OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Crawford v. Halsey/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 648
Crawford v. Halsey
Without undertaking to determine whether the court could properly entertain the motion for a new trial, and file an additional finding of facts, after the end of the term at which the judgment was entered, we decide that there is no error in the record as it now stands. The finding of the award of the amicable compounders, which appears both in the judgment as originally entered and in that finally recorded, must be taken as part of the findings of facts in the case; and the ruling of the court upon the right of Robert C. Crawford to contest the validity of the assignments must be taken in connection with the motion for a new trial which confined the objection to the assignment of April 7, 1874. As the court has found that there was an assignment to Parker as early as December 3, 1873, to which Robert C. Crawford, as one of the partners, was a party, and which was not within the prohibitions of the bankrupt law, it was clearly right to hold that he was not permitted to show that it was fraudulent as against his creditors. As to the assignment of April 7th, which was within two months of the date of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, the case might have been different. But as an assignment had been made before, which was valid both as against the assignees and Crawford himself, it was a matter of no importance that the one made afterwards was void under the bankrupt law. The rights of Crawford as purchaser of the claim were only those of the assignees in bankruptcy.
There can be no question here as to the fact of the assignment in December. That is settled by the finding of the court below, to the effect that 'the claim on which the suit is brought' was assigned. This disposes of all that is said in the brief of counsel as to the fact that the coffee, out of which the claim arose, had not been sold at the date of that assignment. As the assignment was made more than two months before the bankruptcy proceedings, it was not necessary that the assignees should be parties to the submission to arbitration. The title to the claim at the time of the bankruptcy was in Parker, and not in the bankrupts. Therefore nothing passed to the assigness, and there was nothing for them to submit. 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
# Crawford v. Hubbell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 419
Crawford v. Hubbell
Argued: November 8, 9, 1899. --- Decided: April 16, 1900
Messrs. Frederic R. Kellogg, Allan L. McDermott, Harvey L. Christie, and Dill, Seymour, & Baldwin for appellant.
Messrs. Charles Steele, C. B. Alexander, William D. Guthrie, and Theodore S. Beecher for appellee.
Mr. 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
# Crawford v. Haller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 796
Crawford v. Haller
John H. Mitchell, for motion.
S. S. Burdett, in opposition.
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
# Cuddy

United States Supreme Court
131 U.S. 280
Cuddy
J. A. Anderson, for appellant.
Sol. Gen. Jenks and Geo. J. Denis, Dist. Atty., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Cude v. State/Dissent Johnson

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Johnson
​JIM JOHNSON, Associate Justice (dissenting). The only penalty which the legislature saw fit to provide for the failure to compel certain children to attend school is contained in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1508 (Repl. 1960) as follows:
​. . . "Each day such persons violate the provisions of this act shall constitute a separate offense, and the penalty for the violation of such provisions shall be a fine not to exceed ten dollars [$10.00] for each offense."
This penalty has been administered against appellants not because they have refused to comply with the compulsory attendance law but because they have refused to comply with an administrative regulation which resulted in the school authorities prohibiting their children's attendance.
It is well settled that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused and courts are not permitted to enlarge the punishment provided by the legislature either directly or by implication. State v. Simmons, 117. Ark. 159, 174 S. W. 238.
While much of the logic contained in the majority opinion from a sociological standpoint appears to be unanswerable, nevertheless from a legal standpoint I have found no way to escape the conclusion that the trial court and this court on trial de novo on appeal are enlarging the penalty for failure to comply with the compulsory attendance law to an extent never dreamed of by the proper lawmaking body. In the absence of legislation to the contrary, I as a judge am not willing now or ever to say as a matter of law that the failure to comply with this one simple regulation of school administrative authorities constitutes such neglect of children so as to warrant the state administering the cruel and unusual punishment of depriving such children of their natural parents and depriving the natural parents of their children.
Some consolation may be derived from the fact that the children in the case at bar will be offered back to their parents when the State Welfare Department carries out the orders of the court. Even so, the precedent set here that permits the taking of the children at all is the vice that opens a Pandora's box which may haunt this court for years to come. In my view, one of the forseeable spectres is the unfettered interference by the ​State Welfare Department in areas where it has no legal standing whatsoever. In its apparent zeal to protect the immuned from the unimmuned I believe the majority has given meaning to the word neglect which no amount of rationalization can justify. This is the door that has been left open. History reveals that once a door is open to an administrative agency that door is not easily closed. Whose children under what pretext will be taken next? Will they be kept forever? For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.
# Cudahy Packing Company v. Minnesota

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 450
Cudahy Packing Company v. Minnesota
Argued: April 26, 1917. --- Decided: April 15, 1918
Messrs. Robert E. Olds, Frank B. Kellogg, and Cordenio A. Severance, all of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Lyndon A. Smith and William J. Stevenson, both of St. Paul, Minn., for State of Minnesota.
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
# Cudahy Packing Company v. Hinkle

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 460
Cudahy Packing Company v. Hinkle
Argued: Jan. 7, 1929. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1929
Messrs. J. Harry Covington, of Washington, D. C., and S. W. Brethorst, Thomas M. Askren, and Edward B. Palmer, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Mr. Levi B. Donley, of Olympia, Wash., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 461 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of 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
# Davison v. Davis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 90
Davison v. Davis
Marc Mundy, S. Shellabarger, and J. M. Wilson, for appellants.
Geo. F. Comstock and Alexander P. Humphrey, for appellee.
BRADLEY, 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
# Davis v. Wolfe

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 239
Davis v. Wolfe
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 12, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1923
Mr. Frank H. Sullivan, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Messrs. Sidney Thorne Able and P. H. Cullen, both of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Davis v. Wood/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
Lee, cited the opinion of the Virginia court of appeals, in the case of Pegram v. Isabel,a as to the admissibility of the record, in which a record was admitted.
Key, contra, contended, that both grounds were irrevocably closed against the other party. The first certainly; and the second equally so; as the evidence could not be admissible as prima facie testimony merely, but if admitted must be conclusive. The decisions in the state courts of Virginia are against the evidence of the parent's or other ancestor's freedom being conclusive in favour of a child. The case of Pegram v. Isabel is no authority here, for it was formerly considered and repudiated by this court in the decision alluded to.
Lee and Law replied, and cited 2 Washington's Rep. 64., and Swift's Law of Evidence, 13.
March 12th.
MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court, and stated, that, as to the first exception, the court had revised its opinion in the case of Mima Queen and child v. Hepburn, and confirmed it.
As to the second exception, the record was not between the same parties. The rule is, that verdicts are evidence between parties and privies. The court does

## 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
# Davis v. Williford

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 484
Davis v. Williford
Argued: May 4, 1926. --- Decided: June 1, 1926
Mr. Charles J. Kappler, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Davis v. Wood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
14 U.S. 6
Davis v. Wood
THIS case was similar to the preceding, in which the petitioners excepted to the opinion of the court below: 1st. That they had offered to prove, by competent witnesses, that they (the witnesses) had heard old persons, now dead, declare, that a certain Mary Davis, now dead, was a white woman, born in England, and such was the general report in the neighbourhood where she lived; and also offered the same kind of testimony to prove that Susan Davis, mother of the petitioners, was lineally descended, in the female line, from the said Mary; and it was admitted, that said Susan was, at the time of petitioning, free, and acting, in all respects, as a free woman; which evidence, by hearsav and general reputation, the court refused to admit, except so far as it was applicable to the fact of the petitioners' pedigree. 2d. That they having proved, that the petitioners are the children of Susan Davis, and that she is the same person named in a certain record in a cause wherein Susan Davis, and her daughter Ary, were petitioners against Caleb Swan, and recovered their freedom, the plaintiffs offered to read said record in evidence to the jury, as prima facie testimony that they are descendants in the female line from a free woman, who was born free, and are of free condition, connected with the fact that the defendant in this cause sold said Susan to Swan, the defendant in said record, which the court refused to suffer the petitioners to read to the jury as evidence in this cause.
Lee, for the plaintiffs in error, and petitioners, referred to the opinion of the court (DUVAL, J., dissenting) in the case of Mima Queen and child v. Hepburn, February Term, 1813, as to the admissibility of hearsay evidence, in a similar case, remarking that, unless the court was disposed to review its decision, it must be taken for law, and he could not deny its authority.
[DUVAL, J. The petitioners in that case were descended from a yellow woman, a native of South America. In this case they are descended from a white woman.]

## 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
# Contradiction

I have calmed me with the thought of nothingness– who know that none shall evermore escape From the world’s dream and stand illusionless.
In fancy I have leaned from Lethe’s edge– Knowing the driven dust will pass again When the tomb has broke its sealed and marble pledge.
And I have smiled at the idleness of love– Who find the swords of your unforgotten beauty Posted before, behind me, and above.
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 1961, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 62 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
# Contradictions

First published in The Muse Among the Motors (1904)
Longfellow.
The drowsy carrier sways  To the drowsy horses' tramp. His axles winnow the sprays Of the hedge where the rabbit plays  In the light of his single lamp.
He hears a roar behind,  A howl, a hoot, and a yell, A headlight strikes him blind And a stench o'erpowers the wind
 Like a blast from the mouth of Hell.
He mends his swingle-bar,  And loud his curses ring; But a mother watching afar Hears the hum of the doctor's car  Like the beat of an angel's wing!
So, to the poet's mood,  Motor or carrier's van, Properly understood, Are neither evil nor good —  Ormuzd not Ahriman!
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 1936, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 87 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
# Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996/Title II
## TITLE II — SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FAIRNESS
### Sec. 201. Short Title.

    This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996´´.

### Sec. 202. Findings.

    Congress finds that—
          (1) a vibrant and growing small business sector is critical to creating jobs in a dynamic economy;
          (2) small businesses bear a disproportionate share of regulatory costs and burdens;
          (3) fundamental changes that are needed in the regulatory and enforcement culture of Federal agencies to make agencies more responsive to small business can be made without compromising the statutory missions of the agencies;
          (4) three of the top recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business involve reforms to the way government regulations are developed and enforced, and reductions in government paperwork requirements;
          (5) the requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, have too often been ignored by government agencies, resulting in greater regulatory burdens on small entities than necessitated by statute; and
          (6) small entities should be given the opportunity to seek judicial review of agency actions required by chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.

### Sec. 203. Purposes.

    The purposes of this title are—
          (1) to implement certain recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business regarding the development and enforcement of Federal regulations;
          (2) to provide for judicial review of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code;
          (3) to encourage the effective participation of small businesses in the Federal regulatory process;
          (4) to simplify the language of Federal regulations affecting small businesses;
          (5) to develop more accessible sources of information on regulatory and reporting requirements for small businesses;
          (6) to create a more cooperative regulatory environment among agencies and small businesses that is less punitive and more solution-oriented; and
          (7) to make Federal regulators more accountable for their enforcement actions by providing small entities with a meaningful opportunity for redress of excessive enforcement activities
# Count Hannibal

... taken altogether, the book is one of his most successful productions. It must be confessed, however, that it smacks of formula, and scarcely strikes one as having obsessed the author. —From The Literary Digest, January 4 1902
COUNT HANNIBAL
[Front matter]
By the Same Author.
THE HOUSE OF THE WOLF.
THE NEW RECTOR.
THE STORY OF FRANCIS CLUDDE.
A GENTLEMAN OF FRANCE.
THE MAN IN BLACK.
UNDER THE RED ROBE.
MY LADY ROTHA.
THE RED COCKADE.
A MINISTER OF FRANCE.
SHREWSBURY.
THE CASTLE INN.
SOPHIA.
COUNT HANNIBAL
A ROMANCE
OF THE COURT OF FRANCE
BY
STANLEY J. WEYMAN
AUTHOR OF
"A GENTLEMAN OF FRANCE," "UNDER THE RED ROBE," "THE CASTLE INN," ETC.
LONDON
SMITH, ELDER & CO., 15, WATERLOO PLACE
1901
(All rights reserved)
PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.
SORORI
SUÂ CAUSSÂ CARAE
PIO ERGA MATREM AMORE
ETIAM CARIORI
HOC FRATER.
Contents.
* chapterpage
* I.Crimson Favours1
* II.Hannibal de Saulx, Comte de Tavannes13
* III.The House next the Golden Maid26
* IV.The Eve of the Feast33
* V.A Rough Wooing43
* VI."Who touches Tavannes?"53
* VII.In the Amphitheatre63
* VIII.Two Hens and an Egg74
* IX.Unstable85
* X.Madame St. Lo92
* XI.A Bargain102
* XII.In the Hall of the Louvre113
* XIII.Diplomacy126
* XIV.Too Short a Spoon139
* XV.The Brother of St. Magloire149
* XVI.At Close Quarters158
* XVII.The Duel164
* XVIII.Andromeda, Perseus being absent177
* XIX.In the Orléannais187
* XX.On the Castle Hill197
* XXI.She would, and would not206
* XXII.Playing with Fire216
* XXIII.A Mind, and not a Mind226
* XXIV.At the King's Inn237
* XXV.The Company of the Bleeding Heart248
* XXVI.Temper256
* XXVII.The Black Town263
* XXVIII.In the Little Chapter-house278
* XXIX.The Escape288
* XXX.Sacrilege!302
* XXXI.The Flight from Angers309
* XXXII.The Ordeal by Steel319
* XXXIII.The Ambush325
* XXXIV."Which will you, Madame?"338
* XXXV.Against the Wall349
* XXXVI.His Kingdom360
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 1928, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 95 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
# Daisy Miller: A Study (unsourced edition)

portrays the confused courtship of an American expatriate in Switzerland by a more sophisticated man. Her failure to grasp the social mores of the society she so desperately wishes to enter ultimately leads to tragedy. Originally published by Cornhill Magazine, the novel was pirated by Littell's Living Age and the Home Journal
* Part 1
* Part 2
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Daisy Miller (James)

* Daisy Miller: A Study, a story, first published in 1878; later published under the title Daisy Miller.
* Daisy Miller: A Comedy, a reworking of the story into a play; first published 1883.
# Dakin v. Bayly

United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 143
Dakin v. Bayly
Argued: Oct. 20, 1933. --- Decided: Nov 20, 1933
Messrs. Donald C. McMullen, of Tampa, Fla., and George B. Springston, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Melvin A. McMullen and Thomas Hamilton, both of Clearwater, Fla., 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
# Dakota Central Telephone Company v. South Dakota ex rel Payne

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
250 U.S. 163
Dakota Central Telephone Company v. South Dakota ex rel Payne
Argued: May 5 and 6, 1919. --- Decided: June 2, 1919
Mr.Solicitor General King, for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 164-170 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Oliver E. Sweet, of Rapid City, S. D., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 170-179 intentionally omitted]
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
# Davison’s Lessee v. Bloomer

* related portals: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
SUPREME COURT of Pennʃylvania:
DAVISON‘S Leʃʃee verʃus BLOOMER.
A
Hartly objected, that it would be better evidence to prove the execution of the deed by the abfent withnefs, not interefted ; and, therefore, this ought to be allowed.
Yeates contended, that if a witnefs is incapaciated either by his own act, or by the act of God, proof of the hand writing is fufficient ; as where a witnefs has been convicted of perjury.
by the court.—There is a cafe in Strange where a party, who was a witnefs to a bond, afterwards became interefted, and, although the proof of her hand writing was admitted, yet there muft, likewife, have been proof that the other witnefs could not be found. The beft evidence of which the cafe reafonably admits has not been offered ; and, therefore, we cannot allow the deed to be read on this occafion.
# Davy and the Goblin/Author’s dedication

The author dedicated the book to his son, Guy Wetmore Carryl.

### Author’s dedication

To Guy.
Dear little Boy, upon these pages find The tangled fancies of thy father’s mind, Born of the hours when thou, a little child, Throned on his knee in breathless rapture smiled, Hearing entranced the marvels that were told Of fay and goblin in the days of old. Would that the glamour of those cloudless days Might cheer thee still, what time the toilsome maze Of riper years hath banished fairy lore— And blithesome youth hath fled to come no more!