OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# New York Feed Company v. Leary

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 98
New York Feed Company v. Leary
MILKY WAY PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al.
v.
LEARY et al.
No. 998. Supreme Court of the United States
February 27, 1970
Herald Price Fahringer, for appellants New York Feed Co., and others.
Ralph J. Schwarz, Jr., and Albert B. Gerber, for appellants Milky Way Productions, Inc., and others.
J. Lee Rankin and Stanley Buchsbaum, for appellee Leary.
Frank S. Hogan, pro se.
Michael R. Juviler, for appellee Hogan.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, pro se.
Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles A. La Torella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Attorney General of New York.
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
# New York Foundling Hospital v. Gatti

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 429
New York Foundling Hospital v. Gatti
Argued: April 26, 1906. --- Decided: December 3, 1906
Messrs. D. Cady Herrick, Charles E. Miller, and William C. Trull for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 429-432 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter Bennett and A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for appellee.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# New York Guaranty Indemnity Company v. Memphis Water Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 205
New York Guaranty Indemnity Company v. Memphis Water Company
W. M. Randolph, for appellants.
J. B. Heiskell, for appellees.
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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book I/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—Letter written by the Emperor Constantine respecting the building of Churches.
“Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious, to Eusebius.
“I am well aware, and am thoroughly convinced, my beloved brother, that as the servants of our Saviour Christ have been suffering up to the present time from nefarious machinations and tyrannical persecutions, the fabrics of all the churches must have either fallen into utter ruin from neglect, or, through apprehension of the impending iniquity, have been reduced below their proper dignity. But now that freedom is restored, and that dragon, through the providence of God, and by our instrumentality, thrust out from the government of the Empire, I think that the divine power has become known to all, and that those who hitherto, from fear or from incredulity or from depravity, have lived in error, will now, upon becoming acquainted with Him who truly is, be led into the true and correct manner of life. Exert yourself, therefore, diligently in the reparation of the churches under your own jurisdiction, and admonish the principal bishops, priests, and deacons of other places to engage zealously in the same work; in order that all the churches which still exist may be repaired or enlarged, and that new ones may be built wherever they are required. You, and others through your intervention, can apply to magistrates and to provincial governments, for all that may be necessary for this purpose; for they have received written injunctions to render zealous obedience to whatever your holiness may command. May God preserve you, beloved brother.”
Thus the emperor wrote to the bishops in each province respecting the building of churches. From his letter to Eusebius of Palestine, it is easily learnt what measures he adopted to obtain copies of the Holy Bible.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This letter, according to Du Pin, was written a.d. 324 or 325.
* ↑ Either Maxentius or Licinius.
* ↑ ἡγεμονεύω, used in Luke ii. 2, of Quirinus, and iii. 1, of Pontius Pilate, but Theodoretus employs it and its correlatives of both civil and ecclesiastical authorities.
* ↑ ἐπαρχικὴ τάξις̀ ἐπαρχία occurs Acts xxiii. 34, of Cilicia, and in xxv. 1, of Judæa, the province of the Procurator Festus, but in the time of Constantine the ἔπαρχοι were civil præfects, without any military command, governing four great ἐπαρχίαι, viz. (i) Thrace, Egypt, and the East, (ii) Illyricum, Macedonia, and Greece, (iii) Italy and Africa, and (iv) Gaul, Spain, and Britain. (Zos. ii. 33.) On the accurate use of titles in the N.T. vide Bp. Lightfoot in Appendix to Essays on Supernatural Religion.
* ↑ τὰ ιερὰ βιβλια, or, “the holy books:” The Books, par excellence, were about this time becoming The Book, whence Biblia Sacra as a singular.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book I/Chapter 18

Chapter XVIII.—The Unlawful Translation of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.
The Arian party did not desist from their evil machinations. They had only signed the confession of faith for the purpose of disguising themselves in sheeps’-skins, while they were acting the part of wolves. The holy Alexander, of Byzantium, for the city was not yet called Constantinople, who by his prayer had pierced Arius to the heart, had, at the period to which we are referring, been translated to a better life. Eusebius, the propagator of impiety, little regarding the definition which, only a short time previously, he with the other bishops had agreed upon, without delay quitted Nicomedia and seized upon the see of Constantinople, in direct violation of that canon which prohibits bishops and presbyters from being translated from one city to another. But that those who carry their infatuation so far as to deny the divinity of the only-begotten Son of God, should likewise violate the other laws, cannot excite surprise. Nor was this the first occasion that he made this innovation; for, having been originally entrusted with the see of Berytus, he leapt from thence to Nicomedia. Whence he was expelled by the synod, on account of his manifest impiety, as was likewise Theognis, bishop of Nicæa. This is related a second time in the letters of the emperor Constantine; and I shall here insert the close of the letter which he wrote to the Nicomedians.

## Footnotes

* ↑ i.e. Apost. Can. xiv., which forbids translation without an “εὔλογος αἰτία, or prospect of more spiritual gain in saving souls; and guards the application of the rule by the proviso that neither the bishop himself, nor the παροικία desiring him, but many bishops, shall decide the point.” Dict. Christ. Ant. i. 226.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book I/Chapter 2

Chapter II.—List of the Principal Bishops
Of the church of Rome at this period Silvester held the reins. His predecessor in the see was Miltiades, the successor of that Marcellinus who had so nobly distinguished himself during the persecution.
In Antioch, after the death of Tyrannus, when peace began to be restored to the churches, Vitalis received the chief authority, and restored the church in the “Palæa” which had been destroyed by the tyrants. He was succeeded by Philogonius, who completed all that was wanting in the work of restoration: he had, during the time of Licinius, signalised himself by his zeal for religion.
After the administration of Hermon, the government of the church in Jerusalem was committed to Macarius, a man whose character was equal to his name, and whose mind was adorned by every kind of virtue.
At this same period also, Alexander, illustrious for his apostolical gifts, governed the church of Constantinople.
It was at this time that Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, perceiving that Arius, enslaved by the lust of power, was assembling those who had been taken captive by his blasphemous doctrines, and was holding private meetings, communicated an account of his heresy by letter to the rulers of the principal churches. That the authenticity of my history may not be suspected, I shall now insert in my narrative the letter which he wrote to his namesake, containing, as it does, a clear account of all the facts I have mentioned. I shall also subjoin the letter of Arius, together with the other letters which are necessary to the completeness of this narrative, that they may at once testify to the truth of my work, and make the course of events more clear.
The following letter was written by Alexander of Alexandria, to the bishop of the same name as himself.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bp. of Rome, from Jan. 31, a.d. 314, to Dec. 31, a.d. 335.
* ↑ Otherwise Melchiades. July 2, a.d. 310, to Jan. 10, a.d. 314.
* ↑ Jan. 30, a.d. 296, to Oct. 25, a.d. 304. Accused of apostasy, under Diocletian.
* ↑ Bishop of Antioch during the persecution of Diocletian, καθ᾽ ὃν ἤκμασεν ἡ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν πολιορκία. Eus. H.E. vii. 32.
* ↑ 21st Bp. of Antioch, a.d. 312–a.d. 318.
* ↑ The ancient part of the city of Antioch.
* ↑ a.d. 319–323.
* ↑ a.d. 302–311.
* ↑ Macarius = Blessed. a.d. 311–?334. Vide Chapters iv. and xvii.
* ↑ Circa ?a.d. 313 or 317–340.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book I/Chapter 21

Chapter XXI.—Bishops of Heretical opinions ordained in Antioch after the Banishment of St. Eustathius.
Eulalius was first consecrated in place of Eustathius. But Eulalius surviving his elevation only a short period, it was intended that Eusebius of Palestine should be translated to this bishopric. Eusebius, however, refused the appointment, and the emperor forbade its being conferred on him. Next Euphronius was put forward, who also dying, after a lapse of only one year and a few months, the see was conferred on Flaccillus. All these bishops secretly clung to the Arian heresy. Hence it was that most of those individuals, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who valued the true religion, left the churches and formed assemblies among themselves. They were called Eustathians, since it was after the banishment of Eustathius that they began to hold their meetings. The wretched woman above-mentioned was soon after attacked by a severe and protracted illness, and then avowed the imposture in which she had been engaged, and made known the whole plot, not only to two or three, but to a very large number of priests. She confessed that she had been bribed to bring this false and impudent charge, but yet that her oath was not altogether false, as a certain Eustathius, a coppersmith, was the father of the babe. Such were some of the crimes perpetrated in Antioch by this most excellent faction.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Socrates, H E. i. 24, says that on the deposition of Eustathius “ἐφεξῆς ἐπὶ ἔτη ὀκτὼ λέγεται τὸν ἐν ᾽Αντιοχεί& 139· θρόνον τῆς ἐκκλησίας σχολάσαι ὀψὲ δὲ…χειροτονεῖται Εὐφρόνιος.” Cf. Soz. H.E. ii. 19. There is much confusion about this succession of bishops. Jerome (Chron. ii. p. 92) gives the names of the Arian bishops thrust in succession into the place of Eustathius, as Eulalius, Eusebius, Eufronius, Placillus. “Perhaps Eulalius was put forward for the vacant see, like Eusebius, but never actually appointed.” Bp. Lightfoot, Dict. Christ. Biog. ii. 315.
* ↑ This name is variously given as Placillus (Jerome), Placitus (Soz.) Flacillus (Ath. and Eus.), and in different versions of Theodoret are found Φλάκιτος, Πλακέντιος, Φάλκιος
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XVI/Chapter 13

Chapter 13.—Why, in the Account of Terah’s Emigration, on His Forsaking the Chaldeans and Passing Over into Mesopotamia, No Mention is Made of His Son Nahor.
Next it is related how Terah with his family left the region of the Chaldeans and came into Mesopotamia, and dwelt in Haran. But
nothing is said about one of his sons called Nahor, as if he had not taken him along with him. For the narrative runs thus: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarah his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and led them forth out of the region of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; and he came into Haran, and dwelt there.” Nahor and Milcah his wife are nowhere named here. But afterwards, when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac, we find it thus written: “And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his lord, and of all the goods of his lord, with him; and arose, and went into Mesopotamia, into the city of Nahor.” This and other testimonies of this sacred history show that Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had also left the region of the Chaldeans, and fixed his abode in Mesopotamia, where Abraham dwelt with his father. Why, then, did the Scripture not mention him, when Terah with his family went forth out of the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Haran, since it mentions that he took with him not only Abraham his son, but also Sarah his daughter-in-law, and Lot his grandson? The only reason we can think of is, that perhaps he had lapsed from the piety of his father and brother, and adhered to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and had afterwards emigrated thence, either through penitence, or because he was persecuted as a suspected person.  For in the book called Judith, when Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, inquired what kind of nation that might be, and whether war should be made against them, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answered him thus: “Let our lord now hear a word from the mouth of thy servant, and I will declare unto thee the truth concerning the people which dwelleth near thee in this hill country, and there shall no lie come out of the mouth of thy servant. For this people is descended from the Chaldeans, and they dwelt heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, which were glorious in the land of the Chaldeans, but went out of the way of their ancestors, and adored the God of heaven, whom they knew; and they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and dwelt there many days. And their God said to them, that they should depart from their habitation, and go into the land of Canaan; and they dwelt,” etc., as Achior the Ammonite narrates. Whence it is manifest that the house of Terah had suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the true piety with which they worshipped the one and true God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. xi. 31.
* ↑ Gen. xxiv. 10.
* ↑ Judith v. 5–9.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XVI/Chapter 17

Chapter 17.—Of the Three Most Famous Kingdoms of the Nations, of Which One, that is the Assyrian, Was Already Very Eminent When Abraham Was Born.
During the same period there were three famous kingdoms of the nations, in which the city of the earth-born, that is, the society of men living according to man under the domination of the fallen angels, chiefly flourished, namely, the three kingdoms of Sicyon, Egypt, and Assyria. Of these, Assyria was much the most powerful and sublime; for that king Ninus, son of Belus, had subdued the people of all Asia except India. By Asia I now mean not that part which is one province of this greater Asia, but what is called Universal Asia, which some set down as the half, but most as the third part of the whole world,—the three being Asia, Europe, and Africa, thereby making an unequal division. For the part called Asia stretches from the south through the east even to the north; Europe from the north even to the west; and Africa from the west even to the south.  Thus we see that two, Europe and Africa, contain one half of the world, and Asia alone the other half. And these two parts are made by the circumstance, that there enters between them from the ocean all the Mediterranean water, which makes this great sea of ours. So that, if you divide the world into two parts, the east and the west, Asia will be in the one, and Europe and Africa in the other. So that of the three kingdoms then famous, one, namely Sicyon, was not under the Assyrians, because it was in Europe; but as for Egypt, how could it fail to be subject to the empire which ruled all Asia with the single exception of India? In Assyria, therefore, the dominion of the impious city had the pre-eminence.  Its head was Babylon,—an earth-born city, most fitly named, for it means confusion. There Ninus reigned after the death of his father Belus, who first had reigned there sixty-five years. His son Ninus, who, on his father’s death, succeeded to the kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and had been king forty-three years when Abraham was born, which was about the 1200th year before Rome was founded, as it were another Babylon in the west.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XVI/Chapter 19

Chapter 19.—Of the Divine Preservation of Sarah’s Chastity in Egypt, When Abraham Had Called Her Not His Wife But His Sister.
Having built an altar there, and called upon God, Abraham proceeded thence and dwelt in the desert, and was compelled by pressure of famine to go on into Egypt.  There he called his wife his sister, and told no lie. For she was this also, because she was near of blood; just as Lot, on account of the same nearness, being his brother’s son, is called his brother. Now he did not deny that she was his wife, but held his peace about it, committing to God the defence of his wife’s chastity, and providing as a man against human wiles; because if he had not provided against the danger as much as he could, he would have been tempting God rather than trusting in Him. We have said enough about this matter against the calumnies of Faustus the Manichæan. At last what Abraham had expected the Lord to do took place. For Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who had taken her to him as his wife, restored her to her husband on being severely plagued.  And far be it from us to believe that she was defiled by lying with another; because it is much more credible that, by these great afflictions, Pharaoh was not permitted to do this.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XVI/Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—Of the Era in Abraham’s Life from Which a New Period in the Holy Succession Begins.
Let us now survey the progress of the city of God from the era of the patriarch Abraham, from whose time it begins to be more conspicuous, and the divine promises which are now fulfilled in Christ are more fully revealed. We learn, then, from the intimations of holy Scripture, that Abraham was born in the country of the Chaldeans, a land belonging to the Assyrian empire. Now, even at that time impious superstitions were rife with the Chaldeans, as with other nations. The family of Terah, to which Abraham belonged, was the only one in which the worship of the true God survived, and the only one, we may suppose, in which the Hebrew language was preserved; although Joshua the son of Nun tells us that even this family served other gods in Mesopotamia. The other descendants of Heber gradually became absorbed in other races and other languages. And thus, as the single family of Noah was preserved through the deluge of water to renew the human race, so, in the deluge of superstition that flooded the whole world, there remained but the one family of Terah in which the seed of God’s city was preserved. And as, when Scripture has enumerated the generations prior to Noah, with their ages, and explained the cause of the flood before God began to speak to Noah about the building of the ark, it is said, “These are the generations of Noah;” so also now, after enumerating the generations from Shem, Noah’s son, down to Abraham, it then signalizes an era by saying, “These are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.” This Iscah is supposed to be the same as Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Josh. xxiv. 2.
* ↑ Gen. xi. 27–29.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XVI/Chapter 14

Chapter 14.—Of the Years of Terah, Who Completed His Lifetime in Haran.
On Terah’s death in Mesopotamia, where he is said to have lived 205 years, the promises of God made to Abraham now begin to be pointed out; for thus it is written:  “And the days of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran.” This is not to be taken as if he had spent all his days there, but that he there completed the days of his life, which were two hundred and five years: otherwise it would not be known how many years Terah lived, since it is not said in what year of his life he came into Haran; and it is absurd to suppose that, in this series of generations, where it is carefully recorded how many years each one lived, his age was the only one not put on record. For although some whom the same Scripture mentions have not their age recorded, they are not in this series, in which the reckoning of time is continuously indicated by the death of the parents and the succession of the children. For this series, which is given in order from Adam to Noah, and from him down to Abraham, contains no one without the number of the years of his life.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. xi. 32.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XVI/Chapter 16

Chapter 16.—Of the Order and Nature of the Promises of God Which Were Made to Abraham.
God’s promises made to Abraham are now to be considered; for in these the oracles of our God, that is, of the true God, began to appear more openly concerning the godly
people, whom prophetic authority foretold. The first of these reads thus: “And the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, and go into a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and magnify thy name; and thou shall be blessed: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee: and in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.” Now it is to be observed that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan, which is intimated when it is said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith, which was first promised in these words, “And in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.”  Eusebius thought this promise was made in Abraham’s seventy-fifth year, as if soon after it was made Abraham had departed out of Haran because the Scripture cannot be contradicted in which we read, “Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.” But if this promise was made in that year, then of course Abraham was staying in Haran with his father; for he could not depart thence unless he had first dwelt there. Does this, then, contradict what Stephen says, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran?” But it is to be understood that the whole took place in the same year,—both the promise of God before Abraham dwelt in Haran, and his dwelling in Haran, and his departure thence,—not only because Eusebius in the Chronicles reckons from the year of this promise, and shows that after 430 years the exodus from Egypt took place, when the law was given, but because the Apostle Paul also mentions it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Various reading, “of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
* ↑ Gen. xii. 1–3.
* ↑ Acts vii. 2.