OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (304 U.S. 502)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 502
Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Company
Argued: April 6, 1938. --- Decided: May 31, 1938
Messrs. Samuel E. Cook, of Huntington, Ind., and Wm. Lemke, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Arthur S. Lytton, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
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
# Wright v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wright 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.
* Wright v. United States (108 U.S. 281)
* Wright v. United States (158 U.S. 232)
* Wright v. United States (302 U.S. 583)
See also United States v. Wright.
# Wright v. United States (302 U.S. 583)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 583
Wright v. United States (302 U.S. 583)
Argued: Nov. 16, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1938
Mr. Ashby Williams, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Sam E. Whitaker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 584 intentionally omitted]
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
# Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (311 U.S. 273)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 273
Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (311 U.S. 273)
Argued: Nov. 20-22, 1940. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1940
See 312 U.S. 711, 61 S.Ct. 445, 85 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Samuel E. Cook, of Huntington, Ind., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 274 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Arthur S. Lytton, of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Wright v. United States (108 U.S. 281)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 281
Wright v. United States
R. McP. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for defendant in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# Wright v. United States (108 U.S. 281)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 281
Wright v. United States
This was an action on a distiller's bond, to recover the difference between tax assessed according to the producing capacity of the distillery and those calculated on the reports of production. The defense was that a copy of the official survey had not been served on the distillers. Section 3264 of the Revised Statutes provides for a survey of the distillery by the collector and a written report thereof in triplicate, 'of which one copy shall be delivered to the distiller, one copy shall be retained by the collector, and one copy shall be transmitted to the commissioner of internal revenue, and the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller.' In Peabody v. Stark, 16 Wall. 240, it was held, following the rulings of the commissioner of internal revenue, that the distiller was not liable for the capacity tax until a copy of the survey had been delivered to him.
In the present case it appeared that no copy of the survey had ever been delivered to the distillers, but when the bond sued on was executed the distillers signed the following indorsement, written on the report of the survey which had been made: 'We hereby accept the within survey, and consider the same as binding upon us on and after this date, September 12, 1873. JOHN B. WRIGHT. THOMAS TUCKER.' The court below decided that this indorsement was in law a waiver of a delivery of a copy of the report to the distillers, and that the tax was consequently collectible. To this we agree. The language of the act is that 'the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller.' This is equivalent to saying that the survey shall be binding on the distiller when the copy is delivered to him. When, therefore, the distiller in this case accepted the survey and stipulated that it was binding on him, he in effect said that he would consider the survey as having effect without the formal delivery of a copy. This he might do. The judgment 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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 945)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 945
Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 945)
STATE OF MICHIGAN, complainant,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of Chicago et al.
No. 3, Original.
STATE OF NEW YORK, complainant,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of Chicago et al.
No. 4, Original. Supreme Court of the United States
December 17, 1956
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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 984)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 984
Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 984)
STATE OF MICHIGAN, complainant,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of Chicago et al.
No. 3, Original.
STATE OF NEW YORK, complainant,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of Chicago et al.
No. 4, Original.
Whereas an order temporarily modifying the decree in these cases has this day been made because of an existing emergency, 352 U.S. 983, 77 S.Ct. 385, and whereas other prompt action to relieve the emergency may be required during the modification period in furtherance of the order,
It is ordered that all such matters be referred to Mr. Justice BURTON, Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit, with power to act.

## 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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (355 U.S. 944)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 944
Wisconsin v. Illinois (355 U.S. 944)

## 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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (360 U.S. 712)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 712
Wisconsin v. Illinois (360 U.S. 712)
The motion of Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry for leave to file brief in Nos. 2, Original, 3, Original and 4, Original, as amicus curiae, is granted. The amended application of complainants for a reopening of the decree of April 21, 1930, in Nos. 2, Original, 3, Original, and 4, Original, is granted.
The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in No. 15, Original, is granted.
It is ordered that Honorable Albert B. Maris, United States Senior Circuit Judge, be, and he is hereby, appointed special master in each of these causes, with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The master is directed to hold hearings with all convenient speed, and to submit such reports as he may deem necessary.
The master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses, shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct.

## 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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 945)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 945
Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 945)
In view of the emergency in navigation caused by low water in the Mississippi River, Paragraph 3 of the decree in these causes issued on April 21, 1930, 281 U.S. 696, 50 S.Ct. 331, 74 L.Ed. 1123, is temporarily modified to permit the diversion to and including the 31st day of January 1957, from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence System into the Illinois Waterway and the Mississippi River of such amount of water not exceeding an average of 8,500 cubic feet a second, in addition to domestic pumpage, as the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, shall determine will be useful in alleviating the emergency with respect to navigation currently existing without seriously interfering with navigation on the Illinois Waterway, at such times and in such amounts as the Corps of Engineers shall direct. The entry of this order shall not prejudice the legal rights of any of the parties to these causes with respect to any other diversion of the waters involved. After January 31, 1957, all provisions of the decree entered on April 21, 1930, shall remain in full force and effect until further order of this Court.
Messrs. Vernon W. Thomson, Atty. Gen., and Roy G. Tulane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Wisconsin.
Messrs. Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., and Joseph J. Bright, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Minnesota.
Messrs. C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., and Larry H. Snyder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Ohio.
Mr. Herbert B. Cohen, Atty. Gen., and Lois G. Forer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State of Pennsylvania.
Messrs. Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., for the State of Michigan.
Messrs. Jacob K. Javits, Atty. Gen., and James O. Moore, Jr., Sol. Gen., for the State of New York.
Messrs. Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Illinois.
Messrs. Russell W. Root and Lawrence J. Fenlon, for defendant Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Messrs. John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., and John W. Inglish, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Missouri.
Messrs. Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., M. B. Holifield and David B. Sebree, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State of Kentucky.
Messrs. George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and Nat Tipton, Advocate Gen., for the State of Tennessee.
Mr. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., for the State of Louisiana.
Messrs. Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Dugas Shands, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Mississippi.
Messrs. Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., and James L. Sloan, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Arkansas.
Mr. Dayton Countryman, Atty. Gen., for the State of Iowa.

## 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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 984)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 984
Wisconsin v. Illinois (352 U.S. 984)

## 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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (360 U.S. 712)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 712
Wisconsin v. Illinois (360 U.S. 712)
[Syllabus intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William C. Wines, Asst.Atty.Gen., and Charles A. Bane (Messrs. Latham Castle, Atty.Gen., George E. Billett and Calvin D. Trowbridge, Special Asst.Attys.Gen., on the brief), for the Stat of Illinois.
Messrs. Stewart G. Honeck, John Reynolds, Attys.Gen., and Roy G. Tulane, Asst. Atty.Gen., for the State of Wisconsin.
Messrs. Miles Lord, Atty.Gen., Melvin J. Peterson, Deputy Atty.Gen., and Raymond A. Haik, Special Asst.Atty.Gen., for the State of Minnesota.
Messrs. William Saxbe, Mark McElroy, Attys.Gen., Robert E. Boyd and J. Harold Read, Asst.Attys.Gen., for the State of Ohio.
Mr. Thomas D. McBride, Anne X. Alpern, Attys.Gen., and Lois G. Forer, Deputy Atty.Gen., for the State of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Herbert H. Naujoks, Special Asst. to the Attorneys General.
Messrs. Paul L. Adams, Atty.Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol.Gen., and Nicholas V. Olds, Asst.Atty.Gen., for the State of Michigan.
Solicitor General Rankin (Messrs. Oscar H. Davis, John F. Davis and George S. Swarth, on the brief), for the United States, as amicus curiae in No. 15.
Messrs. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty.Gen., Richard H. Shepp, Dunton F. Tynan, Asst.Atty.Gen. (Mr. John R. Davison, on the brief for the Power Authority of New York), for the State of New York.
Messrs. Latham Castle, Atty.Gen. of Illinois, William C. Wines, Asst.Atty.Gen., George A. Lane, Lawrence J. Fenlon, Joseph B. Fleming, Joseph H. Pleck and Thomas M. Thomas, for defendants in Nos. 2, 3, 4.
Solicitor General Rankin, Messrs. John F. Davis and George S. Swarth, for the United States, as amicus curiae in Nos. 2, 3, 4.
Messrs. Sydney G. Craig and David M. Gooder, for Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, as amicus curiae in Nos. 2, 3, 4.
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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (388 U.S. 426)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 426
Wisconsin v. Illinois (388 U.S. 426)
On Joint Motion for Entry Entry of Decree.
DECREE.
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
# Wisconsin v. Illinois (355 U.S. 944)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 944
Wisconsin v. Illinois (355 U.S. 944)
v.
The STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of
Chicago et al.
No. 3, Original.
STATE OF NEW YORK, complainant,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of Chicago et al.
No. 4, Original.
Messrs. Stewart G. Honeck, Atty. Gen., and Ray Tulane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Wisconsin; Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., and Melvin J. Peterson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State of Minnesota; William Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Boyd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Ohio; Thomas D. McBride, Atty Gen., and Lois G. Forer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State of Pennsylvania; Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., and Nicholas V. Olds, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Michigan; and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., and John R. Davison, Sol. Gen., for State of New York, applicants-complainants.
Messrs. Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., of Illinois, William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen., Russell W. Root, Lawrence J. Fenlon, Joseph B. Fleming and Thomas M. Thomas, for defendants.
Mr. Frederick M. Rowe, for defendants State of Illinois and Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Solicitor General Rankin, Messrs. John F. Davis and David R. Warner, for the United States, as amicus curiae.
The application and motion herein are denied, with leave to renew the application and motion with allegations made more definite and certain as a basis for the relief sought.

## 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
# Yawcob Strauss and Other Poems/Yawcob Strauss

YAWCOB STRAUSS.
    I Haf von funny leedle poy,
       Vot gomes schust to mine knee;
    Der queerest schap, der Greatest rogue,
       As efer you dit see.
    He runs, und schumps, and schmashes dings
       In all barts off der house:
    But vot off dot? he vas mine son,
       Mine leedle Yawcob Strauss.
    He get der measles und der mumbs,
       Und eferyding dot's oudt;
    He sbills mine glass off lager bier,
       Foots schnuff indo mine kraut.
    He fills mine pipe mit Limburg cheese,-
       Dot vas der roughest chouse:
    I'd dake dot vrom no oder poy
       But leedle Yawcob Strauss.
    He dakes der milk-ban for a dhrum,
       Und cuts mine cane in dwo,
    To make der schticks to beat it mit,
       Mine cracious, dot vas drue!
    I dinks mine hed vas schplit abart,
       He kicks oup sooch a touse:
    But nefer mind; der poys vas few
       Like dot young Yawcob Strauss.
    He asks me questions sooch as dese:
       Who baints mine nose so red?
    Who vas it cuts dot schmoodth blace oudt
       Vrom der hair ubon mine hed?
    Und vhere der plaze goes vrom der lamp
       Vene'er der glim I douse.
    How gan I all dose dings eggsblain
       To dot schmall Yawcob Strauss ?
    I somedimes dink I schall go vild
       Mit sooch a grazy poy,
    Und vish vonce more I gould haf rest,
       Und beaceful dimes enshoy;
    But ven he vas ashleep in ped,
       So guiet as a mouse,
    I prays der Lord, " Dake anyding,
       But leaf dot Yawcob Strauss."
# Yawcob Strauss and Other Poems/To a Dressmaker

TO A DRESSMAKER.
    Oh! wherefore bid me leave thy side,
       Dear Polly? I would ask.
    How can I all my feelings cloak
       When in thy smiles I basque?
    Nay, " Polly-nay," I cannot go!
       Oh! do not stand aloof,
    When of my warm affection
       You possess, oh, wat-er-proof!
    Why will you thus my feelings gore
       By sending me away?
    You know it's wrong, of corset is,
       Thus to forbid my stay.
    It seams as though some fell disease
       Was gnawing at my heart,
    And hem-orrhage would soon ensue
       If we, perchance, should part.
    Then waist the precious time no more,
       But let the parson tie us
    Sew firmly that the marriage-knot
       Shall never be cut bias.
    In peaceful quietude we'll float
       On life's unruffled tide,
    Nor let the bustle of the world
       " Pull-back" as on we glide.
# Yawcob Strauss and Other Poems/Yankee Shrewdness

YANKEE SHREWDNESS.
    In a little country village,
       Not many years ago,
    There lived a real "live Yankee,"
       Whom they called "Old Uncle Snow."
    In trade he had no equal;
       And storekeepers would say,
    "We're always 'out of pocket'
       When Snow comes round this way."
    'Twas the custom of the villagers —
       Few of them being rich —
    To trade their surplus "garden-sass"
       For groceries and " sich."
    One store supplied the village
       With goods of every kind,
    Including wines and liquors
       For those that way inclined.
    A counter in the "sample-room"
       Was fixed up very neat;
    And after every "barter-trade"
       The storekeeper would "treat."
    Old Snow brought in, one morning,
       An egg fresh from the barn,
    And said, "Give me a needle:
       My woman wants to darn."
    The trade was made: the storekeeper
       Asked him to take a drink.
    "I'll humor him," he said, aside,
       As the lookers-on did wink.
    "Don't care, naow, ef I do," says Snow;
       "And, as your goin' to treat,
    Just put a leetle sugar in,—
       I like my liquor sweet.
    "And, say, while you're about it, —
       Though I don't like to beg,—
    'Twill taste a leetle better
       If you drop in an egg."
    "All right, friend," says the grocer,
       Now being fairly "caught,"
    And dropped into the tumbler
       The egg that Snow had brought!
    The egg contained a double yolk.
       Says Snow, "Here, this won't do:
    Give me another needle, 'Squire;
       This egg's the same as two!"
# Yawcob Strauss and Other Poems/Zwei Lager

ZWEI LAGER.
    Der night vas dark as anyding,
    Ven at mine door two vellers ring,
    Und say, ven I ask who vas dhere,
    "Git oup und git" — und den dey schvear-
                "Zwei lager."
    I says, "Tis late: schust leaf mine house,
    Und don'd pe making sooch a towse!"
    Dey only lauft me in der face,
    Und say, "Pring oudt, ' Old Schweizerkase,'
                Zwei lager."
    I dold dem dot der bier vas oudt;
    But dose two snaps set oup a shout,
    Und said no matter if 'tvas late,
    Dot dey moost haf "put on der schlate!
                Zwei lager.
    "Oh! go avay, dot is goot poys,"
    Mine moder says, "und schtop der noise:"
    But sdill dem vellers yellt avay;
    Und dis vas all dot dey vould say, —
                "Zwei lager."
    "Vot makes you gome I" mine taughter said,
    "Ven beoples all vas in deir ped:
    Schust gome to-morrow ven you're dhry."
    But dem two plackguards sdill did cry,
                "Zwei lager."
    "Vot means you by sooch dings as dese
    I go und calls for der boleese,"
    Says SchneigeH'ritz, who lifs next door:
    Dey only yellt more as pefore.
                "Zwei lager."
    " You schust holdt on a leedle vhile,"
    Says mine Katrina mit a schmile:
    "I vix dose shaps, you pet my life,
    So dey don'd ask off Pfeiffer's vife
                Zwei lager."
    Den righdt avay she got a peese
    Of goot und schtrong old Limburg cheese,
    Und put it schust outside der door;
    Und den ve didn't hear no more
                "Zwei lager."
# Yawcob Strauss and Other Poems/Vot I Like Und Don'd Like

VOT I LIKE UND DON'D LIKE.
    I Don'd dink mooch off dose fine shaps
       Vot lofe aboudt der schtreet,
    Und nefer pays der landlady
       For vot dey haf to eat;
    Who gifes der tailor notings,
       Und makes der laundress vait,
    Und haf deir trinks off lager bier
       All "put ubon der schlate."
    I don'd dink mooch off vimmin, too,
       Who dink it vas deir "schpeer"
    To keep oup vine abbearances,
       Und lif in " Grundy's " fear;
    Who dress demselves mit vine array
       To flirt ubon der schtreet,
    Und leaf deir moders at der tub
       To earn der bread dey eat.
    I don'd like men dot feel so pig
       Ven dey haf plenty geld,
    Who vas as Lucifer so broud,
       Und mit conceit vas schvelled.
    Who dinks more off deir horse und dog
       As off a man dot's poor,
    Und lets der schtarving und der sick
       Go hungry vrom der door.
    I don'd dink mooch off dem dot holdt
       So tight ubon a tollar,
    Dot, if 'tvas only shust alife,
       'Tvould make it shcream und holler.
    Vy don'd dey keep it on der move,
       Not hide avay und lock it?
    Dey gannot take it ven dey die:
       Der shroud don'd haf a pocket!
    I like to see a hand dot's brown,
       Und not avraid off vork;
    Dot gifes to dose vot air in need,
       Und nefer tries to schirk:
    A man dot meets you mit a schmile,
       Und dakes you py der hand,
    Shust like dey do vhere I vas born,
       In mine own vaterland, —
    Vhere bier-saloons don'd keep a schlate;
       Vhere tailors get deir pay,
    Und vashervimmin get der schtainps
       For vork dey dake avay;
    Vhere frauleins schtick righdt to der voik
       So schteady as a glock,
    Und not go schtrutting droo der schtreets
       Shust like a durkey-cock;
    Vhere blenty und brosperity
       Schmile ubon efery hand:
    Dot ist der Deutscher's paradise;
       Das ist das Vaterland.