OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nelson v. Leland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 48
Nelson v. Leland
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, sitting in admiralty.
It was a case of collision between the steamboat Brigadier General R. H. Stokes and a flat-boat called 'Clear the Track,' which occurred upon the Yazoo river, 200 miles above its mouth where it empties into the Mississippi, twelve miles above Vicksburg, and wholly within the State of Mississippi. Its waters are fresh, and there are no tides in it. The libel was filed by Nelson & Co., the consignees of the flat-boat, and of 366 bales of cotton shipped on board of it.
The District Court gave judgment in favor of the libellants for the sum reported by the commissioners, viz: $7,616.44. The Circuit Court was of opinion that the exception taken to the jurisdiction of the court was well founded, annulled the decree of the District Court, and dismissed the libel with costs. The libellants appealed to this court.
At December term, 1857, Mr. Gillet, of counsel for the appellees, moved the court to dismiss this appeal, 'upon the ground of a want of jurisdiction originally in the District Court.' Upon which motion, Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court, that the question of jurisdiction in the lower court is a proper one for appeal to this court, and for argument when the case is regularly reached, and that this court have jurisdiction on such appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal on that ground was therefore overruled.
At that term, Mr. Gillet and Mr. Cushing filed an elaborate brief against the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in this case; but at that term the court decided the case of Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia, which is reported in 20 Howard, 292. The points and authorities referred to in the brief were examined and ruled in that case, and therefore it is not necessary to state them in the present report.
The case was argued upon the facts as they appeared in evidence by Mr. Pike for the appellants, and Mr. Gillet for the appellees. Each party accused the other of negligence and want of skill in several particulars, which points would be of little interest to the general reader, and are therefore passed over.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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
# Nelson v. Montgomery Ward & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 373
Nelson v. Montgomery Ward & Company
Argued: Jan. 13, 14, 1941. --- Decided: Feb 17, 1941
See 312 U.S. 716, 61 S.Ct. 804, 85 L.Ed. --.
Mr. John E. Mulroney, of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioners.
Mr. Stuart S. Ball, of Chicago, Ill., 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
# Naples

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Naples."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, travel guide, 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.
* "Naples. The Song of the Syren" (1831), a poem by Felicia Dorothea Hemans
* Naples a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier
* Naples (1872), a poem by Władysław Tarnowski
* "Naples," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Naples, Kingdom of," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
# Naples. The Song of the Syren

* "Naples. The Song of the Siren", in The Winter's Wreath for 1832 (1831)
* "Naples, the Song of the Syren", in The Royal Lady's Magazine (1831) (transcription project)
* "Naples, a Song of the Siren", in National Lyrics, and Songs for Music (1834)
# Napoleon's Addresses/Napoleon's Will

NAPOLEON'S WILL.
"Napoleon.
"This 15th April, 1821, at Longwood, Island of St. Helena. This is my Testament or act of my last will.
"1. I die in the Apostolical Roman religion, in the bosom of which I was born, more than fifty years since.
"2. It is my wish that my ashes may repose on the banks of the Seine, in the midst of the French people, whom I have loved so well.
"3. I have always had reason to be pleased with my dearest wife, Maria-Louisa. I retain for her, to my last moment, the most tender sentiments. I beseech her to watch, in order to preserve my son from the snares which yet environ his infancy.
"4. I recommend to my son, never to forget that he was born a French prince, and never to allow himself to become an instrument in the hands of the triumvirs who oppress the nations of Europe; he ought never to fight ​against France, or injure her in any manner; he ought to adopt my motto: 'Everything for the French people.'
"5. I die prematurely, assassinated by the English oligarchy and its . . .
"The English nation will not be slow in avenging me.
"6. The two unfortunate results of the invasions of France, when she had still so many resources, are to be attributed to the treason of Marmont, Augereau, Talleyrand, and La Fayette.
"I forgive them—may the posterity of France forgive them as I do.
"7. I thank my good and most excellent mother, the Cardinal, my brothers, Joseph, Lucien, and Jerome, Pauline, Caroline, Julie, Hortense, Catherine, Eugène, for the interest they have continued to feel for me. I pardon Louis for the libel he published in 1820; it is replete with false assertions and falsified documents.
"8. I disavow the Manuscript of St. Helena, and other works, under the title of Maxims, Sayings, etc., which persons have been pleased to publish for the last six years. Such are not the rules which have guided my life. I ​caused the Duc d'Enghien to be arrested and tried, because that step was essential to the safety, interest, and honor of the French people, when the Comte d'Artois was maintaining, by his own confession, sixty assassins at Paris. Under similar circumstances I should act in the same way."
the end.
# Napoleon

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Napoleon."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Napoleon, a biography by Hilaire Belloc
* Napoleon, a biography by T. P. O'Connor
* "Napoleon", a poem by Gamaliel Bradford in A Treasury of War Poetry, ... 1914-1919 (1917).
* "Napoleon", a poem by Richard Watson Gilder
* "Napoleon" a song in the musical Have a Heart by P. G. Wodehouse (1916)

## See also

* Author:Napoleon Bonaparte
* Author:Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte (Napoleon III of France)
# New York Trust Company v. Eisner

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 345
New York Trust Company v. Eisner
Argued: April 25 and 26, 1921. --- Decided: May 16, 1921
Mr. George Sutherland, of Washington, D. C., and H. T. Newcomb, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for defendant in error.
Mr. John B. Gleason, of New York City, for the Comptroller of the State of New York, by special leave.
Mr. J. Weston Allen, of Boston, Mass., for the State of Massachusetts and others, by special leave.
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
# New York Tribune/1868/The Amity-Place Abortion Case

* related portals: Susannah Lattin.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
Susannah Lattin (1848-1868) in the New York Tribune on September 9, 1868.
The Amity-Place Abortion Case. The investigation into the circumstances attendant on the death of Susannah Lattin, in Dr. H. D. Grindle's Lying in Asylum, at No. 6 Amity-place, was concluded yesterday at the Mercer street. Police Station, by Coroner Rollins. In the course of the investigation, Dr. John C. Harrison of No. 177 Bleeker street, testified that Susannah called on him for medical treatment; she mentioned that she had led a young man to believe that she was enceinte by him, and asked witness not to undeceive him, as he would probably marry her; she mentioned that the young man had given her $50 to have an operation performed; Susannah was accompanied by a woman of the town on this occasion; not long after that Mr. Houghton called and paid witness $50; on that occasion witness told him he was not treating Susannah for an abortion; two other men afterward called, one of whom seemed to think she was being treated for on abortion; they seemed anxious to know how she was getting along; witness denied that he was in the habit of procuring abortions. Dr. Henry D. Grindle, the proprietor of the place wherein the unfortunate woman died, testified that be kept a lying in asylum; denied that abortions were procured there; since January there has been 20 or 30 births in the house; a return of each case was made to the Board of Health; this is the second patient that had died since he opened his place: Susannah came to his place on August 5, accompanied by Mr. Powell The remainder of a witness's testimony merely corroborated much of that given heretofore by his assistants. The evidence of Drs. Dorn and Finnel, and the post mortem by Drs. Beach, Fiuneli, and others presented no new features of interest. The case was then submitted to the jury, who, after lengthy debate, and the protest of one of their number, adopted the following as their verdict: "We find that Susannah Lattin came to her death by metro-peritonitis, the result of child birth, at the establishment of Dr. Grindle. No. 6 Amity-place. We further censure Dr. Grindle for the irregular manner of conducting its business, relative to taking in women to confine; and also to his method of adopting the children so delivered, we further recommend the Legislature to so enact a law whereby all such establishments shall be under the supervision and control of the Board of Health, or so other recognized authority; we further condemn the practice of any regular medical college recognizing students connected to such establishments."
This work was published in 1868 and is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 155 years or less since publication.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# New Orleans Company v. Scarlet

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 528
New Orleans Company v. Scarlet
Argued: and Submitted March 18, 1919. --- Decided: April 21, 1919
Messrs. J. Blanc Monroe, of New Orleans, La., Albert S. Bozeman, of Meridian, Miss., Monte M. Lemann, of New Orleans, La., and H. O'B. Cooper, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Thomas G. Fewell, of Meridian, Miss., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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 Orleans Company v. Louisiana ex rel. New Orleans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
157 U.S. 219
New Orleans Company v. Louisiana ex rel. New Orleans
This was an application filed by the city of New Orleans, in the civil district court for the parish of Orleans, for a writ of mandamus to compel the New Orleans City & Lake Railroad Company to perform certain contract obligations in reference to keeping streets, pavements, etc., in good repair. The writ was granted, and made peremptory, as prayed. On a writ of error to the supreme court of Louisiana, the judgment was modified and affirmed. 7 South. 606. The respondent brought error to this court.
George Denegre and Walter D. Denegre, for plaintiff in error.
E. A. O'Sullivan, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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 Orleans Company v. State of Mississippi District Attorney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 12
New Orleans Company v. State of Mississippi District Attorney
Also the following clauses in an act of the legislature of Louisiana, approved August 19, 1868, in reference to the same company: 'And it is also provided that said company is authorized and empowered to construct and maintain its said railroad over and across the waters of the state of Louisiana, known as the Pass Chef Menteur, Little Rigolet, Great Rigolet, or that part of Lake Pontchartrain east of the west line of Point aux Herbs, and the West Pearl river, and other streams and bayous between Lake Pontchartrain and Pearl river, and Pearl river, by bridges: Provided, however, that in the channel of that part of Lake Pontchartrain hereinbefore named, there shall be constructed and maintained by said company a draw-bridge, which, when open, shall give a clear space for the passage of vessels, of not less than one hundred feet in width; and in the channel of the Pearl river the said company shall construct and maintain a draw-bridge, which, when open, shall give clear space for the passage of vessels, of not less than sixty feet in width, except in case the company shall locate their road across the Great Rigolet at a point south of (or below) the principal entrance of Pearl river into the Great Rigolet, when the company shall only be required to construct one drawbridge, which shall be in the channel of the Great Rigolet, as hereinbefore named; and said company, after the construction of the said draw-bridges or draw-bridge, shall, at all times thereafter, provide that said draw-bridges or draw-bridge shall be opened for the passage of any and all vessels through the same without unnecessary delay. It is also provided that said part of this section as relates to Pearl river, if the line of the road shall be located across the said river at a point where it constitutes the boundary line between the state of Louisiana and the state of Mississippi, shall not take effect until the state of Mississippi has consented to and authorized the same, or said company has built such a bridge across said Pearl river for its said railroad as shall be in accordance with this section, and also with any authority or power granted to said company by the state of Mississippi in the premises; and such draw-bridge may be built in the center of the channel of said Pearl river, or in that portion of the same within the territory of the state of Mississippi, or of this state, as most convenient for public use.' Acts La. 1868, No. 28, p. 32.
[Statement of Case from pages 15-16 intentionally omitted]
Gaylord B. Clark and Thos. L. Bayne, for plaintiff in error. J. Z. George, for defendant in error.
HARLAN, 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
# Newberry v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921) is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Constitution did not grant the United States Congress the authority to regulate political party primaries or nomination processes. The court struck down 1911 amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act which placed spending limits on candidate and political election committee spending in primaries or other nomination processes for federal office. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 232
Newberry v. United States
Argued: Jan. 7 and 10, 1921. --- Decided: May 2, 1921
[Syllabus from pages 232-234 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Charles E. Hughes, or New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 234-240 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Solicitor General Frierson, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Frank C. Dailey, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 240-243 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
# Newcomb v. Wood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 581
Newcomb v. Wood
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
Nov. 1, 1872, John Wood, assignee in bankruptcy of Philip E. Robertson, filed his petition in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, against Stephen L. Newcomb, to recover the value of certain goods sold to the defendant by Robertson, May 6, 1872, within four months before the latter filed his petition in bankruptcy. An issue of fact having been made by the pleadings, the case was, Nov. 18, 1873, by consent of the parties, referred by the court to Henry C. Hedges, Joseph C. Devin, and A. K. Dunn, as referees, with power to hear and determine all questions of law and fact, and report thereon to the court. Neither of the referees was sworn or affirmed, although the customary oath or affirmation was not expressly waived or insisted upon. Both parties were represented by counsel. Jan. 10, 1874, a report signed by Devin and Hedges was duly filed, awarding the plaintiff $6,356 and costs. Newcomb filed exceptions to the report, on the ground that the referees were not sworn or affirmed well and faithfully to hear and examine the cause, and to make a just and true report therein, according to the best of their understanding, as is required by law. The exceptions were overruled, and the report was confirmed by the court. A new trial having been refused, a judgment was rendered against him, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court. He then sued out this writ, and assigns the following errors:--
That the District Court erred,--
1. In appointing referees in said cause.
2. In overruling the exceptions to their report.
3. In rendering judgment upon said report, it having only been signed by two of the persons named as referees, none of whom were sworn.
4. In refusing to grant a second trial of said action.
Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Walter H. Smith, contra.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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
# Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
193 U.S. 561
Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport
Argued: March 16, 1904. --- Decided: April 4, 1904

## 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
# Newcomb v. Wood/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 581
Newcomb v. Wood
A few remarks will be sufficient to dispose of the several assignments of error in this case.
The power of a court of justice, with the consent of the parties, to appoint arbitrators and refer a case pending before it, is incident to all judicial administration, where the right exists to ascertain the facts as well as to pronounce the law. Conventio facit legem. In such an agreement there is nothing contrary to law or public policy. The Code of Ohio provides (sect. 281) expressly 'that all or any of the issues in the action, whether of fact or law, may be referred upon the written consent of the parties, or upon their oral consent in court, entered upon the journal.' 2 Swan & C. 1027. The reference here in question was made in the latter mode and by virtue of this authority.
The objection that the arbitrators were not sworn was waived by the plaintiff in error by appearing and going to trial without requiring an oath to be administered. If the witnesses had not been sworn, the waiver of that defect under the same circumstances would have been equally conclusive. Edwards, Referees, 107; Morse, Arbitration and Award, 172; Maynard v. Frederick, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 247.
Two of the three referees only signed the award, but the attention of the court was not called to the fact when the report was confirmed and the judgment was entered. The omission was amendable, and non constat but that the amendment could and would have been made if the objection had been suggested. It would be fair neither to the court nor the other party to permit the objection to be raised here for the first time. Under the circumstances, it must be held to have been conclusively waived, and the plaintiff in error cannot be heard now to insist upon it. Bell v. Bruen, 1 How. 169; Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank, 2 Wall. 252; Klein v. Russell, 19 id. 433; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 id. 532; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; Wheeler v. Sedgwick, 94 id. 1.
The plaintiff in error was not, by reason of the State law, entitled to a second trial. The agreement to submit the controversy to referees selected or approved by the parties implied clearly that they intended the award should be final and conclusive. The District Court held this view, and ruled accordingly. It has long been the established law in the courts of the United States that to grant or refuse a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed, and that the result cannot be made the subject of review upon a writ of error. We cannot think that Congress intended by the act of June 1, 1872 (17 Stat. 197, sect. 5), to abrogate this salutary rule. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426; Indianapolis, &c. Railroad Co. v. Horst, 93 id. 291.
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