OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Jones v. Bolles/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 364
Jones v. Bolles
We have examined the proofs in the cause and find them to be very full and convincing against the appellant, and are satisfied with the decree of the Circuit Court, unless the same be invalid for some jurisdictional or technical reason.
It is objected that a court of equity has no jurisdiction of the case because the law affords a complete remedy in damages. This objection is groundless. Equity has always had jurisdiction of fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment; and it does not depend on discovery. But in this case a court of law could not give adequate relief. The agreement complained of is perpetual in its nature, and the only effectual relief against it, where the keeping of it on foot is a fraud against parties, is the annulment of it. This cannot be decreed by a court of law, but can by a court of equity.
It is next objected that there is a misjoinder of defendants by reason of making the mining company a party. But the company is directly interested, and though no relief is prayed against it, but rather in its favor, it is eminently proper that it should be made a party, complainant or defendant. It could not be made complainant against its will, and, besides, its own agents joined in the fraudulent representations that were made. As a separate and independent personality, therefore, distinct from the stockholder interest, there was propriety in making it a party defendant.
It is also objected that the appellee, Bolles, does not distinctly state or prove the amount of his interest in the company. The bill expressly states that the appellee purchased on his own account and in trust for other parties a large number of shares, and paid therefor upwards of $25,000; and then afterwards states that the appellant threatened to bring an action against the company to enforce his pretended claim for rents and purchase-money, whereby the stock of the company, which the appellee alleges he purchased in good faith, and which he still held, was liable to become greatly depreciated in value. This is surely an allegation of a large interest, and the statement is nowhere denied in the answer. The appellant avers only his ignorance on the subject. But the allegation is fully corroborated by the proof, at least so far forth as relates to the purchase of stock by the appellee. No question was made on the examination as to his still holding the stock.
We do not perceive any legal grounds of objection to the decree, and it is therefore.
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
# Jones v. Brim

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
165 U.S. 180
Jones v. Brim
This action was originally instituted in June, 1893, before a justice of the peace in the then territory of Utah, to recover the sum of $10 for damages alleged to have resulted from destroying the banks on the side of, and from rolling rocks into and upon, a public highway situated on a hillside, caused by a band of sheep owned by the defendant, while being driven upon such highway.
The supreme court of the territory, on review of the judgment of a district court in favor of the defendant, held that the statute upon which the cause of action was founded was valid, adjudged that the petition stated a cause of action, and remanded the cause to the district court. 11 Utah, 200, 39 Pac. 825. Subsequently the supreme court of the state affirmed a judgment of the district court, which had been entered for the amount claimed. The defendant sued out this writ of error.
F. S. Richards, for plaintiff in error.
P. L. Williams, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice WHITE, after stating the case, 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
# Jones v. Buckell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 554
Jones v. Buckell
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.
This was ejectment for lands in Jacksonville, Florida, brought by John and Mary E. Buckell against Jones and others. Plea, not guilty. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was rendered. The defendants sued out this writ.
The bill of exceptions does not contain any of the evidence on the trial, but relates to the charge, which is set out in the opinion of this court.
The following agreement signed by the attorneys of the respective parties was filed in the court below:--
'The plaintiffs and defendants, by their attorneys, admit the following to be true, without the necessity of introducing evidence in proof thereof, that is to say:
'The plaintiffs admit the regularity of all the proceedings in the confiscation suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the property of Charles Willey, and that there was a decree of condemnation and sale of said property. The defendants are not required to introduce certified copies of such proceeding or the original papers, and that John S. Sammis was the purchaser at confiscation sale.
'The defendants on their part admit that Francis E. Yale and Mary E. Buckell are the children and only heirs-at-law of Charles Willey, and that the lands in controversy are the same lands which the defendants were in possession of at the date of the service of summons in this suit.'
The case was argued by Mr. William A. Beach for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Charles W. Jones for the defendants 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
# Jones v. Buckell/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 554
Jones v. Buckell
The question argued in this case is, whether, under the act of Aug. 6, 1861, c. 60, 'to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes' (12 Stat. 319), a condemnation carried the fee of lands confiscated, or only the life-estate of the owner; but we cannot discover that such a question is fairly presented by the record for our consideration. The ruling of the court below on the motion for a new trial is not reviewable her. This is well settled. Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11; Railway Company v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120.
The only questions, therefore, arising on the bill of exceptions, are those presented by the exception to the following opinion and charge of the court to the jury:--
'The acts of 1861 and 1862, though differing in some respects, are in pari materia; while the one treats of property, the other of the person, both are on account of the acts of the person offending. The Armstrong Foundry case shows that you cannot proceed against the offending thing without coupling with it the guilty knowledge and consent of the person, and that pardon of the offender absolved the property as well as the person. Upon review of the whole case, the court charges you that the condemnation and sale of the lot in question, purporting to convey a fee-simple, only conveys an estate for the life of Charles Willey, and that the heirs of the said Charles Willey are entitled to recover the same.'
The pleadings nowhere show that the rights of the parties depend on the construction or effect of the act of 1861, and no part of the evidence is set out in the bill of exceptions. Copies of deeds and a stipulation in respect to evidence are found in the transcript, but they are nowhere referred to in the bill of exceptions, and it is not even stated in the record that they were used at the trial. As long ago as Dunlop v. Munroe (7 Cranch, 242, 270), it was said by this court that 'each bill of exceptions must be considered as presenting a distinct and substantive case; and it is on the evidence stated in itself alone that the court is to decide.' Of course, evidence may be included in a bill of exceptions by appropriate reference to other parts of the record, and if that had been done here it might have been enough. But with no issue made directly by the pleadings, and no evidence set forth or referred to in the bill of exceptions showing the materiality of the charge complained of, the case presents to us only an abstract proposition of law which may or may not have been stated by the court in a way to be injurious to the plaintiffs in error. Such a proposition we are not required to consider. Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409.
Judgment 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
# Lang v. New York Central Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 455
Lang v. New York Central Railroad Company
Argued: March 1, 1921. --- Decided: March 28, 1921
Mr. Hamilton Ward, of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Maurice C. Spratt, of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice MCKENNA 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
# Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (289 U.S. 109)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 109
Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: March 22, 1933. --- Decided: April 10, 1933
Messrs. Washington Bowie, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., and J. R. Sherrod, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Whitney North Seymour, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (304 U.S. 264)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 264
Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (304 U.S. 264)
Argued: April 28, 1938. --- Decided: May 16, 1938
Messrs. H. B. Jones and Robert E. Bronson, both of Seattle, Wash., for Lang et al.
Miss Helen R. Carloss, of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[Argument of Counsel from page 265 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Lang v. New Jersey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 467
Lang v. New Jersey
Argued: April 6, 1908. --- Decided: April 27, 1908
Mr. Alan H. Strong for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 467 intentionally omitted]
Mr. George Berdine for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 468 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Jack and Jill (Alcott)

JACK AND JILL Jack and Jill went up the hill To coast with fun and laughter; Jack fell down and broke his crown, And Jill came tumbling after.

## Table of Contents

* Chapter I. The Catastrophe
* Chapter II. Two Penitents
* Chapter III. Ward No. 1
* Chapter IV. Ward No. 2.
* Chapter V. Secrets
* Chapter VI. Surprises
* Chapter VII. Jill's Mission
* Chapter VIII. Merry and Molly
* Chapter IX. The Debating Club
* Chapter X. The Dramatic Club
* Chapter XI. "Down Brakes"
* Chapter XII. The Twenty-Second of February
* Chapter XIII. Jack Has a Mystery
* Chapter XIV. And Jill Finds It Out
* Chapter XV. Saint Lucy
* Chapter XVI. Up at Merry's
* Chapter XVII. Down at Molly's
* Chapter XVIII. May Baskets
* Chapter XIX. Good Templars
* Chapter XX. A Sweet Memory
* Chapter XXI. Pebbly Beach
* Chapter XXII. A Happy Day
* Chapter XXIII. Cattle Show
* Chapter XXIV. Down the River
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
# Latin for beginners (1911)/Part II/Lesson LIX

Layout 2
LESSON LIX
NUMERALS (Continued) • THE ACCUSATIVE OF EXTENT
333. Learn the first twenty of the ordinal numerals (§ 478). The ordinals are all declined like bonus.
334. The distributive numerals are declined like the plural of bonus. The first three are
335. We have learned that, besides its use as object, the accusative is used to express space relations not covered by the ablative. We have had such expressions as per plūrimōs annōs, for a great many ​years; per tōtum diem, for a whole day. Here the space relation is one of extent of time. We could also say per decem pedēs, for ten feet, where the space relation is one of extent of space. While this is correct Latin, the usual form is to use the accusative with no preposition, as,
* Vir tōtum diem cucurrit, the man ran for a whole day
* Caesar mūrum decem pedēs mōvit, Cæsar moved the wall ten feet
336. Rule. Accusative of Extent. Duration of time and extent of space are expressed by the accusative.
a. This accusative answers the questions how long? how far?
b. Distinguish carefully between the accusative of time how long and the ablative of time when, or within which.
Select the accusatives of time and space and the ablatives of time in the following:
When did the general arrive? He arrived at two o’clock. How long had he been marching? For four days. How far did he march? He marched sixty-five miles. Where has he pitched his camp? Three miles from the river, and he will remain there several days. The wall around the camp is ten feet high. When did the war begin? In the first year after the king’s death.
337.
EXERCISES
First learn the special vocabulary, p. 298.
I.Cæsar in Gaul. Caesar bellum in Gallia septem annōs gessit. Prīmō annō Helvētiōs vīcit, et eōdem annō multae Germanōrum gentēs eī sēsē dēdidērunt. Multōs iam annōs Germānī Gallōs vexabant et ducēs Germānī cōpiās suās trāns Rhēnum saepe trādūcēbant. Nōn singulī veniēbant, sed multa milia hominum in Galliam contendēbant. Quā dē causā prīncipēs Galliae concilium convocāvērunt atque statuērunt legates ad Caesarem mittere. Caesar, simul atque hunc rūmōrem audīvit, cōpiās suās sine morā coēgit. Primā lūce fortiter cum Germanīs proelium commīsit. Tōtum diem ācriter pugnātum est. Caesar ipse ā dextrō cornū acicm dūxit. Magna pars exercitūs Germānī cecidit. Post magnam caedem paucī multa milia passuum ad flūmen fūgērunt. ​II.
* Caesar pitched camp two miles from the river.
* He fortified the camp with a ditch fifteen feet wide and a rampart nine feet high.
* The camp of the enemy was a great way off (was distant by a great space).
* On the next day he hastened ten miles in three hours.
* Suddenly the enemy with all their forces made an attack upon (in with acc.) the rear.
* For two hours the Romans were hard pressed by the barbarians.
* In three hours the barbarians were fleeing.
References
# Latin for beginners (1911)/Part II/Lesson LV

Layout 2
LESSON LV
IRREGULAR COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES (Continued)
311. Some adjectives in English have irregular comparison, as good, better, best; many, more, most. So Latin comparison presents some irregularities. Among the adjectives that are compared irregularly are
| Positive | Comparative | Superlative |
| bonus, -a, -um, good | melior, melius | optimus, -a, -um |
| magnus, -a, -um, great | maior, maius | maximus, -a, -um |
| malus, -a, -um, bad | peior, peius | pessimus, -a, -um |
| multus, -a, -um, much | ——, plūs | plūrimus, -a, -um |
| multī, -ae, -a, many | plūrēs, plūra | plūrimī, -ae, -a |
| parvus, -a, -um, small | minor, minus | minimus, -a, -um |
312. The following four adjectives have two superlatives. Unusual forms are placed in parentheses.
313. Plūs, more (plural more, many, several), is declined as follows:
| | Singular | Singular | Plural | Plural |
| | MASC. AND FEM. | NEUT. | MASC. AND FEM. | NEUT. |
| Nom. | —— | plūs | plūrēs | plūra |
| Gen. | —— | plūris | plūrium | plūrium |
| Dat. | —— | —— | plūribus | plūribus |
| Acc. | —— | plūs | plūrīs, -ēs | plūra |
| Abl. | —— | plūre | plūribus | plūribus |
a. In the singular plūs is used only as a neuter substantive. ​314.
EXERCISES
First learn the special vocabulary, p. 296.
I.
* Reliquī hostēs, quī ā dextrō cornū proelium commīserant, dē superiōre locō fūgērunt et sēsē in silvam maximam recēpērunt.
* In extrēmā parte silvae castra hostium posita erant.
* Plūrimī captīvī ab equitibus ad Caesarem ductī sunt.
* Caesar vērō iussit eōs in servitūtem trādī.
* Posterō diē magna multitūdō mulierum ab Rōmānīs in valle īmā reperta est.
* Hae mulierēs maximē perterritae adventū Caesaris sēsē occīdere studēbant.
* Eae quoque plūrīs fābulās dē exercitūs Rōmānī sceleribus audīverant.
* Fāma illōrum mīlitum optima nōn erat.
* In barbarōrum aedificiīs maior cōpia frūmentī reperta est.
* Nēmō crēbrīs proeliīs contendere sine aliquō perīculō potest.
II.
* The remaining women fled from their dwellings and hid themselves.
* They were terrified and did not wish to be captured and given over into slavery.
* Nothing can be worse than slavery.
* Slavery is worse than death.
* In the Roman empire a great many were killed because they refused to be slaves.
* To surrender the fatherland is the worst crime.
Reading Selection
References
# Latin for beginners (1911)/Part II/Lesson LIV

Layout 2
LESSON LIV
IRREGULAR COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES • THE ABLATIVE WITH COMPARATIVES WITHOUT QUAM
307. The following six adjectives in -lis form the comparative regularly; but the superlative is formed by adding -limus to the base of the positive. Learn the meanings and comparison.
| Positive | Comparative | Superlative |
| facilis, -e, easy | facilior, -ius | facillimus, -a, -um |
| difficilis, -e, hard | difficilior, -ius | difficillimus, -a, -um |
| similis, -e, like | similior, -ius | simillimus, -a, -um |
| dissimilis, -e, unlike | dissimilior, -ius | dissimillimus, -a, -um |
| gracilis, -e, slender | gracilior, -ius | gracillimus, -a, -um |
| humilis, -e, low | humilior, -ius | humillimus, -a, -um |
308. From the knowledge gained in the preceding lesson we should translate the sentence Nothing is brighter than the sun
Nihil est clārius quam sōl
But the Romans, especially in negative sentences, often expressed the comparison in this way,
Nihil est clārius sōle
which, literally translated, is Nothing is brighter away from the sun; that is, starting from the sun as a standard, nothing is brighter. This relation is expressed by the separative ablative sōle. Hence the rule ​309. Rule. Ablative with Comparatives. The comparative degree, if quam is omitted, is followed by the separative ablative.
EXERCISES
First learn the special vocabulary, p. 296.
I.
* Nēmō mīlitēs alacriōrēs Rōmānīs vīdit.
* Statim imperātor iussit nūntiōs quam celerrimōs litterās Rōmam portāre.
* Multa flūmina sunt lēniōra Rhēno.
* Apud Rōmānōs quis erat clārior Caesare?
* Nihil pulchrius urbe Rōmā vīdī.
* Subitō multitūdō audācissima magnō clāmōre proelium ācrius commīsit.
* Num est equus tuus tardus? Nōn vērō tardus, sed celerior aquilā.
* Ubi Rōmae fui, nēmō erat mihi amīcior Sextō.
* Quaedam mulierēs cibum mīlitibus dare cupivērunt.
* Rēx vetuit cīvīs ex urbe noctū discēdere.
* Ille puer est gracilior hāc muliere.
* Explōrātor duās (two) viās, alteram facilem, alteram difficiliōrem, dēmōnstrāvit.
II.
* What city have you seen more beautiful than Rome?
* The Gauls were not more eager than the Germans.
* The eagle is not slower than the horse.
* The spirited woman did not fear to make the journey by night.
* The mind of the multitude was quite gentle and friendly.
* But the king's mind was very different.
* The king was not like (similar to) his noble father.
* These hills are lower than the huge mountains of our territory.
ARMA ROMANA
References
# Latin for beginners (1911)/Part II/Lesson LVI

Layout 2
LESSON LVI
IRREGULAR COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES (Concluded) • ABLATIVE OF THE MEASURE OF DIFFERENCE
315. The following adjectives are irregular in the formation of the superlative and have no positive. Forms rarely used are in parentheses.
| Comparative | Superlative |
| citerior, hither | (citimus, hithermost) |
| interior, inner | (intimus, inmost) |
| prior, former | prīmus, first |
| propior, nearer | proximus, next, nearest |
| ulterior, further | ultimus, furthest |
316. I.the sentence Galba is a head taller than Sextus, the phrase a head taller expresses the measure of difference in height between ​Galba and Sextus. The Latin form of expression would be Galba is taller than Sextus by a head. This is clearly an ablative relation, and the construction is called the ablative of the measure of difference.
| Examples | Galba est altior capite quam Sextus Galba is a head taller (taller by a head) than Sextus. Illud iter ad Italiam est multō brevius That route to Italy is much shorter (shorter by much) |
317. Rule. Ablative of the Measure of Difference. With comparatives and words implying comparison the ablative is used to denote the measure of difference.
a. Especially common in this construction are the neuter ablatives
318.
EXERCISES
First learn the special vocabulary, p. 297.
I.
* Barbarī proelium committere statuērunt eō magis quod Rōmānī īnfīrmī esse vidēbantur.
* Meum cōnsilium est multō melius quam tuum quia multō facilius est.
* Haec via est multō lātior quam illa.
* Barbarī erant nihilō tardiōrēs quam Rōmānī.
* Tuus equus est paulō celerior quam meus.
* Iī quī paulō fortiōrēs erant prohibuērunt reliquōs aditum relinquere.
* Inter illās cīvitātēs Germānia mīlitēs habet optimōs.
* Propior via quae per hanc vallem dūcit est inter portum et lacum.
* Servī, quī agrōs citeriōrēs incolēbant, priōrēs dominōs relinquere nōn cupīvērunt, quod eōs amābant.
* Ultimae Germāniae partēs numquam in fidem Rōmānōrum vēnērunt.
* Nam trāns Rhēnum aditus erat multō difficilior exercituī Rōmānō.
II.
* Another way much more difficult (more difficult by much) was left through hither Gaul.
* In ancient times no state was stronger than the Roman empire.
* The states of further Gaul did not wish to give hostages to Cæsar.
* Slavery is no better (better by nothing) than death.
* The best citizens are not loved by the worst.
* The active enemy immediately withdrew into the nearest forest, for they were terrified by Cæsar’s recent victories.
References