OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Kimball v. Evans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 320
Kimball v. Evans
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.
Pending a suit in the District Court of Stark County, Ohio, a petition was filed, under the act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 558), for its removal to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District in that State. This petition presenting for consideration, in the opinion of the District Court, difficult and important questions, the cause was reserved, in accordance with the practice in Ohio, to the Supreme Court 'for its decision on said petition for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court.' The Supreme Court, after hearing, dismissed the petition and remanded the cause to the District Court 'for further proceedings according to law.'
To reverse this judgment the present writ of error was brought.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. H. E. Paine for the defendant in error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Lee v. Mississippi

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 742
Lee v. Mississippi
Argued: Nov. 21, 1947. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1948
See 34 So.2d 736.
Mr. Forrest B. Jackson, of Jackson, Miss., for petitioner.
Mr. Richard Olney Arrington, of Jackson, Miss., for respondent.
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
# Lee v. New Jersey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
207 U.S. 67
Lee v. New Jersey
Argued: October 16, 1907. --- Decided: October 28, 1907
Messrs. E. A. Armstrong and William T. Read for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 68 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Nelson B. Gaskill and Robert H. McCarter for defendant in error.
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
# Lee v. Lee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 44
Lee v. Lee
IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington.
This case was argued by Mr Coxe, for the plaintiffs in error; and by Mr Lee and Mr Jones, for the defendant.
In the opinion of the court the facts are fully stated.
Mr Coxe cited, Davis's Collection of the Laws of the District of Columbia 155, act of Congress of May 3, 1802; Davis's Collect. 123, act of Congress of 1801; Davis's Collect. 265, act of June 1812, sect. 12. These citations referred to the question of slavery. As to the question of intention being exclusively for the jury, Mr Coxe cited, 6 Peters 466; 2 Cranch 258, 390; 1 Wheat. 151, 121, 3 Cond. Rep. 462; 2 Wheat. 149, 153.
Mr Lee and Mr Jones referred to the same provisions of the laws of Maryland and of the United States, as were cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr Justice THOMPSON 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
# Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 542
Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 22, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
Messrs. H. M. Hitchings and Frank Wolcott, both of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Charles W. Pierson, of New York City, for appellees.
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
# Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 542
Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 22, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
This is a bill brought against the Lehigh Valley Coal Company, lessee of a coal mine, by John Alden Lee who owns one-half of the mine in his own right and as trustee for his brother. Kate P. Dixon owns the other half. The bill seeks a construction of the lease and of an agreement made on behalf of the plaintiff's interest on January 21, 1913; a declaration that certain parts of the agreement are a fraud upon the plaintiff and Kate P. Dixon; an account to the plaintiff and Kate P. Dixon from the Coal Company, and that the lease may be declared to be and to have been since January 21, 1913, in full force and effect. The Coal Company is a corporation of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff Lee a citizen and resident of New York, and Kate P. Dixon is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania. She is made a defendant, the bill alleges, because of her refusal to be made a plaintiff 'and because to make her such party plaintiff would oust the Court of jurisdiction.' The bill was dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the District Court, we presume on the ground that so far as appeared the arrangement of the parties was merely a contrivance for the purpose of founding a jurisdiction that otherwise would not exist. Dawson v. Columbia Avenue Saving Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co., 197 U.S. 178, 181, 25 S.C.t. 420, 49 L. Ed. 713.
The plaintiff and appellant now argues that Kate P. Dixon is not a necessary party. When a defendant seeks to remove a suit from a State Court to the District Court, of course he is entitled to contend that a party joined by the plaintiff is not a necessary party and therefore does not make the removal impossible by defeating the jurisdiction. Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co., 264 U.S. 182, 44 S.C.t. 266, 68 L. Ed. 628, 31 A. L. R. 867. It is a different question whether the plaintiff can repudiate the effect of his own joinder, can retain a party to the relief sought and yet keep him on the wrong side in order to avoid the effect of his own act. Without inquiring whether the plaintiff could have maintained the suit alone had he so elected and had he found it impossible to join Kate P. Dixon, obviously she was a 'necessary' even if not an indispensable party. Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 139, 15 L. Ed. 158. It would be hard upon the Coal Company to compel it to submit to an adjudication upon the lease, upon a fraud alleged to have been committed against both owners, and to an account, in the absence of one of the lessors. The joinder of both is much more than a mere form. As both are named they must be arranged upon the side on which they belong. Menefee v. Frost (C. C.) 123 F. 633. Blacklock v. Small, 127 U.S. 96, 8 S.C.t. 1096, 32 L. Ed. 70.
Decree 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
# Lee v. Madigan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 228
Lee v. Madigan
Argued: Dec. 9, 10, 1958. --- Decided: Jan 12, 1959
Messrs. Carl L. Rhoads, Ecorse, Mich., and Robert E. Hannon, Castro Valley, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# John Brown (Du Bois)/Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY
For the general reader the following works are indispensable:
To the above may be added the shorter estimate by H. E. von Holst, 1899, and some may like Chamberlain's pert essay (Beacon Biographies, 1889).
Students must add to these the following books and articles which contain many of the original sources of our knowledge:
The purely controversial literature raging around John Brown is endless. Those interested might read:
# John Brown (Chamberlin)/Preface

To present a picture of the man, separating him as much as possible from the controversies and hatreds which commonly rise up at the mention of his name, and to tell the story of his life plainly, without inquiry into the effect of his work, or any further estimate and comparison, would be quite enough to attempt in a biography of John Brown of Osawatomie as brief as this one must be. Brown's sacrifice has been classed sometimes with that of Jesus of Nazareth; he has often been called murderer, brigand, and traitor. He has been written about much and well, and for the most part fiercely. It would seem that the time has come for a calmer account of him, given with no heat or bitterness. Both sides of the controversy with which he concerned himself so actively should have learned much in forty years.
Yet the story of Brown is so strongly simple, so utterly governed by an ideal, so ​glowing and tragical, that any one who follows it closely is likely to find himself kindling before he is aware of it.
JOSEPH EDGAR CHAMBERLIN.
Boston, October 15, 1899.
# John Brown (Chamberlin)/Chronology

1800
May 9. John Brown was born at Torrington, Connecticut.
1805
His family removed to Ohio.
1816
Joined the Congregational church at Hudson, Ohio.
1821
June 21. Married Dianthe Lusk.
1825
Appointed postmaster at Randolph, Pennsylvania.
1832
August 10. His first wife died.
1833
July 11. Married Mary Anne Day.
1835
Returned to Ohio.
1837
1840
Made a trip to western Virginia to survey lands for Oberlin College.
1846
Removed to Springfield, Massachusetts, as selling agent of the Western wool-growers.
1847
Unfolded to Frederick Douglass a plan for a negro insurrection in the Virginia mountains.
1849
Went to England to sell wool, and visited the Continent.
Became associated with Gerrit Smith's plan to colonize negroes on Adirondack lands, and removed his family to a farm at North Elba, on these lands.
1850
1859
January–March. Conducted a small party of liberated Missouri slaves through the Northwestern States to Canada.
July 3. Appeared at Harper's Ferry. Hired a farm near there. Assembled men and munitions.
October 16. Attacked and captured Harper's Ferry with his band.
October 17. Was attacked by United States forces, wounded, and made prisoner.
October 26. Placed on trial at Charlestown.
November 2. Found guilty.
December 2. John Brown died on the gallows.
# John Brown (Du Bois)

* related authors: John Brown (1800-1859).
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
American Crisis Biographies
Edited by
Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Ph. D.
[Advertisements]
The American Crisis Biographies
Edited by Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Ph.D. With the counsel and advice of Professor John B. McMaster, of the University of Pennsylvania.
Each 12mo, cloth, with frontispiece portrait. Price $1.25 net; by mail, $1.37.
These biographies will constitute a complete and comprehensive history of the great American sectional struggle in the form of readable and authoritative biography. The editor has enlisted the co-operation of many competent writers, as will be noted from the list given below. An interesting feature of the undertaking is that the series is to be impartial. Southern writers having been assigned to Southern subjects and Northern writers to Northern subjects, but all will belong to the younger generation of writers, thus assuring freedom from any suspicion of wartime prejudice. The Civil War will not be treated as a rebellion, but as the great event in the history of our nation, which, after forty years, it is now clearly recognized to have been.
    Now ready:
Abraham Lincoln.By Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer. Thomas H. Benton.By Joseph M. Rogers. David G. Farragut.By John R. Spears. William T. Sherman.By Edward Robins. Frederick Douglass.By Booker T. Washington. Judah P. Benjamin.By Pierce Butler. Robert E. Lee.By Philip Alexander Bruce. Jefferson Davis.By Prof. W. E. Dodd. Alexander H. Stephens.By Louis Pendleton. John C. Calhoun.By Gaillard Hunt. "Stonewall" Jackson.By Henry Alexander White.
John Brown.By W. E. Burghardt Dubois.
    In preparation:
Daniel Webster.By Prof. C. H. Van Tyne. William Lloyd Garrison.By Lindsay Swift. Charles Sumner.By Prof. George H. Haynes. William H. Seward.By Edward Everett Hale, Jr. Stephen A. Douglas.By Prof. Henry Parker Willis. Thaddeus Stevens.By Prof. J. A. Woodburn. Andrew Johnson.By Prof. Walter L. Fleming. Henry Clay.By Thomas H. Clay. Ulysses S. Grant.By Prof. Franklin S. Edmonds, Edwin M. Stanton.By Edwin S. Corwin. Jay Cooke.By Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer.
American Crisis Biographies
John Brown
by
W. E. Burghardt du Bois, Ph. D.
Professor of Sociology, Atlanta University
Author of "The Suppression of the African Slave Trade," "The Philadelphia Negro," "The Souls of Black Folk," etc.
Philadelphia
George W. Jacobs & Company
Publishers
Copyright, 1909, by George W. Jacobs & Company Published September, 1909
All rights reserved Printed in U. S. A.
To the memory of
Elizabeth
Contents
Front Matter Preface
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 1963, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 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
# Jim Hanvey, Detective

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
These episodes in the life of a detective of beefy frame and chain lightning brain are replete with humor and human interest. —The Bookman December 1923.
JIM HANVEY DETECTIVE
BY OCTAVUS ROY COHEN
Author of “The Crimson Alibi,” “Midnight,” etc.
NEW YORK DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY
1923
copyright, 1922, 1923 By OCTAVUS ROY COHEN
PRINTED IN U. S. A.
VAIL-BALLOU COMPANY binghampton and new york
To CECILE O. LOPEZ

### CONTENTS

* page
* Fish Eyes1
* Homespun Silk 43
* Common Stock 78
* Helen of Troy, N. Y. 109
* Caveat Emptor 149
* The Knight's Gambit 187
* Pink Bait 238
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 1959, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 64 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
# King v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "King v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* King v. United States (99 U.S. 229)
* King v. United States (344 U.S. 254)
* King v. United States (379 U.S. 329)
See also United States v. King.
# King v. Putnam Inv Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 23
King v. Putnam Inv Company
Argued: Nov. 7, 1918. --- Decided: Nov 18, 1918
Mr. Lee Monroe, of Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. B. I. Litowich, of Salina, Kan., for defendant in error.
Memorandum for the Court by the CHIEF JUSTICE.
Having previously considered this case (82 Kan. 216, 107 Pac. 559; 87 Kan. 842, 126 Pac. 1093) the court awarded relief because of the violation of a contract of employment to procure the sale of real estate. 96 Kan. 109, 150 Pac. 559.
The case is here in reliance upon a federal question based upon the assumption that the authority to sell included land belonging to the United States covered by an inchoate homestead entry. But the court below expressly found that such land was not included in the contract, hence the sole basis for the asserted federal question disappears.
And this result is not changed by considering, to the extent that it is our duty to do so, the question of fact upon which the existence of the alleged federal question depends. Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.S. 585, 593, 35 Sup. Ct. 429, 59 L. Ed. 735, L. R. A. 1917F, 1148 Ann. Cas. 1916 A, 1; Creswill v. Grand Lodge K. P., 225 U.S. 246, 261, 32 Sup. Ct. 822, 56 L. Ed. 1074; Kansas City Southern R. R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co., 223 U.S. 573, 591, 32 Sup. Ct. 316, 56 L. Ed. 556. We so conclude because the result of discharging that duty leaves us convinced that the finding below was adequately sustained; indeed, that the record makes it clear that the alleged ground for the federal question was a mere afterthought. The case, therefore, must be and is
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

## 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
# King v. Putnam Inv Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 23
King v. Putnam Inv Company
Argued: Nov. 7, 1918. --- Decided: Nov 18, 1918

## 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
# King v. St. Vincent's Hospital

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
502 U.S. 215
King v. St. Vincent's Hospital
No. 90-889 Argued: Oct. 16, 1991. --- Decided: Dec 16, 1991
Syllabus
Petitioner King, a National Guard member, advised his civilian employer, respondent St. Vincent's Hospital, that he had accepted a 3-year full-time appointment with the Guard, and requested a leave of absence from his hospital job as ostensibly guaranteed by 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d), the statute which provides reemployment rights to service personnel in King's position. St. Vincent's denied King's request and brought suit in the District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Act does not provide reemployment rights after tours of duty as long as King's. The court granted the requested relief, ruling that service of the type in question was protected by § 2024(d), but holding, under Circuit precedent, that leave requests under that subsection must be reasonable, and that King's request for a 3-year leave was per se unreasonable. A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Section 2024(d) does not limit the length of military service after which a member of the Armed Forces retains a right to civilian reemployment. Subsection (d)'s text-which specifies that any covered employee "shall . . . be granted a leave . . . for the period required to perform active duty [and] [u]pon . . . release from . . . such duty . . . shall be permitted to return to [his or her] position"-is utterly silent about any durational limit on the protection it provides. Reading the statute as a whole, it must be inferred that the unqualified nature of subsection (d)'s protection was deliberate, since other subsections of § 2024, protecting other classes of full-time service personnel, expressly limit the periods of their protection. St. Vincent's argument that such limits reflect a hierarchy of reemployment rights-under which reservists subject to duty under subsection (d) are entitled to the least protection and are therefore subject to an imprecise durational limit of reasonableness-is unconvincing because its conclusion rests on circular reasoning, requiring the assumption of the point at issue: that § 2024(d) reservists really do get less protection than the inductees, enlistees, and other veterans covered by the other subsections. Pp. 218-223.
901 F.2d 1068, (CA 11 1990), reversed and remanded.
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except THOMAS, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Amy L. Wax, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Harry L. Hopkins, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
Justice SOUTER 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
# King v. Rapp

The King versus Philip Henry Rapp.
Indictment for Misdemeanor, in marrying a Man to a Woman who had another Husband living.—Moved, on the Part of the Defendant, to put off the Trial on Affidavit of material Witnesses wanting, and that he had taken the proper steps to get them.–Opposed by the Attorney General, as being a criminal Case, and not within the Rules of civil Cases. But granted by the Court, the Defendant being a Clergyman, and his Living depending on his acquittal: but declared not to be a Precedent.
# Jones v. Blackwell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 599
Jones v. Blackwell
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
This action was brought by Blackwell against Stockdale, collector of internal revenue for the first collection district of Louisiana, and, on his death, revived against Jones, his executrix.
Judgmeht having been rendered against her, she sued out this writ of error.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. D. Rouse and Mr. William Grant, contra.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN 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