OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Andrews (240 U.S. 90)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 90
United States v. Andrews (240 U.S. 90)
Argued: January 21 and 24, 1916. --- Decided: February 21, 1916
Assistant Attorney General Thompson for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 91 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George A. King, William B. King, and William E. Harvey for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice White 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
# United States v. Andrews (302 U.S. 517)

United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 517
United States v. Andrews (302 U.S. 517)
Argued: Dec. 8, 9, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Norman D. Keller, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Fred R. Seibert, of St. Marys, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# United States v. Sutton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 42
United States v. Sutton
This case was argued at the same time with the foregoing case, and the same questions were presented by the record. As the judgment of the court below in that case was in favor of the defendants, it follows that it must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

## 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
# United States v. Sweet (189 U.S. 471)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
189 U.S. 471
United States v. Sweet
Argued: and submitted April 15, 1903. --- Decided: April 27, 1903
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Franklin W. Collins for appellant.
Messrs. George A. King and William B. King for appellee.
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
# United States v. Sweet (245 U.S. 563)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 563
United States v. Sweet (245 U.S. 563)
Argued: Dec. 19, 1917. --- Decided: Jan 28, 1918
[Syllabus from pages 563-564 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful, for the United States.
Messrs. A. C. Ellis, Jr., W. H. Dickson, and Albert R. Barnes, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellee.
Arguments of Council on pages 564-566 intentionally omitted.]
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# United States v. Sutton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 42
United States v. Sutton
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for the United States.
No brief for defendants in error.
WOODS, 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
# United States v. Sweet

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Sweet."
* 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.
* United States v. Sweet (189 U.S. 471)
* United States v. Sweet (245 U.S. 563)
* United States v. Sweet (399 U.S. 517)
# United States v. Sutter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
62 U.S. 170
United States v. Sutter
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
It was a claim made by Sutter for land in California, under two different grants.
1. A claim for eleven leagues of land, alleged to be granted to him by Alvarado, on the 18th of June, 1841.
2. A claim for an additional quantity of twenty-two leagues, alleged to be granted to him and his son, John A. Sutter, by Micheltorena, on the 5th of February, 1845.
The board of commissioners confirmed both claims, and this decree was affirmed by the District Court. The circumstances of the case are so fully related in the opinion of this court, that it is unnecessary to repeat them.
It was argued by Mr. Black (Attorney General) and Mr. Hull for the United States, and by Mr. Crittenden, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Walker, for the defendant in error. The points made in the argument are mentioned in the opinion of the court, together with remarks upon them, which render it unnecessary to state the points more particularly.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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
# United States Reports/Volume 122

* 122 U.S. 1 (1887) Barnes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Railway Company
* 122 U.S. 21 (1887) State Nat Bank of Springfield Ill v. St Louis Rail-Fastening Co
* 122 U.S. 24 (1887) Hanna v. Mass
* 122 U.S. 27 (1887) Gibson v. Shufeldt
* 122 U.S. 40 (1887) The Driven-Well Cases
* 122 U.S. 71 (1887) Beedle v. Bennett
* 122 U.S. 79 (1887) St. Louis Railway Company v. Knight
* 122 U.S. 97 (1887) The Manitoba
* 122 U.S. 112 (1887) Parsons v. Robinson
* 122 U.S. 116 (1887) Bartram v. Robertson
* 122 U.S. 121 (1887) Topliff v. Topliff
* 122 U.S. 132 (1887) Warren v. Moody
* 122 U.S. 138 (1887) Davis v. Patrick
* 122 U.S. 154 (1887) Williams v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Albany
* 122 U.S. 167 (1887) Bullard v. Des Moines & Ft. Dodge Railroad Company
* 122 U.S. 176 (1887) Sanger v. Nightingale
* 122 U.S. 189 (1887) Tuttle v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Railway Company
* 122 U.S. 197 (1887) United States v. Auffmordt
* 122 U.S. 211 (1887) Benziger v. Robertson
* 122 U.S. 214 (1887) Wisner v. Brown
* 122 U.S. 220 (1887) Simonton v. Sibley
* 122 U.S. 231 (1887) Shepherd v. Thompson
* 122 U.S. 241 (1887) Drexel v. Berney
* 122 U.S. 256 (1887) The Hesper
* 122 U.S. 267 (1887) Porter v. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Company
* 122 U.S. 284 (1887) Seibert v. United States
* 122 U.S. 300 (1887) Minneapolis Gas-Light Company v. Kerr-Murray Manufacturing Company
* 122 U.S. 306 (1887) United States ex rel. Harshman v. County Court of Knox Co.
* 122 U.S. 320 (1887) Walter v. Bickham
* 122 U.S. 326 (1887) Philadelphia Southern Mail Company v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
* 122 U.S. 347 (1887) Western Union Telephone Company v. Pendleton
* 122 U.S. 360 (1887) St. Louis Railway Company v. Vickers
* 122 U.S. 363 (1887) Whitsitt v. Union Depot Railroad Company
* 122 U.S. 365 (1887) United States v. Maxwell Land Grant
* 122 U.S. 376 (1887) Merchants' Mut Ins Co v. Allen
* 122 U.S. 382 (1887) Adams v. Riley
* 122 U.S. 391 (1887) Goodlett v. Louisville N. Railroad
* 122 U.S. 413 (1887) New Process Fermentation v. Maus
* 122 U.S. 432 (1887) Gandy v. Marble
* 122 U.S. 441 (1887) Paxton v. Griswold
* 122 U.S. 450 (1887) Estes v. Gunter
* 122 U.S. 457 (1887) Travelers' Insurance Company v. Edwards
* 122 U.S. 469 (1887) Clinton v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
* 122 U.S. 478 (1887) Argentine Mining v. Terrible Mining
* 122 U.S. 487 (1887) Struthers v. Drexel
* 122 U.S. 496 (1887) Bean v. Patterson
* 122 U.S. 501 (1887) Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Muskegon National Bank
* 122 U.S. 513 (1887) Burlington Ry Co v. Dunn
* 122 U.S. 518 (1887) Morrison v. Durr
* 122 U.S. 519 (1887) Texas Transportation Company v. Seeligson
* 122 U.S. 522 (1887) Fisher v. Carrico
* 122 U.S. 528 (1887) McLeod v. Fourth National Bank of St. Louis
* 122 U.S. 535 (1887) Thorn Wire Hedge Company v. Fuller
* 122 U.S. 543 (1887) Runkle v. United States
* 122 U.S. 561 (1887) Chicago v. State of Missouri Guffey
* 122 U.S. 575 (1887) Shippen v. Bowen
* 122 U.S. 583 (1887) Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Kountz Line
* 122 U.S. 597 (1887) Denver Railway Company v. Harris
* 122 U.S. 611 (1887) Rice v. United States
# United States Reports/Volume 125

* 125 U.S. 1 (1888) Willamette Iron Bridge Company v. Hatch
* 125 U.S. 18 (1888) New Orleans Water-Works Company v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Company
* 125 U.S. 39 (1888) Kreiger v. Shelby Railroad Company
* 125 U.S. 46 (1888) Dale Tile Manufacturing Company v. Hyatt
* 125 U.S. 54 (1888) Felix v. Scharnweber
* 125 U.S. 60 (1888) National Bank of Redemption v. City of Boston
* 125 U.S. 70 (1888) Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield
* 125 U.S. 77 (1888) Cunningham v. Norton
* 125 U.S. 90 (1888) Davison v. Davis
* 125 U.S. 98 (1888) Weir v. Morden
* 125 U.S. 109 (1888) Tompkins v. Little Rock Fort S. Railway Williams
* 125 U.S. 128 (1888) Hartranft v. Langfeld
* 125 U.S. 136 (1888) Tilghman v. Proctor
* 125 U.S. 161 (1888) City of Chicago v. Taylor
* 125 U.S. 171 (1888) Cissel v. Dutch
* 125 U.S. 173 (1888) Potts v. United States
* 125 U.S. 176 (1888) United States v. Burchard
* 125 U.S. 181 (1888) Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Milling Company v. Pennsylvania
* 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Maynard v. Hill
* 125 U.S. 217 (1888) Hoskin v. Fisher
* 125 U.S. 224 (1888) Friedenstein v. United States
* 125 U.S. 240 (1888) Origet v. United States
* 125 U.S. 247 (1888) Southern Development Company of Nevada v. Silva
* 125 U.S. 260 (1888) Hannibal St. v. Missouri River Packet
* 125 U.S. 273 (1888) United States v. San Jacinto Tin Company
* 125 U.S. 309 (1888) Clement v. Packer
* 125 U.S. 337 (1888) Hartranft v. Sheppard
* 125 U.S. 339 (1888) State of Missouri Walker v. Walker
* 125 U.S. 345 (1888) Spencer v. Merchant
* 125 U.S. 361 (1888) Sage v. Memphis & Little Rock Railroad Co.
* 125 U.S. 382 (1888) Wall v. Bissell
* 125 U.S. 397 (1888) Williams v. Conger
* 125 U.S. 426 (1888) Washington Ice Company v. Wesbter
* 125 U.S. 447 (1888) Yale Lock Manufacturing Company v. James
* 125 U.S. 465 (1888) Bowman v. Chicago N W Railway Company
* 125 U.S. 525 (1888) Hartranft v. Oliver
* 125 U.S. 530 (1888) Western Union Tel Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
* 125 U.S. 555 (1888) Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad Company
* 125 U.S. 585 (1888) Bowerman v. Rogers
* 125 U.S. 591 (1888) Union Trust Company v. Morrison
* 125 U.S. 614 (1888) Dewolf v. Hays
* 125 U.S. 618 (1887) Doolan v. Carr
* 125 U.S. 646 (1888) United States v. Baker
* 125 U.S. 650 (1888) Nutt v. United States
* 125 U.S. 656 (1888) United States v. Strong
* 125 U.S. 658 (1888) St. Louis Company v. Cleveland C. C. I. Railway Company
* 125 U.S. 680 (1888) Dow v. Beidelman
* 125 U.S. 692 (1887) Bonahan v. State of Nebraska
* 125 U.S. 693 (1887) Addington v. Burke
* 125 U.S. 694 (1888) Shreveport v. Holmes
* 125 U.S. 695 (1888) East Tennessee Company v. Southern Telephone Company
* 125 U.S. 696 (1888) Royall
* 125 U.S. 698 (1888) Lyon v. Perin Gaff Manufacturing Company
# United States Reports/Volume 12

8 Cranch, ( 3 L.Ed. )
* 12 U.S. 9 (1814) Griffith v. Frazier
* 12 U.S. 30 (1814) Van Ness v. Forrest
* 12 U.S. 36 (1814) The Bank of Alexandria v. Herbert
* 12 U.S. 39 (1814) Marcardier v. The Chesapeake Insurance Company
* 12 U.S. 50 (1814) Hall v. Leigh and al
* 12 U.S. 53 (1814) The Common Council of Alexandria v. Preston
* 12 U.S. 55 (1814) Pleasants v. The Maryland Insurance Company
* 12 U.S. 59 (1814) McCall and al v. The Marine Insurance Company
* 12 U.S. 66 (1814) Smith v. Edrington
* 12 U.S. 70 (1814) Beale v. Thompson and Maris
* 12 U.S. 72 (1814) Clementson v. Williams
* 12 U.S. 75 (1814) Gracie v. The Marine Insurance Company of Baltimore
* 12 U.S. 84 (1814) Richards v. The Maryland Insurance Company
* 12 U.S. 84 Gracie v. The Mary'D Ins Comp'Y
* 12 U.S. 94 (1814) Crowell v. M'Fadon
* 12 U.S. 98 (1814) Beatty's Administrators v. Burnes's Administrators
* 12 U.S. 109 (1814) Harford v. The United States
* 12 U.S. 110 (1814) Armitz Drown v. The United States
* 12 U.S. 155 (1814) The Rapid Perry Master
* 12 U.S. 169 (1814) The Alexander Picket Master
* 12 U.S. 181 (1814) The Julia Luce Master
* 12 U.S. 203 (1814) The Aurora Pike Master
* 12 U.S. 221 (1814) The Adventure _____ Master
* 12 U.S. 229 (1814) John Green v. John Liter
* 12 U.S. 251 (1814) Carter's Heirs v. Cutting and Wife
* 12 U.S. 253 (1814) The Venus Rae Master
* 12 U.S. 317 (1814) The Merrimack
* 12 U.S. 335 (1814) The Frances Boyer Master
* 12 U.S. 348 (1814) The Frances Boyer Master
* 12 U.S. 359 (1814) The Frances Boyer Master
* 12 U.S. 371 (1814) Vowles v. Craig
* 12 U.S. 382 (1814) The Sally Porter Master
* 12 U.S. 385 (1814) The Euphrates
* 12 U.S. 388 (1814) The Mary Stafford Master
* 12 U.S. 398 (1814) The United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee
* 12 U.S. 417 (1814) The United States v. The Brigantine Mars
* 12 U.S. 421 (1814) The Thomas Gibbons
* 12 U.S. 431 (1814) Prince v. Bartlett
* 12 U.S. 434 (1814) The St Lawrence Webb Master
* 12 U.S. 444 (1814) The Hiram Barker Master
* 12 U.S. 451 (1814) The Joseph Sargeant Master
* 12 U.S. 456 (1814) The Grotius Sheafe Master
* 12 U.S. 462 (1814) Alexander and Other v. Pendleton
* 12 U.S. 471 (1814) Partt and of Others v. Carroll
# United States Reports/Volume 126

The "telephone cases" make up Vol. 126 ( 126 U.S. 1 thru 126 U.S. 1006 ) in it's entirety - there are no other opinions in this volume.
# United States v. Correll
## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 299
United States v. Correll
Argued: Nov. 14, 1967. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1967
Sol, Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, for petitioner.
William L. Taylor, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn., for respondents.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company (267 U.S. 281)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 281
United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company (267 U.S. 281)
Argued: Jan. 28, 29, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
This proceeding was instituted to recover the sum of deductions made by the United States from monthly bills rendered by appellee for the hire of tugs.
During 1917 and 1918, under informal charters evidenced by letters, appellee hired twelve tugs to the United States for use in and about New York Harbor. The specified price was 'for each and every day of the charter period,' and the owner agreed 'to furnish everything for these tugs with the exception of coal and water which you are to furnish.'
The vessels reported for service in accordance with the several contracts and the plaintiff rendered monthly bills at the per dim rate stated therein. Those for December, 1917, were paid as rendered. Thereafter deductions were made which amounted in all to $24,822.48. They were based upon the vessels' logs, kept by their captains and engineers as directed by the Army Transport Service, and were entered if a boat reported with a short crew, or not in condition to perform the service required, or if too long a time was consumed in taking on supplies. The owner saved its right through proper claims and protests.
While in the service of the United States the Ira M. Hedges sank. It was raised and repaired by and at the expense of the owner, and was subsequently used by them. One of the challenged deductions was for loss of time incident to this accident.
'During the time when the tugs hereinbefore mentioned were in the service of the government, the Army Transport Service had the entire use of the tugs and they were subject at all times to the orders and directions of the officers of the government, and at no time during the period did the plaintiff have the use of and [it] did not in any way interfere with or direct the operations of the said tugs.'
The United States maintain that the owner did not part with possession, command and navigation during the charter periods; that the charter was for service, and not a demise; and that consequently they rightly made deductions for the time the vessels were not at their disposal.
Relying upon the doctrine approved in United States v. Shea, 152 U.S. 178, 14 S.C.t. 519, 38 L. Ed. 403, the Court of Claims concluded that the charter amounted to a demise and that the deductions were not permissible. It accordingly sustained the claim of the owner, appellee here. Accepting the facts as found, we agree with that conclusion and affirm the judgment.

## 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
# United States v. Coronado Beach Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 472
United States v. Coronado Beach Company
Argued: March 1 and 2, 1921. --- Decided: March 28, 1921
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Garnett, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 473-482 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Peter F. Dunne, of San Francisco, Cal., for Coronado Beach Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 482-485 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Correll/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 299
United States v. Correll
Argued: Nov. 14, 1967. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1967
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice FORTAS, concur, dissenting.
The statutory words 'while away from home,' 26 U.S.C. § 162(a)(2), may not in my view be shrunken to 'overnight' by administrative construction or regulations. 'Overnight' injects a time element in testing deductibility, while the statute speaks only in terms of geography. As stated by the Court of Appeals:
'In an era of supersonic travel, the time factor is hardly relevant to the question of whether or not travel and meal expenses are related to the taxpayer's business and cannot be the basis of a valid regulation under the present statute.' Correll v. United States, 369 F.2d 87, 89-90.
I would affirm the judgment below.

## 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
# United States v. Corrick

United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 435
United States v. Corrick
Argued: April 6, 1936. --- Decided: May 18, 1936
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and John Dickinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Mr. George I. Haight, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# United States v. Cors
## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 325
United States v. Cors
Argued: Feb. 3, 4, 1949. --- Decided: June 13, 1949
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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
# Up from Somerset (Parlour Songs)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Oh, we come up from Somerset,
To see the Great Review;
There was Mary drest in her Sunday best,
And our boy Billee too.
The drums were rolling rub-a-dub,
The trumpets tootled too,
When right up rode His Majesty,
An' says 'An who be you?'
'Oh, we'm come up from Somerset,
Where the cider apples grow,
We'm come to see your Majesty,
An' how the world do go.
And when you're wanting anyone,
If you'll kindly let us know,
We'll all come up from Somerset,
Because we loves you so!'
Then the Queen she look'd at Mary,
'An' what's your name?' she said,
But Mary blush'd like any rose,
An' hung her pretty head.
So 1 ups and nudges Mary,
'Speak up and tell her, do!'
So she said 'If it please, your Majesty,
My name is Mary too!
An' we'm come up from Somerset,
Where the cider apples grow,
Where the gals can hem an' sew an' stitch,
And also reap and hoe,
An' if you're wanting any gals,
An' will kindly let us know,
We'll all come from Somerset,
Because we loves you so!'
Then the King look'd down at Billee-boy,
Before they rode away, 'An' what is he going for to be?'
His Majesty did say. So Billee pull'd his forelock,
And stood up trim and true, 'Oh, I'm going to be a soldier, Sir,
For I wants to fight for you!
For we'm come up from Somerset,
Where the cider apples grow,
For we're all King's men in Somerset, As they were long, long ago, An' when you're wanting soldier boys, An' there's fighting for to do,
You just send word to Somerset, An' we'll all be up for you!'
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 1929, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 94 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
# Up in the morning early

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Up in the morning early."
* 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.
* "Up in the morning early", song by Robert Burns
* "Up in the morning early", song by John Hamilton
# Up the Chimney

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Up the Chimney."
* 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.
* "Up the Chimney", submission to The Pearl.
* "Up the Chimney" in Popular Science Monthly, 45 (May 1894)
# Up from Somerset

1913 parlour ballad with words by Frederick Weatherly and music by Wilfred Sanderson. The song has been used in several advertisements.
* "Up from Somerset" in The Canadian Soldiers' Song Book (1917).
* "Up from Somerset" from the Parlour Songs website by Sarah Green (retrieved 2008).
# Up hill and down dale

* "U" in The Alphabet of Old Friends (1874)
* "Up the hill and down the vale" in A Book of Nursery Songs and Rhymes (1895)
# Up the Moselle

Serial article published in Once a Week.
* Part 1
* Part 2
* Part 3
* Part 4
* Part 5
* Part 6