OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Malachi (Bible)

Malachi is a book in the Bible.
    For commentaries and encyclopedia articles, see Malachi.
English-language translations of Malʾaḫi include:
* Bible (Wycliffe)/Malachi (1380s)
* Bible (Tyndale)/Malachi (1526)
* Bible (Bishops')/Malachi (1568)
* Bible (Douay-Rheims)/Malachi (1610)
* Bible (Authorized Version)/Malachi (1611)
* Bible (King James)/Malachi (1769)
* Bible (American Standard)/Malachi (1901)
* Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)/Malachi (1917)
* Bible (World English)/Malachi (in progress since 1997)
* Bible (Wikisource)/Malachi (in progress since 2006)
* Bible (Literal Standard Version)/Malachi (2020)
# Malaria

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Malaria."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* "Malaria", an anonymous poem
* "Malaria", an article by Charles P. Russel
* "Malaria", an article by George Miller Sternberg
# Malat v. Riddell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 569
William MALAT et ux., Petitioners, v. Robert A. RIDDELL, District Director of Internal Revenue.
Argued: March 3, 1966. --- Decided: March 21, 1966
George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioners.
Jack S. Levin, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Malarin v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 282
Malarin v. United States
THIS was an appeal by Malarin and another, executors of Pacheco, from the decree of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District of California; the case being thus:
Pacheco claimed a tract of land in California, known as the Bolsa de San Felipe, or Sack of St. Philip, under a grant alleged to have been issued to him in October, 1840, by Alverado, then Mexican Governor of the department.
In 1852, he presented a petition to the Board of Commissioners appointed by the act of Congress of March 3d, 1851, to settle the respective rights of the United States and claimants under the former government, asking for the confirmation of his claim. He produced in support of it, before the board, from the archives of the former government, his petition to the Mexican Governor, Alverado, for the grant specifically of the Bolsa de San Felipe, the reports of the local authorities, and their proceedings thereon. He produced, also, a formal grant to him, signed by the Governor and attested by the Secretary of State, bearing date on the 4th of October, 1840, with a record of juridical possession delivered to him.
This record contained,--
A deed by Governor Alverado, dated October 14, 1840, reciting that Pacheco had solicited the land known by the name of Bolsa de San Felipe; and that the necessary steps and investigations having taken place, and been made in conformity with the law and regulations, he, the said governor, had granted to him the said land, subject to the approval of the Departmental Junta, and to certain 'conditions:' among these were two, thus expressed:
'He shall request the respective justice to give him juridical possession in virtue of this decree; said justice will designate the boundaries, at the limits owhereof the grantee shall, besides placing the land-marks, plant some fruit trees, or wild ones of some utility.

## 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
# Malachi

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Malachi."
* 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.
* A book of the Hebrew Bible; for versions, see Malachi (Bible).
* Halley's Bible Handbook/Malachi
* Malachi in Mikraot Gedolot (in progress since 2005)
* "Malachi ," (1895) a short story by Gilbert Parker
# M'Cluny v. Silliman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
15 U.S. 369
M'Cluny v. Silliman

## 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
# M'Creery's v. Somerville

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
22 U.S. 354
M'Creery's v. Somerville
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Maryland.
The case agreed, stated, that William M'Creery was seised and possessed of a tract of land in Baltimore county, in the State of Maryland, called Clover Hill, and died possessed thereof about the 1st of March, 1814. He had previously executed an instrument of writing, purporting to be his last will and testament, by which he devised the above tract of land to those under whom the defendant, Somerville, claimed; but it was witnessed by two persons only, and was, therefore, inoperative to pass lands in Maryland, the laws of which require three witnesses to a will for that purpose. W. M'Creery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph M'Creery, a native of Ireland, who is still living, and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane M'Creery, and Isabella M'Creery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States. The devisees under the will applied by petition to the Legislature of Maryland to confirm the will, and the Legislature, accordingly, without the knowledge or consent of the lessor of the plaintiff, passed an act for that purpose; saving, nevertheless, the rights of all persons claiming title to the lands devised, by conveyance from any of the heirs of W. M.'Creery. The action was brought to recover an undivided third part of Clover Hill.
Upon this case, judgment was rendered by the Court below for the defendant, and the cause was brought by writ of error to this Court. March 14th, 1823.
The cause was argued by Mr. Winder, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. D. B. Ogden, for the defendant, and continued to the present term for advisement. Feb. 3d, 1824.
Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

* ↑ He cited Co. Litt. 3 b. 1 Sidif. 193. 2 Bl. Com. 226. 249, 250. 257. Bac. Abr. Alien, C. 132. 4 Wheat. Rep. 453, 2 Mass. Rep. 179. to be in force in Maryland; and that statute, beyond all controversy, removes the disability of claiming title by descent, through an alien ancestor. The only point, therefore, is, whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject.
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
# M'Donald v. Smalley (31 U.S. 261)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 261
M'Donald v. Smalley
APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Ohio.
This case was argued by Messrs Vinton and Doddridge, for the appellants; and by Messrs Corwin was Bibb, for the appellees.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# M'Cutchen v. Marshall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 220
M'Cutchen v. Marshall

## 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
# M'Donald v. Smalley

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "M'Donald v. Smalley."
* 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.
* M'Donald v. Smalley (26 U.S. 620)
* M'Donald v. Smalley (31 U.S. 261)
# M'Cluny v. Silliman/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
March 13th.
Mr. Harper moved for a mandamus in this cause, to the defendant, as register of the land-office of the United States, at Zanesville, in the state of Ohio, commanding him to enter the application of the plaintiff, for certain tracts of land according to the provisions of the 9th section of the act of Congress, of the 10th May, 1800, entitled, 'An act providing for the sale of the lands of the United States, in the territory of the United States, northwest of the Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky river.' A rule to show cause had been obtained in the supreme court of the state of Ohio, (being the highest court of law or equity of that state;) whereupon the defendant appeared, and excepted to the jurisdiction of the court: but this plea was afterwards waived, and a case agreed between the parties, on which the court ordered the rule to be discharged. Mr. Harper now moved for a mandamus to issue from this court, upon the ground that the case was within the appellate jurisdiction of the court under the equity of the judiciary act of 1789; that, although the court had determined that it had no original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, yet it might have an appellate jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to such persons, where it had been refused by the highest court of law or equity of a state, in a case drawing in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States.
The motion was denied by 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
# Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects/Part 1

LIVES
OF THE MOST EMINENT PAINTERS,
SCULPTORS, AND ARCHITECTS.
PART FIRST.

## Index

* Cimabue
* Arnolfo di Lapo
* Niccolo and Giovanni of Pisa
* Andrea Tafi
* Gaddo Gaddi
* Margaritone
* Giotto
* Agostino and Agnolo
* Stefano and Ugolino
* Pietro Laurati
* Andrea Pisano
* Buonamico Buffalmacco
* Ambruogio Lorenzetti
* Pietro Cavallini
* Simon and Lippo Memmi
* Taddeo Gaddi
* Andrea Orgagna
* Tommaso, called Giottino
* Giovanni dal Ponte
* Agnolo Gaddi
* Berna
* Duccio
* Antonio Viniziano
* Jacopo di Casentino
* Spinello Aretino
* Gherardo Stamina
* Lippo
* Don Lorenzo
* Taddeo Bartoli
* Lorenzo di Bicci
# Luckenbach Company v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Luckenbach Company 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.
* Luckenbach Company v. United States (272 U.S. 533)
* Luckenbach Company v. United States (280 U.S. 173)
# Luckenbach Company v. United States (280 U.S. 173)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
280 U.S. 173
Luckenbach Company v. United States (280 U.S. 173)
Argued: Dec. 4, 5, 1929. --- Decided: Jan 6, 1930
Messrs. George A. King and William B. King, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Sisson, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 174-175 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# Luckenbach Company v. The Thekla

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 328
Luckenbach Company v. The Thekla
Argued: Nov. 20, 1924. --- Decided: Dec 1, 1924
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for Steamship Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 329-333 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles S. Haight and John W. Griffin, both of New York City, for the Thekla.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 334-338 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
# Luckenbach Company v. United States (272 U.S. 533)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 533
Luckenbach Company v. United States
Argued: March 11, 12, 1926. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1926
Messrs. C. C. Daniels and Peter S.C.arter, both of New York City, for appellant.
The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Galloway, for the United States.
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
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 128/Issue 1659/The Shadow

* THE SHADOW.
* "Come like shadows, so depart."
* "Macbeth;" Act IV.
* Across the inner sunlight of a soul
* A shadow fell,
* Whose ever-deepening gloom shut out the day,
* And seemed to swell
* Until the blackness of that midnight hour
* What tongue could tell?
* Faith's sun had set, — Hope's star forgot to shine.
* But Love drew nigh.
* Like some ill dream the mists of darkness fade
* Before her eye.
* And sun and star with clearer lustre grace
* The morning sky.
* Isabella M. Mortimer
* Golden Hour.
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1660/"Rose, in the hedgerow grown"

Rose, in the hedgerow grown,
Where the scent of the fresh sweet hay
Comes up from the fields new-mown,
You know it—you know it—alone,
So I gather you here to-day!
For here—was it not here, say?—
That she came by the woodland way,
And my heart with a hope unknown
Rose?
Ah, yes!—with her bright hair blown,
And her eyes like the skies of May,
And her steps like the rose-leaves strown
When the winds in the rose-trees play,—
It was here,—O my love, my own
Rose! Spectator.Austin Dobson
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 128/Issue 1659/Miscellany

​Alpine Scenery. — Not far from Monte Rosa, and separated from it by the broad sweep of a glacier, rises the Lyskamm, not much lower than the great mountain itself; next come twin heights, Castor and Pollux, and then what we must confess is our favourite of this range, the Breithorn. It has not quite the height of those we have mentioned, but it has a grandeur of rocky outline which others want, and which elevates it in the mind's eye far above actual measurement. Its vast precipices sweep in grand semicircular terraces across its summit and round its sides, and clasp between them mountains and valleys of snow which mimic the contortions and follow the curves of the strong arms which hold them in their close embrace. Next the eye rests upon a broad sweep of snow which rises gracefully to a rounded ridge and disappears, This is the Pass of St. Théodule; but soon the eye is drawn away from this high Alpine way to the Matterhorn, which rises a tower of snow-clad rock to a height five hundred feet less than Monte Rosa. But standing thus alone, and rising in one comiiaratively narrow mass with sides too steep to be smothered in snow, it seems higher and more commanding than all the rest. So Zermatt comes to be connected in the mind of the tourist with the Matterhorn rather than with Monte Rosa, which latter, indeed, does not show so well from this as from the Italian side. It is long before the eyes can turn away from this the chief range of the Monte Rosa group, but when they do another and only less grand scene presents itself. There stand the two enormous buttresses which run at right angles from the great range, and indeed shut in the valley by which we have reached Zermatt. Now we see what was but partially revealed during the two days we travelled from Visp hither. To the right of our then path rises, among others, that Weisshorn we caught a glimpse of at Randa, while to its left and separating it from the Sass Valley, which joins it at Stalden, rises that glorious cluster of mountains, the Mischabelhörn. And away between these two ranges, beyond our valley and across that greater one of the Rhone we have as yet but partially explored, rises a confused multitude of Alps too far off to be distinguislied and localized, but yet near enough to show what the other side of the Rhone valley has in store for us in the Bernese Alps. One, however, stands out so grandly among that distant range as to claim especial notice, and takes its place, as it were, with this its far-off brethren, and so the Nesthorn comes to rank among the sights of the Corner Grat.
The Month.
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 128/Issue 1659/My Song

* MY SONG.
* You ask a song,
* Such as of yore, an autumn's eventide,
* Some blest boy-poet caroll'd, — and then died.
* Nay, I have sung too long.
* Say, shall I fling
* A sigh to beauty at her window-pane?
* I sang there once, might I not once again? —
* Or tell me whom to sing.
* The peer of peers?
* Lord of the wealth that gives his time employ —
* Time to possess, but hardly to enjoy —
* He cannot need my tears.
* The man of mind,
* Or priest, who darkens what is clear as day?
* I cannot sing them, yet I will not say
* Such guides are wholly blind.
* The orator?
* He quiet lies where yon fresh hillock heaves;
* 'Twere well to sprinkle there those laurel-leaves
* He won, — but never wore.
* Or shall I twine
* A cypress? Wreath of glory and of gloom, —
* To march a gallant soldier to his doom,
* Needs fuller voice than mine.
* No lay have I,
* No murmured measure meet for your delight,
* No song of love and death, to make you quite
* Forget that we must die.
* Something is wrong, —
* The world is over-wise; or, more's the pity,
* These days are far too busy for a ditty,
* Yet take it, — take my song.
* Frederick Locker
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1660

LITTELL'S LIVING AGE.
| Fifth Series, Volume XIV. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | No. 1660. — April 1, 1876. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | From Beginning Vol. CXXIX. |
CONTENTS. :
| I. | A Century of Great Poets, from 1750 Downwards. Alphonse de Lamartine, | Blackwood's Magazine, | 3 |
| II. | La Bella Sorrentina, | Cornhill Magazine, | 20 |
| III. | The Royal Bengal Tiger. By the Rev. M. G. Watkins, M.A., | Fraser's Magazine, | 35 |
| IV. | An Unimportant Person, | Blackwood's Magazine, | 47 |
| V. | Old Q., | All The Year Round, | 54 |
| VI. | Rooks, | Chambers' Journal, | 57 |
| VII. | A Sermon of Buddha. Translated from the Pali Version of the Sûtra Pitaka, | Contemporary Review, | 60 |
| VIII. | Food in Nervous Diseases, | National Food and Fuel Reformer, | 63 |
POETRY. :
| His Love will Carry me, | 2 | The Old Friends, | 2 |
| "Violet delicate, sweet", | 2 | "Rose, in the hedgerow grown", | 2 |
| Miscellany, | Miscellany, | Miscellany, | 64 |
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 128/Issue 1659/Memories

* MEMORIES.
* "When the gray twilight softly spreads
* Her robe o'er earth and sky;
* When the far mountains' shaggy heads
* Are lost to human eye;
* When the tired bird at eve hath sought
* Sleep in the tuneless bower;
* When the last bee wings homeward, fraught
* With forage from the flower;
* When the dark pinewood dimly shews
* Its deepening tints of green;
* When in the west with crimson glows
* The sunset's closing scene —
* I watch the glimmering shadows kiss
* The threshold of the night,
* And o'er my heart a soothing bliss
* Falls in the waning light;
* And grosser thoughts that sternly cling
* To life's dull sober day.
* Leave me, as swallows on the wing
* Flit from our sight away.
* And soft as ripple on the lake,
* Within my bosom rise
* Half-whispered yearnings, that awake
* A thousand memories —
* Sweet memories, that only come
* To woo my waking dreams.
* When twilight shrouds the woodlands dumb,
* And slumbers on the streams —
* Of faces that I loved of yore,
* And songs the loved ones sang,
* And children's voices — heard no more —
* That through the greenwood rang.
* O spirit treasures, ye are mine,
* And to my heart belong,
* Yet linger not till I repine,
* Or sing a sadder song;
* But leave me while I still have power
* To catch the sunny glow
* Wafted from memory's blissful bower —
* The shrine of long ago.
* Chambers' Journal.
# Maynard v. Durham and Southern Railway Company

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 160
Maynard v. Durham and Southern Railway Company
Argued: Jan. 12, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1961
Mr. Charles F. Blanchard, Raleigh, N.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles B. Nye, Durham, N.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
# Maynard v. Durham and Southern Railway Company/Dissent Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Frankfurter Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 160
Maynard v. Durham and Southern Railway Company
Argued: Jan. 12, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1961
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, dissenting.
This case was brought here on a meager typewritten petition which invoked the Court's certiorari jurisdiction on the claim that the North Carolina Supreme Court had disregarded controlling federal standards for determining the validity of a release from liability under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. In reversing the North Carolina Supreme Court, this Court does not support the grounds on which review was urged. The oral argument dispelled such a claim and revealed, what the Court's opinion now recognizes, that the conflict between the state court and this Court turns on assessment of the trial testimony. This Court has repeatedly announced that the writ of certiorari is not to be employed to pass on matters of evidence and our Rule 19, 28 U.S.C.A., formally bars such an obvious misuse of our discretionary jurisdiction. Again and again we deny petitions for certiorari which merely raise disputed issues of fact. Instead of making cases arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act an exceptional class, Congress in 1916 explicitly withdrew Federal Employers' Liability cases from the Court's obligatory jurisdiction. 39 Stat. 727. For reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521, 524, 77 S.Ct. 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 515, I would dismiss this writ as improvidently granted. Doing so after argument has been had would serve to discourage petitions brought solely to review matters of evidence; to adjudicate the case on the merits by taking one view of the evidence as against another only encourages petitions that ought not to be filed here. See Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U.S. 387, 43 S.Ct. 422, 67 L.Ed. 712.

## 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