OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Will of H.P. Lovecraft, August 12, 1912

Know All Men:
I, Howard P. Lovecraft of the city of Providence in the State of Rhode Island, being of sound mind and memory, make, execute and declare this instrument as my last will, hereby revoking any and all former wills by me at any time heretofore made.
First: I direct that my executor pay out of my estate all my just debts and funeral expenses.
Second: All the rest, residue and remainder of my property and estate, real, personal and mixed, however described and wherever situated, of which I die seized and possessed, or in or to which at the time of my decease I have any right, title or interest, I give, devise and bequeath to my mother Sarah S. Lovecraft – To Have and To Hold the same unto and to the use of herself and her heirs and assigns forever.
Third: In case my said mother should not be living at the time of my decease, I give, devise and bequeath said rest, residue and remainder of my property and estate absolutely and in fee simple, two thirds thereof to my aunt Lillie D. Clark, wife of Franklin C. Clark, of said Providence, and the remaining one third thereof to my aunt Annie E. Gamwell, wife of Edward F. Gamwell of the city of Cambridge in the State of Massachusetts, or in case either of my said aunts shall decease prior to my death without leaving any descendant living at the time of my death to take by representation such deceased's share in my residuary property and estate, I give, devise and bequeath such share to the other of them, or if she also shall have deceased prior to the time of my death, to the descendants of such other equally but per stirpes and not per capita.
Fourth: I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint my said mother Sarah S. Lovecraft sole executor of this my will, and if for any reason she should not service or continue to serve my said aunt Lillie D. Clark, and if for any reason neither my said mother nor my said aunt shall serve or continue to serve Albert A. Baker of said Providence as sole executor hereof, and I hereby request and direct any and all courts taking probate hereof not to require any of said persons to furnish any surety on any bond, or to file any inventory or to return any account of my estate as such executor.
In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal and declared this to be my last will, in the presence of three witnesses, at Providence, Rhode Island, this twelfth day of August, A.D., 1912.
Howard P. Lovecraft
Signed, executed and declared by the above named Howard P. Lovecraft as and for his last will, in the presence of us the undersigned, who present at the same time, at his request and in his presence and in the presence of each other, have hereunto set our names as attesting witnesses at Providence, Rhode Island, this twelfth day of August, A.D., 1912.
Addison P. Munroe
Chester P. Munroe
Albert A. Baker
# Will there really be a "Morning"?

* "Out of the Morning" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* "Will there really be a morning?" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# Will of John Parker Boyd

I John Parker Boyd of Boston, in the County of Suffolk and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, being of sound mind and memory, conscious of my dependence upon the Supreme Being, and convinced of the uncertainty of human life, being now about to depart for Europe, do hereby declare this to be my last will and testament, revoking and annulling all by me heretofore made.
Inprimia - After my legal and just debts are paid, I give and bequeath one Quarter of all my Estate to Frances Boyd, my natural daughter by Housina, a Mahometan lady born in my camp in the vicinity of Ponah, in the month of June and fourth day, 1797, and christened the same year in Ponah by the Revd. Father of the Roman Catholic Church of that City, Major Tone being Godfather and Mesdames Franswa and Finglap, Godmothers. But in the case of my daughter, the said Frances Boyd, shall decease without lawful issue, my will is that my brothers and sisters shall be her heirs to the property I have thus bequeathed her, and to her relations in India, to be divided between my said Brothers and Sisters in the same proportion as the property I have herein bequeathed to them, is distributed.
I give and bequeath One Quarter of all my Estate to Wallace, my natural son by Marie Rupell, born Oct. 1814. But in the case this child Wallace should die without lawful issue, my will is that my Brothers and Sisters be heirs to the property I have herein bequeathed to him, in like manner as I have stated with respected to my daughter, the said Frances Boyd, now in India.
I give and bequeath one half of all my estate to my own Brothers and Sisters in the following proportions:
To my brother, Robert Boyd, one tenth of the aforesaid one half of all my Estate. To my brother, Joseph Boyd, two tenths of the aforesaid one half of all my Estate. To my brother E. L. Boyd, two tenths of the aforesaid one half of all my Estate. To my sister Margaret Storer, Two tenths of the aforesaid one half of all my Estate. To my sister, Frances Little, Three Tenths of the aforesaid one half of my Estate.
But nevertheless I will the following legacies be first paid out of the whole Estate before any dividend shall take place: One Hundred Guineas to Miss Maria Smith of Philadelphia to purchase a Ring which she is requested to accept as a testimony to my ardent and unchangeable affection.
I commit the care and guardianship of my son Wallace to my Sister Little and would recommend that he should be educated for the army or navy. I do constitute my brothers, J. C. Boyd and E. L. Boyd as Executors.
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
# Will of Leopold II

Done at Brussels the 2d of August, 1889
We, Leopold II, King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo:
Wishing to assure to Our well-beloved country the fruits of the work which for many years we have pursued on the African Continent, with the generous and devoted co-operation of many Belgians:
Convinced of thus contributing to assure for Belgium, if she wishes it, the outlets indispensable for her commerce and her industry, and to open new paths for the activity of her children:
Declare by these presents, that We bequeath and transmit after Our death to Belgium all our sovereign rights over the Independent State of the Congo, as they are recognized by the Declarations, Conventions, and Treaties concluded since 1884 between the foreign Powers on the one side, the International Association of the Congo and the Independent State of the Congo on the other, as well as all the benefits, rights and advantages attached to that sovereignty. Whilst waiting for the Belgian Legislature to pronounce its acceptance of Our aforesaid disposition, the sovereignty will be exercised collectively by the Council of the three administrations of the Independent State of the Congo, and by the Governor-General.
LEOPOLD.
Done at Brussels the 2d of August, 1889.
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
# Will to Believe

* "The Will to Believe" as first published in The New World, Volume 5 (June 1896).
* "The Will to Believe" in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (1897).
# United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (396 U.S. 491)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 491
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (396 U.S. 491)
Argued: Oct. 21 and 22, 1969. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1970
[Syllabus from pages 491-494 intentionally omitted]
Richard W. McLaren, Chicago, Ill., Louis B. Dailey, New York City, and Valentine B. Deale, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Fritz R. Kahn, Hugh B. Cox, Washington, D.C., Fred H. Tolan, Seattle, Wash., and R. K. Merrill, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (337 U.S. 426)
* United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (352 U.S. 158)
* United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (393 U.S. 1077)
* United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (396 U.S. 491)
See also Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States.
# United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (393 U.S. 1077)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 1077
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (393 U.S. 1077)

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (337 U.S. 426)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949) is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States addressing several issues, including the judicial standard of one party's inability to sue itself, the ability of the United States government specifically to sue federally affiliated departments, and the ability of courts to determine legislative intent. While this decision did not have many broad implications, it did offer a more "common-sense" understanding of determining what constitutes a justiciable controversy. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 426
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Argued: March 2, 1949. --- Decided: June 20, 1949
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of columbia.
Messrs. Stanley M. Silverberg and David O. Mathews, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 427 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Daniel W. Knowlton, Washington, D.C., for appellee Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Windsor F. Cousins, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees railroads, interveners.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (352 U.S. 158)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 158
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (352 U.S. 158)
Argued: Oct. 11, 1956. --- Decided: Dec 17, 1956
[Syllabus from pages 158-159 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., for appellee Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Windsor F. Cousins, Philadelphia, Pa., for railroad appellees.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (393 U.S. 1077)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 1077
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (393 U.S. 1077)
CITY OF AUBURN, appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 999.
LIVING TON ANTI-MERGER COMMITTEE, appellant,
v.
No. 1003.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Zimmerman, Deputy Solicitor General Springer and Howard E. Shapiro, for the United States.
Louis B. Dailey and Harry Tyson Carter, for appellants Charles E. Brundage and others.
Robert L. Wald and Joel E. Hoffman, for appellant City of Auburn.
Valentine B. Deale, for appellant Livingston Anti-Merger Committee.
Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Jerome Nelson, for appellee Interstate Commerce Commission.
Alan F. Wohlstetter, for appellees 230 Pacific Northwest Shippers.
Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Oregon, and Richard W. Sabin, for appellee Public Utility Commissioner.
Hugh B. Cox, Ray Garrett, D. Robert Thomas, Lee B. McTurnan, Anthony Kane, Louis E. Torinus, Earl F. Requa, Frank S. Farrell, Eldon Martin and Richard J. Flynn, for appellees Great Northern Railway Co. and others.
Edwin O. Schiewe, Raymond K. Merrill, Thomas H. Ploss and Edward H. Foley, for appellee Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co.
In these cases probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of four hours is alloted for oral argument for these appeals and any other appeal taken from the same judgment as to which jurisdiction may hereafter be noted.
Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 501
United States v. O'Donnell
Argued: March 1, 1938. --- Decided: March 28, 1938
[Syllabus from pages 501-503 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Carl McFarland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. William Stanley, of Washington, D.C., and James E. Kelby, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.
Mr. 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
# United States v. O'Grady

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
89 U.S. 641
United States v. O'Grady
APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being thus:
By the act organizing the Court of Claims, A.D. 1855, power was given to it to hear and determine all claims against the United States founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the government of the United States.
Doubts, however, were suggested immediately upon the act going into practical operation and on suits being brought against the United States, whether the act meant to allow the United States to file set-offs in such suits, and to give jurisdiction to the court to hear and determine them in the way usually practiced in suits between private parties. If the act did thus mean, its meaning was not clearly expressed. Congress accordingly, by an act passed March 3d, 1863, enacted that—
'In addition to the jurisdiction now conferred by law, the court shall also have jurisdiction of all set-offs, counterclaims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands whatsoever, on the part of the government, against any person making claim against the government in said court; and upon the trial it shall hear and determine such claim and demand, both for and against the government and the claimant; and if upon the whole case it finds the claimant is indebted to the government it shall render judgment to that effect, and such judgment shall be final, with the right of appeal, as in other cases,' &c.
A still subsequent act-one passed June 25th, 1868-enacted:
'That the said Court of Claims, at any time while may suit or claim is pending before or on appeal from said court, or within two years next after the final disposition of any suit or claim, may on motion of the United States grant a new trial in any such suit or claim, and stay the payment of any judgment therein, upon such evidence as shall reasonably satisfy said court that any fraud, wrong, or injustice has been done to the United States.'

## Notes

* ↑ Act of February 24th, 1855 (10 Stat. at Large, 612).
* ↑ 12 Stat. at Large, 765.
* ↑ 15 Id. 75.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. O'Malley

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 627
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Charles E. O'MALLEY et al.
Argued: Jan. 24 and 25, 1966. --- Decided: March 23, 1966
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall, for petitioner.
Leon Fieldman, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
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
# United States v. O'Malley/Dissent Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Stewart
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 627
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Charles E. O'MALLEY et al.
Argued: Jan. 24 and 25, 1966. --- Decided: March 23, 1966
Mr. Justice STEWART, with whom Mr. Justice HARLAN joins, dissenting.
In the 1930's Edward Fabrice made an irrevocable transfer of certain property to trusts for the benefit of his wife and daughters. Twelve years later he died. Because of the provisions of § 811(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the value of the property Fabrice had irrevocably transferred was nonetheless included in his gross estate for estate tax purposes. The respondents do not question the correctness of that determination. But in this case the Court holds that the accumulated income which that property generated during the 12 years that elapsed after Fabrice had irrevocably transferred it is also to be included in his gross estate under § 811(c)(1)(B)(ii). I think the Court misreads the statute.
By its terms the statutory provision applies only to property 'of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer.' Fabrice 'made a transfer' only of the original trust corpus. He never 'made a transfer' of the income which the corpus thereafter produced, whether accumulated or not. I can put the matter no more clearly than did the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McDermott's Estate, 222 F.2d 665, 668:
'Irrespective of all other considerations, property to be includible must have been transferred. Obviously, the accumulations here involved were not transferred by the decedent to the trustee. It is true, of course, that the accumulations represented the fruit derived from the property which was transferred but, even so, Congress did not make provision for including the fruit, it provided only for the property transferred. If it desired and intended to include the accumulations, it would have been a simple matter for it to have so stated.'
See also Michigan Trust Co. v. Kavanagh, 284 F.2d 502, 506 507 (C.A.6th Cir).
Nothing in the legislative history persuades me that the statute should not be applied as it was written, and I would therefore affirm the judgment.

## Notes

* ↑ The relevant text of the statute is set out on page 628 of the Court's opinion.
* ↑ The value of the original trust corpus at the time of transfer and at the time of Fabrice's death no doubt reflected its income-producing capacity.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Officers and Crew of the U.S.S. Mangrove

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
188 U.S. 720
United States v. Officers and Crew of the U.S. S. Mangrove
Argued: January 7, 8, 9, 1903. --- Decided: February 23, 1903
Assistant Attorney General Hoyt for the United States.
Messrs. James H. Hayden and Joseph K. McCammon for the New York.
Messrs. William B. King and George A. King for the Indiana and the Wilmington.
Messrs. Benjamin Micou, Hilary A. Herbert, and Jefferson B. Browne for the Mangrove.
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
# Woman of the Century/Martha D. Lincoln

​LINCOLN, Mrs. Martha D., author and journalist, widely known by her pen-name, "Bessie Beech," born near Richfield Springs, N. Y., in 1838. She was educated in Whitestown Seminary, N. Y. When she was sixteen years old she began her MARTHA D. LINCOLN. literary career in numerous contributions to the Dover, N. H., "Morning Star," now published in Boston, Mass She became the wife of H. M. Lincoln, a medical student of Canandaigua, N. Y., in 1858. Soon after her marriage she became a regular contributor to "Moore's Rural New Yorker," the "Morning Star" and the "Northern Christian Advocate." Her husband's health became impaired, and in 1871 they moved to Washington, D. C., to secure a warmer climate. The financial crisis of 1871 and 1872 wrecked his fortune. Then Mrs. Lincoln took up journalistic work in earnest. She became the correspondent of the old "Daily Chronicle," the "Republican," the "Union," the "Republic," and several Sunday journals, and retained her connection with papers outside of Washington. In January, 1878, she contributed to the New York "Times" a description of President Haves' silver wedding, and, 20th June, 1878, she described the Hastings-Platt wedding in the White House for the New ​York "Tribune." She corresponded for the New York "Sun" and the Jamestown "Daily Journal" during the same year She reported for the Cleveland "Plain Dealer" and the New York "Tribune" and "Sun." The amount of work she turned out was remarkable. On 10th July, 1882, she, with two other journalists in Washington, organized the Woman's National Press Association, the first chartered woman's press organization in the world. She became its first secretary, and afterwards for several years served the organization as president. With all her journalistic work she is domestic in her taste and an excellent house-keeper. Her literary work includes some superior verse. Much of her best work is included in her "Beech Leaves," which are being illustrated for publication, and her late work, "Central Figures in American Science." She is doing a great amount of literary work, as biographical sketches of famous women, illustrated articles and poems for children. In 1891 she was appointed delegate to the International Peace Congress, in Rome, Italy, and again, in 1892, delegate to the Peace Congress, in Berne, Switzerland. The same year she was elected president of the American Society of Authors, for Washington, D. C. Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln have a delightful home in Washington, where they have resided since 1870. Their only child, a son, recently married, has, as Mrs. Lincoln says, given her the latest and grandest title, that of "Grandma," which has been one of her coveted honors.