibert: An Heroick Poem/Canto 19

CANTO the Fifth.
# Gondibert: An Heroick Poem/Canto 20

CANTO the Sixth.
FINIS.
# Foley v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 492
Foley v. Smith
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Mrs. Smith, the appellee, having sold to McHatton a plantation in the parish of East Baton Rouge, received from him notes for $70,000 of the purchase-money, secured by a mortgage on the property sold. One of these notes for the sum of $15,000 was placed by Mrs. Smith before due in the Bank of Kentucky for collection, and that bank forwarded it for the same purpose to the Citizens' Bank of New Orleans. The note was indorsed in blank by Mrs. Smith and by the Bank of Kentucky. Not being paid at maturity, it was duly protested, and in this condition remained in the Citizens' Bank for over seven months, when one McKnight, who had been acting as the agent of the Bank of Kentucky at New Orleans, took the note from the Citizens' Bank, and sold and delivered it for full value to Foley & Co. McKnight was supposed to have acted under a power of attorney from the Bank of Kentucky, which was not produced. He transferred the note by a public notarial act in writing, by which he professed to assign the note to Foley & Co., with all rights, remedies and mortgages to which the said Bank of Kentucky was or might be entitled as holder of the note, but without warranty on the part of said bank, except as to the existence of the debt represented by the notes.
When the other notes, falling due after the one above mentioned, had matured and were unpaid, Mrs. Smith instituted proceedings under the law of Louisiana to foreclose her mortgage; and under these proceedings the land was sold, and she became the purchaser. The sale did not bring enough to satisfy the remaining notes in her hands.
Foley & Co. intervened in these proceedings, and asked that the amount of the note which they held might first be paid to them out of the proceeds of the property sold. The court below dismissed their claim.
Mr. Miles Taylor, for Foley & Co., plaintiffs in error:
Mrs. Smith, by her own act, authorized and enabled the Bank of Kentucky to act as the owner of the note, without disclosing the fact that it was an agent; and in point of fact F. & Co. dealt with the bank in the character of a principal, and without having any reason whatever to suppose that it was not so in reality. Mrs. Smith is therefore liable, upon the principle, that of two innocent parties, the one shall suffer who, by his agent, causes the injury, and will in all such cases receive the least harm.
Mr. Durant, contra.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wallace, 110; Hunter v. Hudson River Company, 20 Barbour, 506; Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wendell, 348.
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
# Foliage

FOLIAGE
W. H. DAVIES
FOLIAGE
By the Same Writer
The Soul's Destroyer and Other Poems
Wrappers, 1s. nett; postage, 1d.
New Poems
Cloth, 1s. 6d. nett; postage, 1½d.
Nature Poems, and Others
Grey Boards, 1s. nett; postage, 1½d.
Farewell to Poesy
Grey Boards, 1s. nett; postage, 1½d.
Songs of Joy
2s. 6d.
FOLIAGE VARIOUS POEMS
BY WILLIAM H. DAVIES
LONDON
ELKIN MATHEWS, CORK STREET
1913
The Author thanks the editors of the following magazines for permission to reprint these poems: The English Review, Nation, Westminster Gazette, New Statesman, Nash's, Vineyard and the Odd Volume.
CONTENTS
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1940, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 83 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Folger v. United States/Dissent Field

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Field
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 30
Folger v. United States
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment of the court. I think that Mr. Folger was entitled to the difference between the five per cent given by the government and the amount he allowed to the purchasers.

## 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
# Foley v. Smith/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 492
Foley v. Smith
We cannot see how the Circuit Court could have rendered any other decree than that which it did, namely, to dismiss the appellant's claim.
The rule of law that he who takes a note overdue and dishonored, takes it encumbered with all the equities between the prior parties to it, is the law of Louisiana as well as of those States which have adopted the common law. This isw ell established by the numerous decisions cited in the brief of counsel for appellee filed in the Circuit Court.
Under this rule the purchaser from the Bank of Kentucky could get no better title than the bank had when it sold. It is conceded that it had no title whatever. The appellants purchased of McKnight, as agent of the Bank of Kentucky, and as the note was not the property of McKnight, or of the bank which he represented, appellants must show some authority for the sale from the real owner, or the sale is invalid. Such authority is claimed in argument to resultfrom the possession of the note by McKnight. But if mere possession by the person who professes to transfer a note were sufficient authority, there would be no difference, as regards its negotiability, in a note before its maturity and after its protest.
The appellants in this case relied upon the public act of transfer by McKnight, and if this was without authority, their purchase was void.
The principle is invoked by appellants, that in case of a loss of this kind, in which one of two innocent persons must suffer, that one should sustain the loss who has most trusted the party through whom the loss came. It is a sound principle, and its application to this case does not favor the appellants. If Mrs. Smith trusted the Bank of Kentucky with her note, it was for a purpose which was ended when the note was protested. By indorsing the note she did trust the bank with full power to dispose of it before due, although that was not intended, and she trusted the bank for the return of the money to her if the money had been paid. This trust the law implied. But her trust ceased, except as to the mere possession of the note as a bailment, after the note was protested. It was the appellants, who, with notice of the dishonor of the note, purchased it, who trusted the bank for the title, which it professed to sell.
It is to be remembered that the intervention of appellants did not claim a personal judgment against McHatton or Mrs. Smith on the note, but an appropriation of the proceeds of the sale to the payment of the note held by them.
As Mrs. Smith is the real owner of the debt due from McHatton, evidenced by the note in the possession of plaintiffs, there can be no equity in making her substantially pay the note out of the proceeds of the sale, or in postponing her just claim, to that of appellants, who are not innocent holders without notice.
DECREE 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
# Foley v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 667
Foley v. United States
Argued: Jan. 12, 1923. --- Decided: Jan 29, 1923
Messrs. Charles J. Pence, of Fredericksburg, Va., and L. T. Michener, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Melville D. Church, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
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
# Folger v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Field
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 30
Folger v. United States
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Walter H. Coleman and Mr. George F. Comstock for the appellant.
The Solicitor-General, 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
# Foley v. Harrison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
56 U.S. 433
Foley v. Harrison

## 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
# H.R. 3200/Division B/Title II
## TITLE II — MEDICARE BENEFICIARY IMPROVEMENTS

    Subtitle A—Improving and Simplifying Financial Assistance for Low Income Medicare Beneficiaries
       Sec. 1201. Improving Assets Tests for Medicare Savings Program and Low-Income Subsidy Program.
       Sec. 1202. Elimination of PART D Cost-Sharing for Certain Non-Institutionalized Full-Benefit Dual Eligible Individuals.
       Sec. 1203. Eliminating Barriers to Enrollment.
       Sec. 1204. Enhanced Oversight Relating to Reimbursements for Retroactive Low Income Subsidy Enrollment.
       Sec. 1205. Intelligent Assignment in Enrollment.
       Sec. 1206. Special Enrollment Period and Automatic Enrollment Process for Certain Subsidy Eligible Individuals.
       Sec. 1207. Application of MA Premiums Prior to Rebate in Calculation of Low Income Subsidy Benchmark.
    Subtitle B—Reducing Health Disparities
       Sec. 1221. Ensuring Effective Communication in Medicare.
       Sec. 1222. Demonstration to Promote Access for Medicare Beneficiaries with Limited English Proficiency by Providing Reimbursement for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services.
       Sec. 1223. IOM Report on Impact of Language Access Services.
       Sec. 1224. Definitions.
    Subtitle C—Miscellaneous Improvements
       Sec. 1231. Extension of Therapy Caps Exceptions Process.
       Sec. 1232. Extended Months of Coverage of Immunosuppressive Drugs for Kidney Transplant Patients and Other Renal Dialysis Provisions.
       Sec. 1233. Advance Care Planning Consultation.
       Sec. 1234. PART B Special Enrollment Period and Waiver of Limited Enrollment Penalty for TRICARE Beneficiaries.
       Sec. 1235. Exception for Use of More Recent Tax Year in Case of Gains from Sale of Primary Residence in Computing PART B Income-Related Premium.
       Sec. 1236. Demonstration Program on Use of Patient Decisions Aids.
# H.R. 3200/Division B/Title I/Subtitle D/Part 3
## PART 3 — TREATMENT OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS
### Sec. 1176. Limitation on Enrollment Outside Open Enrollment Period of Individuals into Chronic Care Specialized MA Plans for Special Needs Individuals.

    Section 1859(f)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
          ``(C) The plan does not enroll an individual on or after January 1, 2011, other than during an annual, coordinated open enrollment period or when at the time of the diagnosis of the disease or condition that qualifies the individual as an individual described in subsection (b)(6)(B)(iii).´´.

### Sec. 1177. Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment.

    (a) In General.—
       Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2011´´ and inserting ``January 1, 2013 (or January 1, 2016, in the case of a plan described in section 1177(b)(1) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009)´´.
    (b) Grandfathering of Certain Plans.—
          (1) Plans Described.—
             For purposes of section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(1)), a plan described in this paragraph is a plan that had a contract with a State that had a State program to operate an integrated Medicaid-Medicare program that had been approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as of January 1, 2004.
          (2) Analysis; Report.—
             The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide, through a contract with an independent health services evaluation organization, for an analysis of the plans described in paragraph (1) with regard to the impact of such plans on cost, quality of care, patient satisfaction, and other subjects as specified by the Secretary. Not later than December 31, 2011, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on such analysis and shall include in such report such recommendations with regard to the treatment of such plans as the Secretary deems appropriate.
# H.R. 3200/Division B/Title IV
## TITLE IV — QUALITY

    Subtitle A—Comparative Effectiveness Research
       Sec. 1401. Comparative Effectiveness Research.
    Subtitle B—Nursing Home Transparency
       Part 1—Improving Transparency of Information on Skilled Nursing Facilities and Nursing Facilities
          Sec. 1411. Required Disclosure of Ownership and Additional Disclosable Parties Information.
          Sec. 1412. Accountability Requirements.
          Sec. 1413. Nursing Home Compare Medicare Website.
          Sec. 1414. Reporting of Expenditures.
          Sec. 1415. Standardized Complaint Form.
          Sec. 1416. Ensuring Staffing Accountability.
       Part 2—Targeting Enforcement
          Sec. 1421. Civil Money Penalties.
          Sec. 1422. National Independent Monitor Pilot Program.
          Sec. 1423. Notification of Facility Closure.
       Part 3—Improving Staff Training
          Sec. 1431. Dementia and Abuse Prevention Training.
          Sec. 1432. Study and Report on Training Required for Certified Nurse Aides and Supervisory Staff.
    Subtitle C—Quality Measurements
       Sec. 1441. Establishment of National Priorities for Quality Improvement.
       Sec. 1442. Development of New Quality Measures; GAO Evaluation of Data Collection Process for Quality Measurement.
       Sec. 1443. Multi-stakeholder Pre-rulemaking Input Into Selection of Quality Measures.
       Sec. 1444. Application of Quality Measures.
       Sec. 1445. Consensus-based Entity Funding.
    Subtitle D—Physician Payments Sunshine Provision
       Sec. 1451. Reports on Financial Relationships Between Manufacturers and Distributors of Covered Drugs, Devices, Biologicals, or Medical Supplies under Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP and physicians and other health care entities and between Physicians and Other Health Care Entities.
    Subtitle E—Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections
       Sec. 1461. Requirement for Public Reporting by Hospitals and Ambulatory Surgical Centers on Health Care-Associated Infections.
# H.Con.Res.11 (117th Congress)/Title III

117th congress (2021-2022)

### Sec. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.

    (a) In General.—In the House of the Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution considered pursuant to section 2001 containing the recommendations of one or more committees, or for one or more amendments to, a conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or joint resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation instructions under this concurrent resolution.
    (b) Determination Of Compliance.—For purposes of this section, compliance with the reconciliation instructions under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.
    (c) Exception For Legislation.—The point of order set forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives shall not apply to reconciliation legislation reported by the Committee on the Budget pursuant to submissions under section 2001.

### Sec. 3002. RESERVE FUND FOR RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.

The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, or conference reports by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2021 to fiscal year 2025 or fiscal year 2021 to fiscal year 2030.
# H.Con.Res.15 (117th Congress)

117th congress (2021-2022)
117th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. CON. RES. 15
Expressing the sense of Congress that hydropower is an essential renewable resource and the United States should protect existing hydropower resources.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2021
Mrs. Rodgers of Washington (for herself, Mr. Newhouse, Ms. Herrera Beutler, Mr. Fulcher, and Mr. Simpson) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that hydropower is an essential renewable resource and the United States should protect existing hydropower resources.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That is the sense of the Congress that—
       (1) hydropower is a renewable resource for purposes of all Federal programs and is an essential source of energy in the United States; and
       (2) the United States should protect existing hydropower resources and increase substantially the capacity and generation of clean, renewable hydropower resources to address a changing climate and improve environmental quality in the United States.
# H.Con.Res.128 (116th Congress)

117th congress (2021-2022)
116th CONGRESS 2nd Session
H. CON. RES. 128
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1520 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following correction:
Amend the title so as to read: “Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes.”.
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
# Fruitless Remorse

Translated in 1883
When cruel deeds are done, in vain relents
The doer's heart, and mournfully repents.
So when a fire has raged, the smokes that rise
In useless lamntation drape the skies.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Frow v. De La Vega

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 552
Frow v. De La Vega
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas; the case being thus:
De La Vega filed a bill in the court below against Frow and thirteen other defendants, charging eight of them (including Frow) with a joint conspiracy to defraud him, the complainant, out of a large tract of land in Texas, by the use of a forged power of attorney purporting to be executed by the complainant, and by various conveyances and mesne conveyances, deraigning a false and fraudulent title from him. The defendants, other than Frow, all put in answers to the bill on the merits; but Frow's answer having been delayed (as he insisted, by misunderstanding, sickness, and other accidents), a decree pro confesso was taken against him at September Rules, 1868; and notwithstanding he afterwards prepared his answer and asked leave to file it (being in substance the same as the answers of the other defendants), yet the court afterwards, on the 23d of March, 1870, on application of the complainant, and against the protestation of Frow, made a final decree absolute against him, adjudging the title of the land to be in the complainant, and awarding to him a perpetual injunction as against the appellant. From this decree the present appeal was taken. After this final decree against the appellant, the court proceeded to try the issues made by the answers of the other defendants, and decided the merits of the cause adversely to the complainant and dismissed his bill. This fact was made to appear by the return to a certiorari sued out by De La Vega himself.
The question now was, whether the court in such a case as that mentioned could lawfully make a final decree against one defendant separately, on the merits, whilst the cause was proceeding undetermined against the others.
Mr. P. Phillips, for the appellant, argued that it was improper to have granted the prayer against a single defendant whose interests were all bound up with those of the other defendants.
Mr. T. J. Durant, contra, insisted that everything done had been done in accordance with the 18th Rule in Equity, prescribed by this court.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY 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