OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Indiana

I have always been a wand'rer Ballard MacDonald James F. Hanley IndianaHomeAgainCover.jpg
[Verse 1]
    I have always been a wand'rer
    Over land and sea
    Yet a moonbeam on the water
    Casts a spell o'er me
    A vision fair I see
    Again I seem to be
[Chorus]
    Back home again in Indiana
    And it seems that I can see
    The gleaming candlelight, still shining bright
    Thru the sycamores for me
    The new mown hay sends all its fragrance
    From the fields I used to roam
    When I dream about the moonlight on the Wabash
    Then I long for my Indiana home
[Verse 2]
    Fancy paints on mem'ry's canvas
    Scenes that we hold dear
    We recall them in days after
    Clearly they appear
    And often times I see
    A scene that's dear to me
    (chorus)
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 1942, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 81 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
# Indiana Manufacturing Company v. Koehne

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
188 U.S. 681
Indiana Manufacturing Company v. Koehne
Argued: October 24, 1902. --- Decided: February 23, 1903
Messrs. Chester Bradford and F. Winter for appellant.
Messrs. William L. Taylor, Merrill Moores, and Cassius C Hadley for appellees.
Mr. Justice Peckham 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
# Indiana Southern Company v. Liverpool London Globe Insurance

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 168
Indiana Southern Company v. Liverpool London Globe Insurance
Saml. A. Huff and A. L. Roache, for appellants.
Geo. Hoadly, E. M. Johnson, Edwd. Colston, and Benj. Harrison, for appellees.
WALITE, C. 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
# Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 95
State Indiana Anderson v. Brand
Argued: Jan. 10, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 31, 1938
Messrs. Paul R. Shafer and Thomas F. O'Mara, both of Terre Haute, Ind., for petitioner.
Messrs. Raymond Brooks, of North Manchester, Ind., and Asa J. Smith, of Indianapolis, Ind., 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
# Indiana Farmer's Guide Publishing Co. v. Prairie Farmer Publishing Co.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 268
Indiana Farmer's Guide Publishing Co. v. Prairie Farmer Publishing Co.
No. 60 Argued: Nov. 8, 1934. --- Decided: Dec 3, 1934
Messrs. Eben Lesh, of Huntington, Ind., and U.S. Lesh, and James E. Lesh, both of Indianapolis, Ind., and Joseph Lesh, of Huntington, Ind., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 269-270 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Maxwell V. Beghtol, of Lincoln, Neb., Thomas E. Murphy, of Chicago, Ill., and Burke G. Slaymaker and Clarence F. Merrell, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 270-271 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Interregional Highways/Appendix 2

Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, pages 138–142
APPENDIX II
Location of Other Highway Systems of Various Mileages Investigated by the Committee
# Hurley v. Kincaid

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 95
Hurley v. Kincaid
Argued: Jan. 4, 5, 1932. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1932
[Syllabus intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 96-97 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. H. H. Russell and William C. Dufour, both of Monroe, La., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 97-99 intentionally omitted]
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
# Hurley v. Street/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 85
Hurley v. Street
To give jurisdiction to this court upon error to the highest court of the State in which a judgment or decree has been rendered, it is necessary to show that some question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act was made and decided, of which this court has cognizance by writ of error on appeal. This has been frequently ruled.
It does not appear from the record that any such question was either made or decided.
Much expense to suitors would be spared if counsel would attend to the principle above stated, and as we have said, frequently laid down, before advising their clients to resort to the appellate jurisdiction of this court from the decisions of the State courts. The writ of error must be
DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ Crowell v. Randell, 10 Peters, 368; Armstrong v. Treasurer, 16 Id. 281; Phillips's Practice, 108.
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
# Hurn v. Oursler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 238
Hurn v. Oursler
Argued: and Submitted Feb. 17, 1933. --- Decided: April 17, 1933
Mrssrs. Joseph Lorenz and Louis W. McKernan, both of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Alan S. Hays, of New York City, for respondent Oursler.
Mr. Benjamin Pepper, of New York City, for respondents Lewis & Harris.
Mrs. Emily Holt, of New York City, for respondent Brentano.
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
# Huron Holding Corporation v. Lincoln Mine Operating Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 183
Huron Holding Corporation v. Lincoln Mine Operating Company
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 13, 1941. --- Decided: Feb 3, 1941
See 313 U.S. 598, 61 S.Ct. 840, 85 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Leonard G. Bisco and Daniel G. Judge, both of New York City, for petitioners.
Messrs. D. Worth Clark and William H. Langroise, both of Boise, Idaho, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 184-185 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 42
Hurley v. Ragen
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without consideration of the questions raised therein and without prejudice to the institution by petitioner of proceedings in any Illinois state court of competent jurisdiction under the Illinois Post-Convinction Hearing Act of August 4, 1949. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, ch. 38, § 826 et seq.

## 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
# Hurley v. Ragen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 42
Hurley v. Ragen
David R. Hurley, pro se.
Mr. Latham Castle, Atty. Gen. of Illinois, for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois.
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Hurley v. Jones/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 318
Hurley v. Jones
When this cause was reached in its order upon the docket, there being no appearance by the appellant, the appellee had him called and the appeal dismissed under Rule 16. Our rules require that, 'upon the filing of the transcript of a record brought up by writ of error or appeal, the appearance of counsel for the plaintiff in error or appellant shall be entered.' Rule 9, par. 3. This rule was adopted for the purpose of making some attorney of the court responsible for the due prosecution of the suit, and it was intended for something more than mere form. Parties should understand that they are represented here by their counsel, and that notice to counsel is ordinarily equivalent to notice to themselves.
This cause was docketed here nearly two years and a half before it was called. The attorney of record seems to have done all he was expected to do. But the appellant himself was so unmindful of his interests, that he did not know the counsel, upon whom he relied for the presentation of his case, had died before the commencement of the present term, and had been unable to attend to business on account of impaired health for a long time before his death. In the crowded state of our docket, filled with cases from all parts of the United States, it is our duty to take special care that the necessary delays in disposing of the business are not added to by the neglect of counsel or parties. For this reason, our rules requiring causes to be ready for hearing when reached are, and will continue to be, rigidly enforced.
Motion denied.

## 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
# Hurley v. Street

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 85
Hurley v. Street
MOTION, by Mr. G. G. Wright, to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Hurley sued Street to recover a lot of ground at Council Bluff. The defendant set up that the plaintiff had no title himself, and then relied on a tax sale, statute of limitation, and various other defences. The plaintiff demurred to four of these defences; assigning among other grounds of demurrer that 'the law authorizing the tax sale was unconstitutional and void.' The court overruled the demurrer, and the parties went to trial. On the trial much evidence was given about the character of the tax sale, the notice given, &c., tender of redemption-money, and other matters relating to the regularity of what had been done at the sale, but nothing of a different kind.
The court found for the defendant, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State. The same sort of questions were there raised, and the same passed on; the Supreme Court finally affirming the decree. From that decree the case was brought here under an assumption that it came within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6.
Mr. G. G. Wright and Mr. Lander, in support of the motion to dismiss, argued that it did not appear that any Federal question within the 25th section had been passed on; and that the decision was plainly made on other grounds not the subject of review here.
Mr. Moor, contra, reading a public act of the legislature of Iowa, under which the sale was alleged to have been made, and which made the tax deed conclusive evidence of certain things, tending to give regularity to sales under it, argued that the act was in the face of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which ordains that no person shall 'be deprived of property except by due process of law.' He then argued that the plaintiff did raise the point of unconstitutionality under one of his grounds of demurrer, and that the court could not have decided against him without deciding that the act was constitutional.
Reply: The plaintiff did not stand on his demurrer, but went to trial. It does not even appear that the plaintiff showed a prim a facie title in himself. If so, certainly the question of the constitutionality of the tax sale could not have arisen. But assuming that he did, it does not appear that the decision turned on that question. In addition, the allegation of unconstitutionality is too general. It applies presumably in the first instance to the State constitution. But if it applied to the restriction in the fifth amendment of the Federal Constitution, that restriction is not one on the States, but only on the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company, 13 Wallace, 166.
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
# Inland Transit/Stephenson

Class B.—Estimates of Cost.
Mr. Robert Stephenson.—p. 102.
1. You are a civil engineer?
I am.
2. Have you examined this proposed line?
I have.
25. Have you considered the cost which would be necessary to effect this work?
I have.
111. Is the whole aggregate of (the) items (of expense) 2,205,352l.?
It is.
​112. In works of this description, is it usual to put a considerable amount for contingencies?
Usually ten per cent.
113. Have you added to this a sum exceeding ten per cent.?
The amount of contingencies at ten per cent would be 205,000l.; I have put it at 294,648l.
114. Which makes the sum altogether 2,500,000l.?
It does.
115. Look at this paper, and tell me whether the estimate is correct?
It is.
Abstract of Estimate. :
| | Estimate proved in the House of Commons. £ |
| Excavations and Embankments | 779,000 |
| Tunnelling | 250,286 |
| Masonry.—This item is increased in consequence of an agreement with the Commissioners of the Metropolitan roads to add to some of our bridges in width and height, also an agreement with the trustees of the Radcliffe Library estates to increase the number of arches in the Wolverton Viaduct, and also an addition of two bridges over the Avon near Brandon to avoid the diversion of the river | 350,574 |
| Rails, chairs, keys, and pins | 212,940 |
| Blocks and sleepers | 102,960 |
| Ballasting and laying rails | 102,960 |
| Fencing at 740l. per mile | 76,032 |
| | 1,874,752 |
| Land | 250,000 |
| Six water stations at 500l. | 3,000 |
| Six intermediate pumps | 600 |
| Offices, &c. requisite at each end of the line, for convenience of passengers, &c., and walling for enclosing the space for depot | 16,000 |
| Forty locomotive engines, 1000l. | 40,000 |
| 300 waggons at 30l. | 9,000 |
| Sixty coaches at 200l. | 12,000 |
| | 2,205,352 |
| Contingencies | 294,648 |
| | 2,500,000 |
​ 388. Your estimate all the way through is made on two lines?
Yes, it is; except that every five miles there is a side-place or entrance.
389. From which any carriage may turn out and come in again?
Yes.
390. Do you conceive that in 112 miles, where you will not only carry passengers but sheep and pigs, and people are to be allowed to come on from all sorts of side-places, that two lines can be enough?
I am quite sure about that.
391. What makes you sure about it?
It is possible to carry more goods and do more business on two lines of Railroad than there is any probability of coming between London and Birmingham.
# Inland Waterways Corporation v. Young

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    G. Roberts
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 517
INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION et al. v. YOUNG.
Argued: Oct. 11, 1939. --- Decided: March 25, 1940
See 309 U.S. 698, 60 S.Ct. 884, 84 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
Messrs. Swagar Sherley and George B. Springston, both of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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
# Inland Transit/Sharp

Mr. John Sharp.—p. 65.
1. I believe you are a butcher by trade?
I am.
2. Where have you carried on the business; in London, or in the country?
In High Street, Mary-le-bone, for forty years.
3. Have you been in the habit of receiving beasts from the country for slaughter?
I have been in the habit of buying beasts at Smithfield all the time, weekly.
5. The value of beasts is lessened considerably by the journey?
Much, undoubtedly; when the animal is fatigued and is overdriven, he becomes feverish, and his looks become not ​so good, and he loses weight by the length of the journey and the fatigue.
9. Do beasts suffer more from length of journey, or from the time they are away from their usual pasture?
Certainly, the longer they are away from comfortable food and comfortable pasture, the longer they are on the road, the more are they deteriorated in point of quality, generally; always some; sometimes more, sometimes less.
10. Their coming in a shorter time would of course be an advantage?
Beasts that come a short journey, well taken care of, do not suffer so much as those that come long journeys.
15. Do sheep also suffer from being driven?
They do in proportion to beasts.
17. Do calves come from any distance from London, or is the supply confined to a limited distance from London?
I think the farthest distance may be thirty miles; the principal part of the veal of the best quality comes by land carriage; that is our mode; I think very few come more than thirty miles.
18. What distance does the dead meat come if that is now sent up?
It depends on the season of the year and the weather; at this season of the year, from long journeys and the warm weather, it will spoil. In this season of the year the dead meat comes a short distance; in winter, when the season will permit, it comes 100 miles.
19. State how the dead meat is spoilt by the weather and the delay?
If the weather comes in hot it is often the case that a great quantity of meat is spoilt.
20. As to lambs, are they sent at a great distance from London?
Some are sent a great distance.
21. What is the distance?
I know of some lambs coming 80 or 90 miles.
# Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Whittaker

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 138
Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
Argued: Nov. 12, 1959. --- Decided: Dec 14, 1959
Mr. Raymond J. McGowan, Akron, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. William A. Kelly, Akron, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# Inland Transit/Tilsley Moore

Mr. Edward Tilsley Moore.—p. 76.
1. Do you reside in Birmingham?
I do.
2. Are you a merchant?
I am.
3. Have you experienced any loss or inconvenience in the sale of goods from frost or other impediments in the communication now established?
I have, from frost.
4. State the instance.
Some goods of mine were kept from the 24th of December, 1829, till the 20th of February in the following year. When the goods arrived out, 1200l, worth were rejected as being out of time, and I was compelled to make a new arrangement, by which my returns made eighteen months instead of nine.
8. In your opinion, would a cheap, certain, and expeditious conveyance by Railroad from Birmingham to London be a material service to the Birmingham manufacturer?
​ It would materially assist the manufacturer in the execution of his foreign orders. I am unable to execute an order for a vessel which sails on the 14th of July; I cannot get the goods for the 10th, which is the last day on which a boat sails from Birmingham.
9. If you had a Railroad, could you execute the order?
If I could get twenty-four hours more time I could execute the order.
# Inland Transit/Whitworth

Mr. Charles Whitworth.—P. 62.
1. You are an inhabitant of Northampton?
Yes. I am.
2. Are you a farmer and landowner?
Both a farmer and landowner.
3. Are you also engaged in trade in Northampton?
Yes. I am.
4. Have you ever seen a Railroad?
I have been on the Railroad between Manchester and Liverpool.
5. Have you seen cattle conveyed on the Railroad?
I have seen both beasts and pigs.
6. After cattle have been conveyed on a Railroad, do they land in a good state?
I have seen both pigs and beasts landed, and they came out as fresh as if they came from the field.
10. Do you know of any meat being sent from Northampton to London?
A very great deal.
11. Are you aware of any inconvenience or loss that has occurred to that meat?
I speak from experience. I bad meat sent from Northampton, and I had no return whatever for it; it became putrid, and it was thrown away.
12. Do you attribute that to the inadequacy of the speed of the conveyance?
It could not go up in sufficient time to get into the market while it was good; that often happens in summer time, in weather like this.
37. You are an occupier and owner of land?
Yes.
38. To what extent?
I am an owner of 800 acres. I occupy only one.
39. Are the 800 acres in Northamptonshire?
In Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire. ​ 40. Near the line of this Railway?
The Railway will go only one mile across it; there are 300 acres in a ring fence which it goes right across.
41. What is your opinion as to the effect of the Railroad on the value of that land?
My opinion is, it will increase the value.
42. Have you any doubt on the subject?
No doubt.
43. What do you think would be the reason of its increasing in value?
By the facility of conveyance of any thing that is wanted to be sent to it, or any thing that is wanted to be taken away.
44. The communication by which produce may be exported from the farm?
Yes. Then I should say that we could get manure from the London market, and now we cannot get it within some miles.
45. From what place do you think of obtaining the manure?
From London.