OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 664
Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Company
James T. Law, for appellant, Hartshorn.
C. J. Hunt, for appellees, Saginaw Barrel Co. and others.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Jones v. Simpson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 609
Jones v. Simpson
Argued: February 1, 1886. ---
J. G. Mohler, for plaintiffs in error.
Reginald Fendall, for defendants 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
# Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 1
Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Argued: March 10, 11, 1936. --- Decided: April 6, 1936
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Harry O. Glasser, of Enid, Okl., and James M. Beck and H. I. Fischbach, both of New York City (Mr. J. N. Saye, of Longview, Tex., on the brief), for petitioner.
Messrs. Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., and John J. Burns, both of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 4-8 intentionally omitted]
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
# Jones v. Randolph

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 108
Jones v. Randolph
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Walter D. Davidge for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. John Selden, contra.
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. Soulard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
65 U.S. 41
Jones v. Soulard

## 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
# Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History."
* 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.
* Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History, by John Acton
* Inaugural Lecture on The Study of History, by Charles Oman
# In the ending of the year

This translation of the anonymous 12th-century Christmas hymn In hoc anni circulo first appeared in Neale and Helmore's Carols for Christmas-tide (1854).
* "In the ending of the year" in Carols for Christmas-tide by John Mason Neale and Thomas Helmore (1854).
* "In hoc Anni circulo" (lyrics only) in Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences by John Mason Neale (1867).
# Irvine v. Redfleld

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 170
Irvine v. Redfleld
THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.
It was an action of assumpsit on the money counts brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant as collector. Upon the trial, the division in opinion between the judges occurred, which is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was submitted on the record, no counsel appearing for either party.
Mr. Justice WAYNE 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
# Irvine v. Marshall

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Nelson
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 558
Irvine v. Marshall
THIS was an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Cooper for the appellant, and by Mr. Bradley for the appellee, upon which side there was also filed a brief by Mr. Brisbin and Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Justice DANIEL 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
# Irvine v. Irvine

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 617
Irvine v. Irvine

## 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
# Irvine v. Lowry

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
39 U.S. 293
Irvine v. Lowry

## 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
# Irving Trust Co. v. A. W. Perry, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 307
Irving Trust Co. v. A. W. Perry, Inc.
No. 22 Argued: Nov. 5-6, 1934. --- Decided: Dec 3, 1934
[Syllabus from pages 307-308 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Edward K. Hanlon and Charles K. Beekman, both of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 308-309 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Thomas F. Dougherty and John M. Perry, both of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# Houston v. Moore (18 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
18 U.S. 1
Houston v. Moore

## 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
# Houston v. City Bank of New Orleans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
47 U.S. 486
Houston v. City Bank of New Orleans

## 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
# Houston v. Moore/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
ERROR to the supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania.
This was an action of trespass, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, for levying a fine ordered to be collected by the sentence of a court martial, under an act of the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania, which was alleged to be repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States. The suit was commenced in the court of common pleas for the county of Lancaster, in which court a trial was had, and the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered. The cause was carried to the supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania, by writ of error, where the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed, and the cause remanded to that court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo. The plaintiff then sued out of a writ of error, to bring the cause to this court.
Mr. C. J. Ingersoll moved to dismiss the writ of error, as having been improvidently issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act, ch. 20. the decision of the state court not being a 'final judgment' in the cause.
Mr. Hopkins, contra.
Mr. Ch. J. MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellate jurisdiction of this court, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, ch. 20. extends only to a final judgment or decree of the highest courts of law or equity in the cases specified. This is not a final judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania. The cause may yet be finally determined in favour of the plaintiff in the state court.
Writ of error dismissed.
JUDGMENT. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the Lancaster district. On examination whereof, it is adjudged and ordered, that the writ of error in this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed, this court not having jurisdiction in said cause, there not having been a final judgment in said suit, in the said supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.a

## 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
# Houston v. St. Louis Independent Packing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 479
Houston v. St. Louis Independent Packing Company
Argued: March 20, 1919. --- Decided: April 14, 1919
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellants.
Mr. Alexander F. Reichmann, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# Houston v. Moore

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
16 U.S. 433
Houston v. Moore
Writ of Error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

## 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
# Houston v. Ormes

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 469
Houston v. Ormes
Argued: Jan. 23, 1920. --- Decided: April 19, 1920
Mr. Solicitor General King, for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 469-471 intentionally omitted]
Miss Mary O'Toole, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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
# Ivan the Terrible

IVAN THE TERRIBLE
page
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
PETER THE GREAT. Translated by Lady Mary Loyd. With a Portrait. Demy 8vo. Price 6s.
THE ROMANCE OF AN EMPRESS (Catherine II. of Russia). With a Portrait. Demy 8vo. Price 6s.
THE STORY OF A THRONE (Catherine II. of Russia). With a Portrait. Demy 8vo. Price 6s.
MARYSIENKA. Translated by Lady Mary Loud. With a Portrait Demy 8vo. Price 6s.
ALSO
A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE (Literatures of the World). In One Volume. Large crown 8vo. Price 6s.
LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN, 21 BEDFORD STREET, W.C.
Ivan the Terrible
page
IVAN THE TERRIBLE
BY K. WALISZEWSKI
Translated from the French by LADY MARY LOYD
With a Portrait
LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN 1904
This Edition enjoys copyright in all countries signatory to the Berne Treaty, and is not to be imported into the United States of America.
page
CONTENTS
PART I RUSSIA IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
PART II THE YOUTH OF IVAN
PART III THE CRISIS
PART IV THE END
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Ivan the Terrible/Part 1

PART I RUSSIA IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
# I Will praise thee every day

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
O LORD, I will praise thee by William Cowper
    I Will praise thee every day
    Now thine anger's turned away!
    Comfortable thoughts arise
    From the bleeding sacrifice.
    Here in the fair gospel field,
    Wells of free salvation yield
    Streams of life, a plenteous store,
    And my soul shall thirst no more.
    Jesus is become at length
    My salvation and my strength;
    And his praises shall prolong,
    While I live, my pleasant song.
    Praise ye, then, his glorious name,
    Publish his exalted fame!
    Still his worth your praise exceeds,
    Excellent are all his deeds.
    Raise again the joyful sound,
    Let the nations roll it round!
    Zion shout, for this is he,
    God the Savior dwells in thee.
# Jabez v. State Bank of Indiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 371
Jabez v. State Bank of Indiana
THIS case was brought up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the District of Indiana.
It was an ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in error, citizens of Vermont, against the State Bank of Indiana, under the following circumstances.
By a law passed on the 14th of January, 1824, the Legislature of Indiana provided that whenever any new county should be laid off, five commissioners should be appointed to locate the seat of justice therein, to receive donations in land, and take title-bonds for the conveyance of it to such persons as the county commissioners should direct.

## 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
# Jachin and Boaz, or, The Free Mason's Catechism/In the Preface to the Mishnaw, We Find Tradition of the Jews Explained As Follows

IN THE PREFACE TO THE MISHNAW, WE FIND TRADITION OF THE JEWS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS,
God not only delivered the law to Moses on Mount Sinai, but the explanation of it likewise. When Moses came down from the Mount and entered into his tent, Aaron went to visit him, and Moses acquainted Aaron with the laws he had ​received from God, together with the explanation of them: After this, Aaron placed himself at the right hand of Moses, and Eleazer, and Ithamar, (sons of Aaron,) who were admitted, to whom Moses repeated what he had just before told Aaron. These being seated, the one on the right hand, the other on the left hand of Moses; the seventy elders of Israel, who composed the Sanhedrim, came in; and Moses again declared the same laws to them, with the interpretations of them, as he had done before to Aaron and his sons. Lastly, all who pleased, of the common people, were envited to enter, and Moses instructed them likewise in the same manner as the rest. So that Aaron heard four times what Moses had been taught by God upon Mount Sinai; Eleazar and Ithamar, three times; the seventy elders, twico; and the people once. Moses afterwards reduced the laws he had received into writing, but not the explanation of them; these he thought it sufficient to trust to the memories of the above-mentioned persons, who being perfectly instructed in them, delivered them to their children, and these again to theirs, from ago to age.
# Jachin and Boaz, or, The Free Mason's Catechism

JACHIN AND BOAZ:
OR THE
FREE MASON’S CATECHISM.
TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED,
THE MASON-WORD.
BY SAMUEL PRICHARD,
LATE MEMBER OF A CONSTITUTED LODGE.
GLASGOW:
PRINTED FOR THE BOOKSELLERS.
* Origin of Masonry
* Entered Prentice's Degree
* Fellow-Craft's Degree
* The Master's Degree
* A Prayer Said at the Opening of a Lodge, by Jewish Free-Masons
* In the Preface to the Mishnaw, We Find Tradition of the Jews Explained As Follows
* The Laird of Logan's Description of a New Year's Day at Logan House
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
# Jachin and Boaz, or, The Free Mason's Catechism/A Prayer Said at the Opening of a Lodge, by Jewish Free-Masons

A PRAYER SAID AT THE OPENING OF A LODGE, BY JEWISH FREE-MASONS.
O LORD! excellent thou art in thy truth, and there is nothing greater in comparison to thee; for thine is the praise, from all the works of thy hands, for evermore. Enlighten us, we beseech thee, in the true knowledge of Masonry. By the sorrows of Adam, thy first made man—by the blood of Abel, thy holy one—by the righteousness of Seth, in whom thou art well pleased,—and by the covenant with Noah, in whose architecture thou wast pleased to save the seed of thy beloved; number us not among those that know not the statutes, nor the divine mysteries of the secret Cabballa. But grant, we beseech thee, that the Ruler of the Lodge may be endued with knowledge and wisdom, to in-struct us, and explain his secret mysteries, as our holy brother Moses did (in his Lodge) to Aaron, to Eleazer, and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and the seventy Elders of Israel. And grant that we may understand, learn, and keep all the commandments of the Lord, and this holy mystery, pure and undefiled unto our lives end.
Amen, Lord.
# Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah/Concurrence Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stewart
* Dissenting Opinions Warren Black
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 153
Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah
Argued: Oct. 10, 1961. --- Decided: March 26, 1962
Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring in part.
For the reasons convincingly set forth in the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice, I agree with him that a three-judge court should not have been convened in this case, and that consequently this appeal is not properly before us. I would therefore dismiss the appeal. Thompson v. Whittier, 365 U.S. 465, 81 S.Ct. 712, 5 L.Ed.2d 704. The Court, however, holds that this appeal is properly here, and on the merits of the litigation I agree with the Court's conclusion.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting.

## 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
# Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart

## Dissenting Opinions

    Warren
    Black
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 153
Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah
Argued: Oct. 10, 1961. --- Decided: March 26, 1962
Mr. E. J. Skeen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant.
Mr. Gordon A. Madsen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellee.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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 the Giant-killer (1840)/The Banner of War

THE BANNER OF WAR.
Behold the Britannia! how stately and brave, She floats on the ambient tides! For empire design;d, o;er the turbulent wave! How trim and how gallant she rides! Yet love in a true Briton;s heart, With glory contends for a part; And the fair cheek of beauty with tears is impearl'd When the banner, the banner of war is unfurl'd.
On the shore how alert, how intrepid the crew; How firm at their sovereign’s command; Or dauntless o’er ocean her foes to pursue, And die for the cause of our land. Yet one tear, ere the heroes' depart, One sigh shall be driven from the heart; One kiss on the cheek which sweet sorrows impearl'd When the banner, the banner of war is unfurl'd.
Now on to the conquest! the battle swells high, And fierce round the vessel it roars; Hark, the sons of Britannia, "to victory," cry, And victory sounds to our shores. Then peaceful again to their home, Shall the patriot warriors come; No more the fair cheek shall with tears be impearl'd, But the banner of peace stand for ever unfurl'd.
Layout 2
# Jack v. Utah/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 643
Jack v. Utah
This case, which is an appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah, differs from the preceding case, of Clayton against the same appellees, ante, 190, in the fact that Jack was charged with usurping and intruding into the office of territorial treasurer for the territory of Utah, as Clayton was alleged to be an intruder into the office of auditor of public accounts. These two offices were created by the same statute of the territory, at the same time, and the mode of election prescribed by the statute was changed at the same time, by the same statute, to an election by the people, and Jack claims to have been elected treasurer at the same general election in which Clayton was elected auditor; that he received the commission of the governor of the territory; and that he has held the office ever since, by reason of the fact that no other election had been held, and no other person had been lawfully appointed to the office. The same principles govern this case as govern the other. The judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Utah was based upon the same grounds; and, for the reasons given by us in that case, we affirm the judgment in this.

## 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 v. Utah

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 643
Jack v. Utah
Eppa Hunton, Jeff. Chandler, J. G. Sutherland, and J. R. McBride, for appellant.
P. L. Williams and The U.S. Attorney General, for appellees.
MILLER, 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
# Jackman v. Rosenbaum Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 22
Jackman v. Rosenbaum Company
Argued: Oct. 4, 1922. --- Decided: Oct 23, 1922
Mr. H. F. Stambaugh, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 23-29 intentionally omitted]
Mr. A. Leo Weil, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant in error.
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
# Jack the Giant-killer (1840)

JACK THE GIANT-KILLER, BEING THE HISTORY OF ALL HIS WONDERFUL EXPLOITS AGAINST THE GIANTS. AND BRITISH INTREPIDITY.
FALKIRK: PRINTED FOR THE BOOKSELLERS.
* Jack the Giant-killer
* British Intrepidity
* The Banner of War
Layout 2
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