OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Campbell v. Galeno Chemical Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 599
Campbell v. Galeno Chemical Company
Argued: April 25, 1930. --- Decided: May 26, 1930
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 600 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John Fletcher Caskey and Charles Dickerman Williams, both of New York City, for respondents.
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
# Campbell v. District of Columbia/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
117 U.S. 615
Campbell v. District of Columbia
Argued: April 12, 1886. ---
This judgment is affirmed. There was no evidence whatever in the case tending to prove that the work was done by Campbell otherwise than under the contract of O'Hare, Himber & Co. He took the place of that firm in the contract so far as the work he undertook to do was concerned. Davenport, one of its members, authorized him to do the work and receive the pay upon vouchers which he (Davenport) agreed to sign. It was upon this authority that Campbell entered upon the work with the permission of the chief engineer in charge. In this way he became bound by the terms of the contract. Under these circumstances, his acceptance of the allowance made by the chief engineer for all his present claims for extra work, as 'in full settlement of the above stated claim,' operated as a complete discharge of the District from all further liability to him on that account. The provision in the act of the legislative assembly of the District 'that this receipt shall not debar the above-named persons from any right they may have in any court' clearly applies only to the claim of Robert Strong & Co. As to all others named in the act 'the receipt was to be in full of all claims on account of the said work.'

## 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
# Campbell v. Francis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Array
27 U.S. 354
Campbell v. Francis
APPEAL from the circuit court of Washington county.
The matters in controversy in this case arose out of proceedings in the circuit court, under the mandate of this Court issued at February term 1815, in the case of Pratt and others vs. Campbell and others, reported 9 Cranch, 456.
In the circuit court, the appellants in this case filed their bill alleging that they had been injured by the proceedings under the mandate, 9 Cranch, 58, and that the court gave a decree against their claims, as set forth in the bill. From this decree they appealed.
The counsel for the appellants contended, that by the decree passed by the circuit court in the original cause, the appellants had sustained injury in the following particulars.
1. Of the thirty-six squares mortgaged to Law, thirty-two were attached and purchased by the appellant; and four squares therefore remained affected only by Law's mortgage.
Campbell was permitted to redeem his thirty-two, by paying their proportion of the whole of Law's debt; thereby making the four remaining squares bear also their proportion of Law's debt.
Admitting this to be right, it should have been decreed, upon the same principle, that if the parties did not redeem, the sale should be made so as to produce the same result-that is, the four squares not purchased by the appellant should have been sold first, and his thirty-two squares should only have been sold to make up the deficiency of Law's debt.
The court below put on these four squares only the sum of $2806.29, (much less than their proportion) and decreed them to be sold last; thereby saving them to Pratt and others, if the other squares produced enough to pay Law, and thus giving them a preference over the appellant, denied by this court in the original cause.
2. Of the eighteen squares mortgaged to Duncanson, thirteen only were attached and purchased by the appellant-consequently five remained; and these five the appellant contends, on the same principle, should have been sold first, and the appellant's thirteen only resorted to, to make good the deficiency under that mortgage.
It was contended that these errors can be corrected, by this Court's ordering that such of the said squares as have not been sold, shall be sold for the benefit of the appellant-and that the money received for such as have been sold, shall be decreed to him, or the sales rescinded.
3. The court below also erred in requiring the appellant to redeem from both mortgages, and decreeing that in case he did not redeem from both, the squares should be sold to satisfy both.
The case was submitted to the Court on the written arguments of counsel. Mr Swann and Mr Key for the appellants. Mr Jones for the appellees.
Mr Justice JOHNSON 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
# The Empire and the century/The Heritage

THE HERITAGE
By RUDYARD KIPLING
Our Fathers in a wondrous age,  Ere yet the Earth was small, Ensured to us an heritage,  And doubted not at all That we, the children of their heart,  Which then did beat so high, In later time should play like part  For our posterity.
A thousand years they steadfast built,  To 'vantage us and ours. The Walls that were a world's despair,  The sea-constraining Towers: Yet in their midmost pride they knew,  And unto Kings made known, Not all from these their strength they drew,  Their faith from brass or stone.
Youth's passion, manhood's fierce intent,  With age's judgment wise, They spent, and counted not they spent,  At daily sacrifice. Not lambs alone nor purchased doves  Or tithe of trader's gold— Their lives most dear, their dearer loves,  They offered up of old.
Refraining e'en from lawful things.  They bowed the neck to bear The unadorned yoke that brings  Stark toil and sternest care. Wherefore through them is Freedom sure;  Wherefore through them we stand From all but sloth and pride secure.  In a delightsome land.
Then fretful murmur not they gave  So great a charge to keep. Nor dream that awestruck Time shall save  Their labour while we sleep. Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year  Our fathers' title runs. Make we likewise their sacrifice.  Defrauding not our sons!
# Buckley v. Ohio

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 163
Charles E. and Robert E. BUCKLEY et al. v. OHIO by James V. BARBUTO.
Edward D. Wyner, for appellants.
Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, pro se, and Robert D. Macklin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Attorney General of Ohio.
James V. Barbuto, pro se.
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
# Bucklin v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Bucklin 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.
* Bucklin v. United States (159 U.S. 680)
* Bucklin v. United States (159 U.S. 682)
# Buckley v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
45 U.S. 251
Buckley 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
# Bucklin v. United States (159 U.S. 682)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
159 U.S. 682
Bucklin v. United States (159 U.S. 682)
Thos. T. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
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
# Buckley v. Durant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
BUCKLEY verʃus DURANT.
T
‘‘ plaintiff pay to defendant Ł.3 ; upon which payment being made,
‘‘ defendant to reftore to plaintiff certain articles, for Tower and
‘‘ Converfion of which the action was brought.’’ Judgment niʃe had been entered on this report, and now Auguʃt 13, 1785, Lewis, for the defendant, offered to ftate his objections to the confirmation of the report. Sergeant and Baukʃon objected to going into the argument, and infifted that judgment fhould be made abfolute, becaufe ​
1785.
no exceptions to the report had been filed in writing, which they contended ought to have been done, within four days from the entry of the judgment niʃe. Lewis admitted, that where the exceptions arofe from facts, fuch as mifbehaviour of the referrees want of notice &c. it was neceffary that they fhould be in writing ; but infifted, that where the objections arofe from the face of the report, as in the prefent cafe, and depended upon conftruction of law, there was no fuch neceffity. And accordingly the court permitted him to proceed.
He took three exceptions:
1ft. The act of Affembly giving references by rule of Court in actions depending, puts the report of referrees on the fame footing precifely with the verdict of a jury. Now, in Trovera a verdict can never be for reftoration of the fpecific chattles but for damages only, and fuch a verdict would be error : therefore he inferred the fame law in the cafe of a report.
2dly The report, on the face of it, fhews the action of the plaintiff to be legal—for Pawnee has a right to detain his pledge, until payment of the fum for which the pledge was given ; and until fuch payment, Pawner can have no action to recover the thing pawned, or damages. Now the report finds Ł.3. due from the plaintiff to the defendant, which at once defeats his right of action, and fhews that judgment fhould be for the defendant.
3dly A report fhould be fuch a (illegible text) as that the Court may give judgment and award execution thereon. Judgment cannot be for both plaintiff and defend at on one iffue ; and this report gives fomething to each—It is a report on both fides—Judgment and execution can be only for one.
the court inclined ftrongly to be of opinion with Lewis, particularly on the firft point ; but no judgment was given, that the parties might if they would accommodate the matter by a new reference : and, accordingly, it was afterwards referred d(illegible text)nero.
# Bucklin v. United States (159 U.S. 680)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
159 U.S. 680
Bucklin v. United States
Thos. T. Taylor, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for appellee.
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
# Buckley v. Ohio/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 163
Charles E. and Robert E. BUCKLEY et al. v. OHIO by James V. BARBUTO.
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is 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
# Bucklin v. United States (159 U.S. 680)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
159 U.S. 680
Bucklin v. United States
The appellant, Bucklin, was convicted of the crime of perjury, under section 5392 of the Revised Statutes, and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary for the term of 1 1/2 years, and also to pay a fine of $100. He seeks a review of that judgment by the present appeal.
The appeal must be dismissed. By section 5 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 826, c. 517), 'appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts or from the existing circuit courts' of the United States directly to this court, in certain enumerated cases, civil and criminal; among others, 'in cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.' There was no purpose by that act to abolish the general distinction, at common law, between an appeal and a writ of error. The final judgment of a court of the United States in a case of the conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime is not reviewable here except upon writ of error. Our review of the judgment, when brought here in that form, is confined to questions of law, properly presented by a bill of exceptions, or arising upon the record.
Appeal dismissed.

## 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
# The Green Singer

First published in The Sun, 10 September 1911
All singers have shadows That follow like fears; But I know a singer Who never saw tears; A gay love! a green love! Delightsome! divine! The Spring is a singer, An old love of mine.
All players have sorrows, And into the play Old sorrows will saunter— Old sorrows will stay. But here is a player Whose speech is divine! The Spring is a player, And old love of mine.
All singers grow heavy: The hours as they run Bite up all the blossoms, Suck up all the sun; But I know a singer Delightsome! divine! The gay love! the green love! An old love of mine.
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
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 1942, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 81 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
# The Green Rust/front matter

Layout 2
​Novels by EDGAR WALLACE
published by
WARD, LOCK AND CO., LTD.
The "Sanders" Stories
SANDERS OF THE RIVER
BOSAMBO OF THE RIVER
BONES
LIEUTENANT BONES
SANDI, THE KING-MAKER
THE PEOPLE OF THE RIVER
THE KEEPERS OF THE KING'S PEACE
Mystery Stories
THE DAFFODIL MYSTERY
THE DARK EYES OF LONDON
BLUE HAND
MR. JUSTICE MAXELL
THE JUST MEN OF CORDOVA
THE GREEN RUST
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE FROG
THE SECRET HOUSE
# The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily

English-language translations of Das Mährchen include:
* "The Tale" translated anonymously (1823) (transcription project)
* "The Tale" translated by Thomas Carlyle (1832) (transcription project)
# Brown v. Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library. Justice Fortas wrote the plurality opinion and was joined by Justice Douglas and Justice Warren. Justices Brennan and Byron White concurred. Justices Black, Clark, Harlan and Stewart dissented. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinions

    Brennan
    White

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 131
Brown v. Louisiana
Argued: Dec. 6, 1965. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 131-132 intentionally omitted]
Carl Rachlin, New York City, for petitioners.
Richard Kilbourne, Clinton, La., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FORTAS announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS join.

## 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
# Brown v. Jackson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
16 U.S. 449
Brown v. Jackson
16 U.S. 449
3 Wheat. 449
4 L.Ed. 432
BROWN
v.
JACKSON.
March 1818
ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Kentucky.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of certain lands in the state of Kentucky. To support his action, the plaintiff below showed the following title: a patent to Alexander Skinner; the will of Alexander Skinner, devising all his estate to Henry Lee; and a deed from Henry Lee to Adam Craig, conveying the tract of land in controversy specifically by metes and bounds, describing himself as devisee of Skinner; with a regular deduction of title from Craig to the plaintiff. The deed from Lee to Craig was dated the 23d of December, 1790; attested by three witnesses; acknowledged by the grantor on the 15th of December, 1795, before two justices of the peace in Virginia, and recorded in the court of appeals in Kentucky, on the 26th of July, 1796. The execution of this deed was proved by one of the subscribing witnesses. The defendant below produced in evidence a deed from Henry Lee to Henry Banks, dated the 5th of May, 1795, acknowledged before the mayor of Richmond, Virginia, on the 13th of May, 1795, and recorded in the court of appeals of Kentucky, on the 11th of July, 1796, granting 'all the right, title, and claim which he the said Alexander Skinner had, and all the right, title, and interest which the said Lee holds as legatee and representative to the said Alexander Skinner, deceased, of all land, lying and being within the state of Kentucky, which cannot at this time be particularly described, whether they be by deed, patent, mortgage, survey, location, contract or otherwise,' with a covenant of warranty against all persons claiming under Lee, his heirs and assigns.
Upon this testimony the defendant's counsel moved the court to instruct the jury, that by virtue of the deed aforesaid, from Lee to Banks, first acknowledged and first recorded, the legal title was vested in the said Banks to the land in question; that the deed under which the plaintiff claimed was not operative and valid against the deed to Banks, and that the said deed to Banks showed such a legal title out of the plaintiff as that he could not maintain his action. The question of fact, whether the deed of Lee to Craig was duly executed on the day it bears date was left by the court to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the question of law arising in the cause. Judgment was thereupon rendered for the plaintiff by the court below, and the cause was brought to this court by writ of error.
The cause was argued by Mr. Talbot, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Swann, for the defendant in error.
Mr. Justice TODD 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
# The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha/Volume 3

THE HOLY BIBLE
CONTAINING THE OLD & NEW TESTAMENT & THE APOCRYPHA
VOLUME THREE SAINT MATTHEW TO REVELATION THE APOCRYPHA
THE BALLANTYNE PRESS LONDON AND EDINBURGH
(Improve this image)
CHRIST AND THE SINNER
Etched by Em. Laitin, after the painting by H. Hofmann
THE HOLY BIBLE TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD MDCXI
Printed by BALLANTYNE & COMPANY LTD AT THE BALLANTYNE PRESS London
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Feith, Rhijnvis

Edition of 1920. See also Rhijnvis Feith on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
FEITH, fīt, Rhijnvis, Dutch poet: b. Zwoll, Over-Yessel, 7 Feb. 1753; d. there, 8 Feb. 1824. He was made burgomaster and afterward receiver at the admiralty college in Zwoll, but did not cease to cultivate the art of poetry and to enrich Dutch literature. He tried his powers in almost every department of poetry. In his earlier years he was too much inclined to the pensive and sentimental style. It predominates particularly in his romance ‘Ferdinand and
Constantia’ (1785), and, through his example, has for a long time prevailed in Holland. His ‘Grave’ (Het Graf 1792) is the first distinguished didactic poem since the revival of Dutch poetry. His ‘Old Age’ (De Ouderdom) appeared 1802. Among his lyric poems, ‘Oden en Gedichten’ (1798), are several hymns and odes distinguished for great elevation and feeling. His ode on ‘Ruyter’ is very celebrated. He also made that naval hero the subject of an epic poem. The best of his tragedies are ‘Thirza’; ‘Johanna Gray,’ and particularly ‘Ines de Castro,’ His poetical ‘Letters to Sophia on Kant's Philosophy’ (1805) are a feeble effort of his old age. Among his prose works, his ‘Letters on Different Subjects of Literature’ (1784), contributed much to the dissemination of good taste, by their finished style and excellent criticisms.
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Feldmann, Leopold

Edition of 1920. See also Leopold Feldmann on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
FELDMANN, Leopold, lā'ō-pōlt feld'män, German dramatist: b. Munich, Bavaria, 22 May 1802; d. Vienna, 26 March 1882. In 1835 appeared his ‘Lays of Hell’; next the comedy ‘The Son on His Travels,’ which made a brilliant success at Munich. After five years in travel, chiefly in Greece, as correspondent of the Allgemeine Zeitung, in 1850 he settled in Vienna for life. His comedies were very popular in their day. Among them are ‘Free Choice’; ‘Sweetheart's Portrait’; ‘The Late Countess’; ‘The Comptroller and His Daughter.’