OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# House v. Road Improvement District No. 2 of Conway County/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 175
House v. Road Improvement District No. 2 of Conway County
Argued: Oct. 17, 20, 1924. --- Decided: Nov 17, 1924
Both of these writs must be dismissed.
No. 92.
The only ground suggested to sustain the writ in this cause is that Act No. 245, Arkansas Legislature of 1919, which established road district No. 2 of Conway county, was duly challenged as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a challenge must be distinct and substantial.
The act undertook to create the district with boundaries which include plaintiff's lands and specified the proceedings for assessing benefits to meet necessary costs. Her lands were assessed as provided. Some months thereafter, by a bill in equity, she claimed insufficient notice and asked relief from both assessment and consequent penalties; also that the commissioner's plans should be declared null and she be heard as to the merits of any assessment. She offered to pay any sum the court might find just and equitable.
The bill alleges that the statute authorized and the commissioners gave only 17 days' notice of the assessment, by publication, that she had no actual notice, and that the publication failed sufficiently to describe her lands. For these reasons she maintained the act did not provide due process of law and violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, having considered the objections, held that the statute allowed twenty-eight days after the first publication during which time petitioner might have objected to the assessment, and declared this was adequate; also that when read in connection with the statute the notice sufficiently described the lands. Plaintiff in error now insists that the act is null because it prescribes insufficient notice and description of the assessed lands.
Accepting the statute as construed by the state court, the suggested objections to its validity appear to us wholly wanting in merit.
No. 93.
This cause grew out of the creation of district No. 5, Conway county, by act No. 245, and assessment for benefits thereunder. With one exception the questions now raised are the same as those in cause No. 92. As an additional ground for challenging the statute plaintiff in error claims that it is arbitrary and beyond the power of the Legislature because the proposed improvement could not benefit plaintiff's lands, while other lands actually benefited were not included. The record does not show that this objection was placed upon any federal ground in the courts below; but, assuming that the point was properly made, we think it is clearly without merit. Houck v. Little River District, 239 U.S. 254, 265, 36 S.C.t. 58, 60 L. Ed. 266; Miller & Lux v. Sacramento Drainage District, 256 U.S. 129, 130, 41 S.C.t. 404, 65 L. Ed. 859; Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester County, 261 U.S. 155, 163, 164, 43 S.C.t. 261, 67 L. Ed. 585.

## 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
# Hand in Hand/A Child's Thought

A CHILD'S THOUGHT
THE world is full of happy words, And kind and pleasant people, The forests have their trees and birds, The churches have their steeple. The steeples have their silver bells, That chime for brides and parted, And cities have their crystal wells, Where drink the thirsty-hearted.
# Hand in Hand/A Frequent Thought

A FREQUENT THOUGHT
I WENT to gather roses, but could not find a flower, I sought my orchard closes, but all the fruit was sour. A cold wind nips my posies, when comes the blossom-hour? Ah, my grief!
The wind is blowing chilly, when will the fruit be riper? My feet dance willy-nilly, but who's to pay the piper? I stooped to pluck a lily, my fingers met a viper! What relief?
# Hand in Hand/A Man's Thought

A MAN'S THOUGHT
I SOUGHT one snare that might enmesh, One spell to sway the perfect whole; The rose and lily of set flesh, The dew and fire of her soul. Poor finite Love! that still must crave, And vainly crave the full control: This rose has blossomed on her grave, That star is brighter for her soul.
# Hand in Hand/A Dream Thought

A DREAM THOUGHT
THESE words in dream I knew,— "Flesh shrinks from Spirit, true, Yet may not Soul in you Speak to my Soul? While your faint body dreams, Meet me by mystic streams, Learn all that is, but seems. Seeming is still the whole."
# Hand in Hand/A Little Sin

A Little Sin
POOR little lonely Sin! He wept before my door, His tattered robe was thin, His feet were sore. The night was wild, He seemed a child. One little lonely Sin! I said, "Come in, Yes, enter, little Sin."
We sat in gloom, Talking of many things; I heard within my room The sound of wings. It was my Angel leaving My house, and grieving. I was alone with Sin, Alone at night with Sin, With growing Sin.
Two others entered in, And small Sin grew! They were not one but two. Two mighty gloomy shapes, Like fiends, like apes, Followed the little Sin. No longer thin, No longer lonely, He rules me only. I am the thrall of Sin.
He wrecks my home. All, all against my will He rules me still. When will my Angel come? I am alone with Sin— The little lonely Sin, That was so thin, When first he entered in; Now mighty ruling Sin!
# Hand in Hand/A Girl's Thought

A GIRL'S THOUGHT
I THOUGHT we had a lifetime at the least To spend together: And so I sat me laughing at my feast While my Love faced bad weather. There would be time to recompense all sorrow, He should be sad to-day, and glad tomorrow; So he set forth, unkissed, upon his way, And he died, yesterday.
# Hand in Hand/A Glimpse of the Moon

A GLIMPSE OF THE MOON
ON the lawn a white ghost lingers, Just beyond the pansy bed, And it beckons with long fingers, And it motions with its head. It’s a pear tree in the noonlight, But the snowy blossomed tree Turns a spectre in the moonlight, And it beckons, beckons me!
# Hand in Hand/A Night Thought

A NIGHT THOUGHT
SO many deeds undone, Of worth and good, A noble race unrun, Sin not withstood. So many gifts of grace, Dully denied: Choose then the outer place, Stand then aside.
# Hand in Hand/A Coward Heart

A Coward Heart
SUPPOSE that once, and only once, my feet, Straying from beaten pathways of the plain, Had scaled forbidden mountain heights, and fleet To escape pursuit, had scorned fatigue and pain, And climbing ever higher, reached at length Some topmost pinnacle, whence, looking down, I saw no glimmer of the household fire, And caught no echo of familiar tone, Light, warmth, and music, all for ever gone! Should I not swift descend the mountain slope With eager eyes, and straining ears, in hope To find again the welcome light and sound, Thinking no path so smooth as that I left?
I know it. Yet I pace this beaten track Reluctantly, and with uplifted gaze Turned ever to some unknown point o'er head, Dim in the distance, and all veiled and vague.
# Hand in Hand/A Passing Thought

A PASSING THOUGHT
JUST that man in the street, With his commonplace face; But, could one woman meet Just that man in the street, All her life would grow sweet, Full of glory and grace, Just that man in the street, With his commonplace face!
# International Journal of American Linguistics

The International Journal of American Linguistics is an academic journal published by the University of Chicago devoted to the study of the indigenous languages of the Americas. It was established in 1917 by anthropologist Franz Boas. IJAL focuses on the investigation of linguistic data and the presentation of grammatical fragments and other documents relevant to Amerindian languages. Warning: template has been deprecated.
(HathiTrust) IA
* Volume 1: 1917–1920 (transcription project)
** No. 1: 1917-07, New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie
** No. 2: 1918-05, New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie
** No. 3: 1918-08, New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie
** No. 4: 1920-12, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
* Volume 2: 1921–1923
** No. 1: 1921-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 2: 1921-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 3: 1923-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 4: 1923-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
* Volume 3: 1924–1925
** No. 1: 1924-07, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 2: 1925-07, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 3: 1925-07, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 4: 1925-07, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
* Volume 4: 1927
** No. 1: 1926-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 2: 1927-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 3: 1927-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
** No. 4: 1927-01, New York: G. E. Stechert & Company
# International Journal of American Linguistics/Volume 1

Edited by Franz Boas and Pliny Earle Goddard.

## No. 1 (July 1917)

* Introductory by Franz Boas
* /El dialecto mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca by Franz Boas
* /A Siletz vocabulary by Leo J. Frachtenberg
* /Unclassified languages of the southeast by John R. Swanton
* /Notes on Algonquian languages by Truman Michelson
* /A Passamaquoddy tobacco famine by J. Dyneley Prince
* /Myths of the Alsea Indians of northwestern Oregon by Leo J. Frachtenberg
* /Linguistic publications of the Bureau of American Ethnology, a general review by E. Sapir

### Reviews

* Review of Het Passieve Karakter van het Verbum Transitivum of van het Verbum Actionis in Talen van Noord-Amerika by E. Sapir
* Review of Het Identificeerend Karakter der Possessieve Flexie in Talen van Noord-Amerika by E. Sapir

## No. 2 (May 1918)

* /Tepecano prayers by J. Alden Mason
* /Types of reduplication in the Salish dialects by Herman K. Haeberlin
* /Comaprative studies in Takelman, Kalapuyan and Chinookan lexicography, a preliminary paper by Leo J. Frachtenberg

### Reviews

* Review of Moseteno Vocabulary and Treatises by E. Sapir
* Review of The Adverbial and Prepositional Prefixes in Blackfoot by A. L. Kroeber

## No. 3 (August 1918)

* /Penobscot Transformer tales by Frank G. Speck; dictated by Newell Lion

## No. 4 (December 1920)

* /Linguistique bolivienne: La langue Kayuvana by G. de Créqui-Montfort and P. Rivet
* /Has Tlingit a genetic relationship to Athapascan? by Pliny Earle Goddard
* /The Hokan and Coahuiltecan languages by E. Sapir
* /A note on the first person plural in Chimariko by E. Sapir
* /Abnormal types of speech in Quileute by Leo J. Frachtenberg
* /Two phonetic shifts occurring in many Algonquian languages by Truman Michelson

### Reviews

* Review of The Language of the Salinan Indians by E. Sapir
* Review of Die Reduplikation in den indianischen, indonesischen und indogermanischen Sprachen by J. P. B. de Josselin de Jong
# International Harvester Company v. Wisconsin Department of Taxation Minnesota Mining & Mfg Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 435
International Harvester Company v. Wisconsin Department of Taxation Minnesota Mining & Mfg Company
Argued: April 27, 1944. --- Decided: May 29, 1944
Appeals from the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.
[Syllabus from page 436 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Ray M. Stroud, of Madison, Wis., and Edward R. Lewis, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant International Harvester Co.
Mr. G. Burgess Ela, of Madison, Wis., for appellant Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.
Mr. Harold H. Persons, of Madison, Wis., for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice STONE 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
# International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Goodrich/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
* Dissenting Opinion Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 537
International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Goodrich
Argued: Jan. 17, 18, 1956. --- Decided: April 9, 1956
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs, dissenting.

## 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
# International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Goodrich

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 537
International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Goodrich
Argued: Jan. 17, 18, 1956. --- Decided: April 9, 1956
Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. James O. Moore, Jr., Buffalo, N.Y., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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
# Jenkins v. Loewenthal

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 222
Jenkins v. Loewenthal
W. T. Burgess, for plaintiff in error.
Julius Rosenthal and A. M. Pence, for defendants 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
# Jenkins v. Loewenthal/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 222
Jenkins v. Loewenthal
This suit was brought by Robert E. Jenkins, as assignee in bankruptcy of Samuel J. Walker, a bankrupt, to recover certain lands conveyed by the bankrupt to Eli Kinney, on the alleged ground that the conveyances, though absolute on their face, were intended tended as mortgages. Two defenses were interposed among others, one that the defendants, who are the present owners of the property, are innocent purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice of any outstanding equities in the assignee or the bankrupt; and the other that the suit was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued to the assignee. Rev. St. § 5057. Either of these defenses, if sustained, bars the action. The second involves a federal question, the other does not. The court in its decree sustained tained them both, and, among other things, found as a fact that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. As this finding is broad enough to maintain the decree, even though the federal question involved in the other defense was decided wrong, we affirm the decree, without considering that question or expressing any opinion upon it. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, sustains this practice 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
# Jenkins v. Kurn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 256
Jenkins v. Kurn
Argued: April 18, 1941. --- Decided: May 5, 1941
Mr. Harry G. Waltner, Jr., of Jefferson City, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. Frank C. Mann, of Springfield, Mo., for respondents.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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
# Jenkins v. International Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 484
Jenkins v. International Bank
[Statement of Case from pages 484-487 intentionally omitted]
W. T. Burgess, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. W. Smith, and A. M. Pence, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice MATTHEWS, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Jenkins v. International Bank of Chicago

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 571
Jenkins v. International Bank of Chicago
W. T. Burgess, for plaintiff in error.
A. M. Pence and Julius Rosenthal, for defendants in error.
MILLER, 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
# Japan: Its History, Arts, and Literature/Volume 6

Oriental Series
AMBASSADORS' EDITION
Limited to Seven hundred fifty numbered and registered copies of which this is No. 108
Danjuro
JAPAN
ITS HISTORY, ARTS, AND LITERATURE
BY
CAPTAIN F. BRINKLEY
Volume VI
J. B. MILLET COMPANY BOSTON AND TOKYO
Copyright, 1902, and 1910 By J. B. MILLET CO.
ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL, LONDON, ENGLAND
THE•PLIMPTON•PRESS [W•D•O] NORWOOD•MASS•U•S•A
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
CHAPTER VI
ILLUSTRATIONS
Layout 2
# Henry VI Part 3 (1923) Yale/Appendix D

Layout 2
APPENDIX D
The Text of the Present Edition
The text of the present volume is, by permission of the Oxford University Press, that of the Oxford Shakespeare, edited by the late W. J. Craig. Craig's text has been carefully collated with the Shakespeare Folio of 1623, and the following deviations have been introduced:
1. The stage directions of the Folio have been restored. Necessary words and directions, omitted by the Folio, are added within square brackets.
2. Punctuation and spelling have been normalized to accord with modern English practice; e.g., warlike, afoot, sunset, Saint Albans, Tewkesbury, Phaethon (instead of war-like, a-foot, sun-set. Saint Alban's, Tewksbury, Phæthon). The words murder, murther, murder'd, murther'd, burden, burthen, etc., have not been normalized, the actual form employed by the Folio being in each case retained.
3. The following changes of text have been introduced, usually in accordance with Folio authority. The readings of the present edition precede the colon, while Craig's readings follow it.
I. i. 11 dangerous F: dangerously
78 It was F: 'Twas
83 that is (that's F): and that's
ii. 38 to F: unto
iv. 25 makes F: make
116 vizard-like F: visor-like
150 passions F: passion
II. i. 55 Hews . . . fells F: Hew . . . fell
83 fires F: fire
84 burns F: burn
170 moe F: more
182 march F: march amain
v. 81 an hundred F: a hundred
​87 kills F: kill
110 his F: a
124 S. d. Alarums F: Alarum
vi. 2 whiles F: while
6 melts F: melt
100 in F: on
III. i. 17 thou was F: thou wast
ii. 28 Nay, then, whip me F: Nay, whip me, then
141 keeps F: keep
195 farther F: further
IV. i. 9 brother of Clarence F: brother Clarence
17 shall F: you shall
ii. 3 comes F: come
iii. 28 here is F: here's
29 parted F: parted last
v. 21 shipp'd (shipt F): ship
V. iv. 34 If case F: In case
75 my eye F: mine eyes
v. 26 sorts F: sort
27 ye F: you
60 Tower F: The Tower
78 Richard, hard-favour'd Richard F: Hard-favour'd Richard
vi. 51 indigested and F: indigest
vii. 25 that shall (that shalt F): thou shalt
44 befits F: befit
# Henry VI Part 3 (1923) Yale/Appendix E

Layout 2
APPENDIX E
Suggestions for Collateral Reading
J. O. Halliwell: The First Sketches of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth (i.e. The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy). London, Shakespeare Society, 1843.
A. W. Ward: Introduction to Henry VI in Renaissance Shakespeare, New York, 1907. (Reprinted in part in Collected Papers of Sir Adolphus William Ward, iii. 231–291, Cambridge, 1921.
C. F. Tucker Brooke: The Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth. New Haven, 1912.
Thomas Heywood: The First and Second Parts of King Edward the Fourth, London, 1600. (Edited for the Shakespeare Society by Barron Field, London, 1842).
C. W. C. Oman: Warwick the Kingmaker. London, 1891.
Lawrence Stratford: Edward the Fourth. London, 1910.
E. Bulwer-Lytton: The Last of the Barons. London, 1843.
R. L. Stevenson: The Black Arrow. London, 1888.
Copiously annotated editions of the play have been prepared by W. J. Rolfe (New York, 1882) and by H. C. Hart (Arden Shakespeare, London, 1910). The edition in the Henry Irving Shakespeare, prepared by F. A. Marshall, also contains very full notes and a valuable introduction. That in the Bankside Shakespeare (New York, 1892) is useful because it presents on opposite pages the texts of The Third Part of Henry VI and of The True Tragedy.
# Henry VI Part 3 (1923) Yale/Appendix C

Layout 2
APPENDIX C
The Authorship of the Play
The authorship problems in the case of 3 Henry VI—that is, the questions, who wrote the True Tragedy version, and who the altered and additional matter found in the Folio text of 3 Henry VI?,—are so intimately associated with the similar problems presented by 2 Henry VI and its source, that the two Parts cannot well be discussed separately. Reference must therefore be made to the edition of 2 Henry VI in this series, Appendix C, where an attempt is made to state general conclusions regarding the authorship of both Parts.
In summary it may be said that The True Tragedy seems to be fundamentally a work of Marlowe, though certainly preserved in a corrupted form, while the ​revision represented by the 1623 text of 3 Henry VI is mainly, if not wholly, the work of Shakespeare in the early years of his dramatic novitiate.
The True Tragedy, in comparison with The First Part of the Contention, shows less variety of tone and less inequality of style: it is a better unified and more moving drama and contains fewer scenes which suggest a doubt concerning the possibility of Marlowe's authorship. Shakespeare's revision of this work in 3 Henry VI is, as has been already said, less elaborate and more understanding than his revision of the Contention. He retains better the spirit of the original and in his alterations, extensive though they indeed are, shows himself more the practical dramatist and less the practicing versifier. An advance in purposeful and economical method appears, for example, in the reviser's rearrangement of the sequence of scenes iv–vii of Act IV, and in his occasional transposition of lines in the original play to other positions where they are more effective. Line 53 of II. i, 'But Hercules himself must yield to odds,' and the opening lines of V. iii,
'Thus far our fortune keeps an upward course, And we are grac'd with wreaths of victory,'
are found in The True Tragedy, but at quite different points from those at which Shakespeare has chosen to employ them. Various details of the relation of the revised to the unrevised play are discussed in the notes; e.g., those on I. i. 14; I. ii. 28–31; II. i. 68 f., 113; II. ii. 89–92; II. iii. 15; II. v. 54; II. vi. 8, 42–44; III. iii. 16–18; IV. ii. 20 f.; IV. iii. 22 S.d.; IV. vii. 50; V. i. 81 S.d.; V. iv. 1–38.
* ↑ Cf. p. 133.
* ↑ Cf. notes on IV. iv and IV. vii, pp. 128, 130.