OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
179 U.S. 335
Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Company
Argued: November 16, 1900. --- Decided: December 10, 1900
The certificate in this case was as follows:
'This action was brought originally in the superior court for Vanderburg county, in the state of Indiana, on the 28th of August, 1897, by the plaintiff in error, a citizen of Indiana, against the defendants in error, to recover damages for personal injuries said to have been sustained by the plaintiff in error, in March, 1897, through the negligence of the defendants in error in the operation of a railway train, and the failure to properly operate the gates at a railway crossing. The defendant railway company is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Indiana, and the defendant, George Colvin, is a citizen of Indiana. The defendant, Edward O. Hopkins, was, at the time the injuries were received and the suit was commenced, receiver of the defendant railway company, by appointment of the United States circuit court for the southern district of Illinois, and was, at the time of the injuries, in the sole control and management of the railway company, having an office in Vanderburg county, in the state of Indiana, the defendant Colvin being in his employment as a locomotive engineer, and as his servant operating the engine at the time of the injury. The record does not show that the duties of the defendant, Colvin, extended to the operation or maintenance of the gates at the railway crossing. The record does not disclose the place of residence, or the citizenship of Hopkins, as an individual.
'In due time after the commencement of the suit the defendant, Edward O. Hopkins, receiver, on his sole petition, removed the cause into the circuit court for the district of Indiana, upon the ground that it was a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. A motion to remand was entered by the plaintiff in error, and overruled by the circuit court for the district of Indiana; and, at the trial subsequently, a verdict was, by direction of the court, returned for the defendants in error.
'The questions of law upon which this court desires the advice and instruction of the Supreme Court are: '(1.) Did the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana have, upon these facts, jurisdiction to try the cause?
'(2.) Was the cause one properly removable into the circuit court of the United States?'
[Mr. W. A. Cullop for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Walter S. Horton for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller 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
# Fables (Stevenson)/The Tadpole and the Frog

XV.
THE TADPOLE AND THE FROG.
"BE ashamed of yourself," said the frog. "When I was a tadpole, I had no tail."
"Just what I thought!" said the tadpole. "You never were a tadpole."
# Fables (Stevenson)/The Pentinent

VI.
THE PENITENT.
A MAN met a lad weeping. "What do you weep for?" he asked.
"I am weeping for my sins," said the lad.
"You must have little to do," said the man.
The next day they met again. Once more the lad was weeping. "Why do you weep now?" asked the man.
"I am weeping because I have nothing to eat," said the lad.
"I thought it would come to that," said the man.
# Fables (Stevenson)/The Reader

XI.
THE READER.
"I NEVER read such an impious book," said the reader, throwing it on the floor.
"You need not hurt me," said the book; "you will only get less for me second hand, and I did not write myself."
"That is true," said the reader. "My quarrel is with your author."
"Ah, well," said the book, "you need not buy his rant."
"That is true," said the reader. "But I thought him such a cheerful writer."
"I find him so," said the book.
"You must be differently made from me," said the reader.
"Let me tell you a fable," said the book. "There were two men wrecked upon a desert ​island; one of them made believe he was at home, the other admitted——"
"Oh, I know your kind of fable," said the reader. "They both died."
"And so they did," said the book. "No doubt of that. And everybody else."
"That is true," said the reader. "Push it a little further for this once. And when they were all dead?"
"They were in God's hands the same as before," said the book.
"Not much to boast of, by your account," cried the reader.
"Who is impious now?" said the book.
And the reader put him on the fire.
The coward crouches from the rod, And loathes the iron face of God.
# Fables (Stevenson)/The Sick Man and the Fireman

IV.
THE SICK MAN AND THE FIREMAN.
THERE was once a sick man in a burning house, to whom there entered a fireman.
"Do not save me," said the sick man. "Save those who are strong."
"Will you kindly tell me why?" inquired the fireman, for he was a civil fellow.
"Nothing could possibly be fairer," said the sick man. "The strong should be preferred in all cases, because they are of more service in the world."
The fireman pondered a while, for he was a man of some philosophy. "Granted," said he at last, as a part of the roof fell in; "but for the sake of conversation, what would you lay down as the proper service of the strong?"
"Nothing can possibly be easier," returned ​the sick man: "the proper service of the strong is to help the weak."
Again the fireman reflected, for there was nothing hasty about this excellent creature. "I could forgive you being sick," he said at last, as a portion of the wall fell out, "but I cannot bear your being such a fool." And with that he heaved up his fireman's axe, for he was eminently just, and clove the sick man to the bed.
# Fables (Stevenson)/The Two Matches

III.
THE TWO MATCHES.
ONE day there was a traveller in the woods in California, in the dry season, when the Trades were blowing strong. He had ridden a long way, and he was tired and hungry, and dismounted from his horse to smoke a pipe. But when he felt in his pocket, he found but two matches. He struck the first, and it would not light.
"Here is a pretty state of things," said the traveller. "Dying for a smoke; only one match left; and that certain to miss fire! Was there ever a creature so unfortunate? And yet," thought the traveller, "suppose I light this match, and smoke my pipe, and shake out the dottle here in the grass—the grass might catch on fire, for it is dry like tinder; and while I snatch out the flames in front, they might evade and run behind me, and seize upon ​yon bush of poison oak; before I could reach it, that would have blazed up; over the bush I see a pine tree hung with moss; that too would fly in fire upon the instant to its topmost bough; and the flame of that long torch—how would the trade wind take and brandish that through the inflammable forest! I hear this dell roar in a moment with the joint voice of wind and fire, I see myself gallop for my soul, and the flying conflagration chase and outflank me through the hills; I see this pleasant forest burn for days, and the cattle roasted, and the springs dried up, and the farmer ruined, and his children cast upon the world. What a world hangs upon this moment!"
With that he struck the match, and it missed fire.
"Thank God," said the traveller, and put his pipe in his pocket.
# Gregg v. Lessee of Sayre

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 244
Gregg v. Lessee of Sayre
ERROR to the district court of the United States, for the western district of Pennsylvania.
This case was submitted to the court upon printed arguments, by Mr. Watts for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Fetterman for the defendants.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. As the decision of the court was upon the application of the statute of limitations of Pennsylvania only; the arguments of the counsel, upon other points presented to the court, are omitted. Upon the effect of the statute of limitations on the case: the counsel for the plaintiffs in error contended, that the defendant having shown an actual, adverse, notorious and continuous possession of the land in controversy, from the year 1799, until after the institution of this ejectment; and having also exhibited deeds of conveyance for the same, dated the 24th of November 1804, and the 13th of April 1805, from John Ormsby to Isaac Gregg and Sidney his wife: the court erred in their charge to the jury, that the defendant was not protected by the statute of limitations.
Mr Justice M'LEAN 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
# Gregg v. Metropolitan Trust Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    McKenna
United States Supreme Court
197 U.S. 183
Gregg v. Metropolitan Trust Company
Argued: January 20, 23, 1905. --- Decided: March 6, 1905
Mr. Harlan Cleveland for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 183-185 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Herbert Parsons and Lawrence W. Maxwell, Jr., for respondents.
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
# Fragmentary Blue

* "Fragmentary Blue" in New Hampshire, a Poem with Notes and Grace Notes (1923)
* "Fragmentary Blue" in Miscellaneous Poems to 1920 (1999)
# Fragments (Masefield)

Troy Town is covered up with weeds, The rabbits and the pismires brood On broken gold, and shards, and beads Where Priam's ancient palace stood.
The floors of many a gallant house Are matted with the roots of grass; The glow-worm and the nimble mouse Among her ruins flit and pass.
And there, in orts of blackened bone, The widowed Trojan beauties lie, And Simois babbles over stone And waps and gurgles to the sky.
Once there were merry days in Troy, Her chimneys smoked with cooking meals, The passing chariots did annoy The sunning housewives at their wheels.
And many a lovely Trojan maid Set Trojan lads to lovely things; The game of life was nobly played, They played the game like Queens and Kings.
So that, when Troy had greatly passed In one red roaring fiery coal, The courts the Grecians overcast Became a city in the soul.
In some green island of the sea, Where now the shadowy coral grows In pride and pomp and empery The courts of old Atlantis rose.
In many a glittering house of glass The Atlanteans wandered there; The paleness of their faces was Like ivory, so pale they were.
And hushed they were, no noise of words In those bright cities ever rang; Only their thoughts, like golden birds, About their chambers thrilled and sang.
They knew all wisdom, for they knew The souls of those Egyptian Kings Who learned, in ancient Babilu, The beauty of immortal things.
They knew all beauty, when they thought The air chimed like a stricken lyre, The elemental birds were wrought, The golden birds became a fire.
And straight to busy camps and marts The singing flames were swiftly gone; The trembling leaves of human hearts Hid boughs for them to perch upon.
And men in desert places, men Abandoned, broken, sick with fears, Rose singing, swung their swords agen, And laughed and died among the spears.
The green and greedy seas have drowned That city's glittering walls and towers, Her sunken minarets are crowned With red and russet water-flowers.
In towers and rooms and golden courts The shadowy coral lifts her sprays; The scrawl hath gorged her broken orts, The shark doth haunt her hidden ways.
But, at the falling of the tide, The golden birds still sing and gleam, The Atlanteans have not died, Immortal things still give us dream.
The dream that fires man's heart to make, To build, to do, to sing or say A beauty Death can never take, An Adam from the crumbled clay.  Greenwich.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Fragments

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Fragments."
* 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.
* "Fragments", a poem by Bertram Dobell
* "Fragments", a poem by John Masefield
* "Fragments", a poem by Charles Hamilton Sorley
# Fragment of a Novel Written by Jane Austen/End

Printed in England at the Oxford University Press
# Fragment of a Novel Written by Jane Austen/Title Page

FRAGMENT
OF A
NOVEL
# Fragment of an Ode to Maia

* "Written on May Day", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
* "Fragment of an Ode to Maia", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder
* "Fragment of an Ode to Maia" in The Hundred Best Poems (lyrical) in the English language (1904), edited by Adam Luke Gowans
* "Fragment of an Ode to Maia" in the Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900 (1931), edited by Arthur Quiller-Couch
* "Fragment of an Ode to Maia" in the Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918 (1940), edited by Arthur Quiller-Couch
# Griffin v. Griffin

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 220
Griffin v. Griffin
Argued: Dec. 10, 1945. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1946
See 328 U.S. 876, 66 S.Ct. 975.
[Syllabus from pages 220-222 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Wm. H. Griffin,pro se.
Mr. A. M. Goldstein, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice STONE 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
# Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (377 U.S. 218)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (1964), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which it ruled that the County School Board of Prince Edward County's decision to close all local, public schools and provide vouchers to attend private schools were declared constitutionally impermissible and violations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 218
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
Argued: March 30, 1964. --- Decided: May 25, 1964
[Syllabus from pages 218-219 intentionally omitted]
Robert L. Carter, New York City, for petitioners.
Solicitor Gen. Archibald Cox for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
J. Segar Gravatt, Blackstone, Va., and R. D. McIlwaine, III, Richmond, Va., for respondents.
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
# Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (375 U.S. 391)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 391
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
Robert L. Carter and S. W. Tucker, for petitioners.
Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, R. D. McIlwaine III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frederick T. Gray, Collins Denny, Jr., John F. Kay, Jr., C. F. Hicks and J. Segar Gravatt, for respondents.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall and Harold H. Greene, for the United States, as amicus curiae.
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
# Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (375 U.S. 391)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 391
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
This case is one of the school segregation cases which we dealt with nearly a decade ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873; 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083. After remand, numerous opinions were written by the District Court and the Court of Appeals but the mandate issued at the time of the Brown case has never been implemented. In 1956 the Board of Supervisors decided not to levy taxes or appropriate funds for integrated public schools; and white children have attended white-only schools operated by the Prince Edward School Foundation, which has received state support. The District Court enjoined allowance of such support (198 F.Supp. 497) and held that the public schools could not remain closed while public schools in other counties stayed open. D.C., 207 F.Supp. 349. Thereafter litigation was instituted in the Virginia courts which resulted in a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals that the Virginia Constitution compels neither the State nor the county to reopen the public schools in Prince Edward County or to furnish funds for that purpose. 204 Va. 650, 133 S.E.2d 565. The Court of Appeals, prior to that decision, vacated the judgment of the District Court with instructions to abstain from further proceedings until the Virginia state decision became final (322 F.2d 332)-a judgment which was stayed by Mr. Justice Brennan on September 30, 1963, 'pending the timely fili g and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari.' The case is here on a petition for certiorari which raises not only the propriety of the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it directed the District Court to abstain until the Virginia courts had acted, but other issues going to the merits.
In view of the long delay in the case since our decision in the Brown case and the importance of the questions presented, we grant certiorari and put the case down for argument March 30, 1964, on the merits, as we have done in other comparable situations without waiting for final action by the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 584, 72 S.Ct. 863, 865, 96 L.Ed. 1153; Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 526, 77 S.Ct. 1409, 1410, 1 L.Ed.2d 1544.
Certiorari granted.

## 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
# Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County."
* 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.
* Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (375 U.S. 391)
* Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (377 U.S. 218)
# Georgia Railway Power Company v. City of College Park

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 441
Georgia Railway Power Company v. City of College Park
Argued: April 24, 25, 1923. --- Decided: June 4, 1923
Mr. Walter T. Colquitt, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Geo. P. Whitman, of Atlanta, Ga., for defendant in error.
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
# Georgia Railway Power Company v. Railroad Commission of Georgia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 625
Georgia Railway Power Company v. Railroad Commission of Georgia
Argued: November 29, 1922. --- Decided: June 11, 1923
Messrs. L. Z. Rosser, of Atlanta, Ga., Robert G. Dodge, of Boston, Mass., and W. T. Colquitt, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 625-628 intentionally omitted]
Mr. E. J. Reagan, of McDonough, Ga., for appellees.
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
# Georgia Railway Power Company v. City of College Park/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 441
Georgia Railway Power Company v. City of College Park
Argued: April 24, 25, 1923. --- Decided: June 4, 1923
The facts in this case and the contentions to be considered, with some exceptions presently to be stated, are essentially the same as those involved in Georgia Railway & Power Co. et al. v. Town of Decatur (No. 463) 262 U.S. 432, 43 Sup. Ct. 613, 67 L. Ed. --, just decided. From their inception in the state courts the two cases have been considered together and in each of the three decisions referred to in the Decatur Case the state Supreme Court has disposed of them in a single opinion.
The contract here involved was made in 1905. It granted to the electric company the right to convert its single track within the limits of the municipality into a double track line of electric railway and provided:
'That no greater fare than that of five cents for each passenger be charged for passage from the southern limits of said city of College Park to some central point in the city of Atlanta.'
The contract, however, unlike the Decatur one, contains no provision on the subject of transfers. Subsequently, by an act of the Legislature, the limits of College Park were extended so as to take in a portion of the College Park line theretofore outside the municipality. Upon the authority of the Decatur Case, we hold that the application of the five-cent fare to the annexed territory impairs the obligation of the contract. In addition to that, the order of the commission requiring the issuance of free transfers to College Park patrons, was erroneous.
The state courts, in effect, construed the contract as obliging defendant to carry passengers in both directions between College Park and Atlanta at the stipulated rate, and with this construction we agree. It cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of the contracting parties that one rate of fare should be charged for passage in one direction and a different rate in the opposite direction, for the same distance, over the same line, under the same conditions and entailing the same service. Such a construction of the clause would subvert the plain purpose of the ordinance, which was to fix a five-cent fare between the two cities. We construe the phrase 'from * * * College Park to * * * Atlanta' as though it read 'between College Park and Atlanta.' See State v. Stone, 20 R. I. 269, 38 Atl. 654. This construction, moreover, agrees with the practice of the appellant, extending over many years in charging the same fare in each direction.
The decree of the state Supreme Court is reversed, and the cause r manded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Writ of certiorari 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