OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 108

Chap. CVIII.—An Act to regulate arrests on mesne process in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter no person ​Persons not to be held to bail in civil suits except on affidavit, in certain cases.shall be held to bail in any civil suit in the District of Columbia, unless on affidavit, filed by the plaintiff or his agent, stating in cases of debt or contract the amount which he verily believes to be due, and that the same has been contracted by fraud or false pretences, or through a breach of trust, or that the defendant is concealing or has concealed his property in the District of elsewhere, or is about to remove the same from this District or the place of his residence, in order to evade the payment of the debt, or that, being a resident of the District and domiciled therein, is about to abscond without paying the debt, and with a view to avoid the payment of the same, setting forth all the facts on which said allegations of fraud or breach of trust are founded, and in all cases setting forth the grounds, nature, and particulars of the claim. The sufficiency of the affidavit to hold to bail, andSufficiency of affidavit, &c. how to be determined. the amount of bail to be given, shall, upon application of the defendant, be decided by the court in term time, and by any single judge in vacation. In all cases in which the affidavit required by this act is not filed previously to issuing the writ, the defendant, upon its service, shall not be required to give bail, but merely to sign an order to the clerk of the court to enter his appearance in the cause, which, if he refuses to do, he may then be held to bail as in other cases.
Relative to the discharge of persons now held to bail in civil suits.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any person now held to bail in a civil suit in the said District may apply to the Circuit Court of said District in term time, or to any judge thereof in vacation, for a rule to show cause why he shall not be discharged on filing a common appearance, and shall be so discharged unless the plaintiff or his agent shall file a sufficient affidavit, in conformity with the provisions of the preceding section, within a reasonable period of time, to be assigned by the court or the judge to whom the application is made.
Approved, August 1, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 123

Chap. CXXIII.—An Act to regulate appeals and writs of error from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Alabama.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appeals to the U. S. Supreme Court in certain cases. That all appeals and writs of error from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Alabama, at Huntsville, shall lie directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, when the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs; and that so much of the act to abolish the circuit court at Huntsville, in the State of Alabama, and for other purposes, as requires all appeals and writs of error to lie from said district court to the circuit court at Mobile, without regard to the amount in controversy, be repealed.
Approved, August 4, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 106

Chap. CVI.—An Act in relation to marriages within the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Clergymen authorized to marry, &c. That the ministers of the gospel, or clergy, who at any time may be legally authorized to unite persons in the bands of wedlock, or to join them together as man and wife, either in the county of Washington or the county of Alexandria, shall be, and are hereby, authorized to do so in any place within the District of Columbia.
Approved, July 27, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 109

Chap. CIX.—An Act to extend the provisions of an act entitled “An act to regulate processes in the courts of the United States,” passed the nineteenth May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Act 19th May, 1828, ch. 68, made applicable to States since admitted into the Union. That the provisions of an act entitled “An act to regulate processes in the courts of the United States,” passed the nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, shall be, and they are hereby, made applicable to such States as have been admitted into the Union since the date of said act.
Approved, August 1, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 107

Chap. CVII.—An Act to provide for the permanent employment in the Post Office Department of certain clerks heretofore for several years temporarily employed in that Department.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Additional clerks authorized in P. O. Department. That the Postmaster General be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ in the Post Office Department, a topographer, at a salary of sixteen hundred dollars; and eight additional clerks, whose annual compensation shall be as follows: three clerks at fourteen hundred dollars each, four clerks at one thousand two hundred dollars each, and one clerk at one thousand dollars.
Arrears due said clerks to be paid.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the arrears of pay due to said clerks from the first day of January last, at the rates aforesaid, and their regular salaries for the residue of the current year, be regularly paid to them by the proper officer of the Department, and for this purpose the sum of eleven thousand six hundred dollars is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Certain temporary clerks in P. O. Department made permanent. Act of March 3, 1837, ch. 33. Act of July 7, 1838, ch. 169.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That eleven additional clerks heretofore temporarily employed in the office of the Auditor of the Post Office Department under the provisions of the acts of Congress of the third of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, and the seventh of July, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, shall be permanently added to the force in that office, at the rates of compensation heretofore allowed for their services respectively, and the sum of thirteen thousand two hundred dollars is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the payment of their salaries for the year eighteen hundred and forty-two.
Approved, July 30, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 120

Chap. CXX.—An Act to constitute the ports of Stonington, Mystic river, and Pawcatuck river, a collection district.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Stonington a collection district and port of entry. 1842, ch. 177. That the town of Stonington, in the county of New London, State of Connecticut, shall be a collection district, from and after the thirtieth day of June next; and that the port of Stonington, aforesaid, shall be, and hereby is, made a port of entry.
District of Stonington designated.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the district of Stonington shall comprehend all the waters, shores, bays, and harbors, from the west line of Mystic river, including the villages of Portersville and Noank, in the town of Groton, State of Connecticut, to the east line of Pawcatuck river, including the town of Westerly, State of Rhode Island, any thing in any former law to the contrary notwithstanding.
​Office of surveyor abolished. A collector to be appointed―his salary and duties.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That from and after the thirtieth day of July present, the office of surveyor of the port of Stonington aforesaid, be, and the same is hereby, abolished; and a collector for the aforesaid district shall be appointed, to reside at the port of Stonington, who, in addition to his other emoluments, shall be entitled to receive the salary now allowed by law to the surveyor, aforesaid, and no more; and said collector shall also perform the duties heretofore enjoined on the surveyor.
Approved, August 3, 1842.
# United States v. Herr

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 404
United States v. Herr
Argued: October 22, 23, 26, 1908. --- Decided: December 14, 1908
Solicitor General Hoyt, Attorney General Bonaparte, and Mr. Edwin W. Lawrence for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. B. W. Ritter and N. C. Miller for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice White 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
# United States v. Hensley/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 35
United States v. Hensley
The claim of the appellee in this case is under the deed of Micheltoreno, dated the 22d of December, 1844, commonly called the Sutter General Title. It differs in no material respect from the other titles or claims already adjudged by this court, in which this grant was in question. The cases of U.S. vs. Nye, (21 How., 408;) Same vs. Bassett, (ib., 412;) Same vs. Bennitz, (23 How., 255;) Same vs. Rose, (ib., 262,) settle the question that the claim of the appellee is invalid. The decree of the District Court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to that court to dismiss the petition.
Decree accordingly.

## 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
# United States v. Hermanos Y Compania

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 337
United States v. Hermanos Y Compania
Argued: March 5, 1908. --- Decided: April 6, 1908
Assistant Attorney General Sanford for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 485
United States v. Hernandez
APPEAL from the superior court of East Florida.
The case was argued by Mr Call, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellee.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# United States v. Henry Prentiss & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 73
United States v. Henry Prentiss & Company
Argued: Dec. 8, 9, 1932. --- Decided: Jan 9, 1933
[Syllabus from pages 73-75 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., and Chas. B.Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 75-77 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Joseph F. Murray, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 77-79 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# United States v. Sanges

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
144 U.S. 310
United States v. Sanges
Indictment of George Sanges, Dennis Alexander, Isaac Smith, and Charles Porter for murder. The United States sued out error upon a judgment for defendants sustaining their demurrer to the indictment. Dismissed.
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE GRAY.
This was an indictment on sections 5508 and 5509 of the Revised Statutes, averring that while one Joseph Wright, a citizen of the United States, was returning to his home, after having appeared and testified before the grand jury of the United States, in obedience to subpoenas from the circuit court of the United States, against persons charged with violations of the internal revenue laws, and while he was still a witness under such subpoenas, the defendants conspired to injure and oppress him in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege, secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States, to inform the proper officers of the United States of violations of the internal revenue laws, and to testify under and in obedience to such subpoenas, and to return to his home in peace and safety after so testifying, and to be secure, safe, and unmolested in his person, and exempt from violence for having exercised and enjoyed those rights and privileges; and further averring that the defendants, in pursuance and prosecution of such conspiracy, assaulted and murdered him.
The defendants demurred to the indictment, 'because there are no such rights or privileges secured to the party conspired against, by the constitution and laws of the United States, as those set out in the indictment;' and 'because, on the facts alleged in said indictment, there is no crime or offense set out of which the courts of the United States can take cognizance.'
On October 5, 1891, the circuit court, held by Mr. Justice LAMAR and Judge NEWMAN, adjudged that the demurrer was well founded in law, and that it be sustained, and the indictment quashed. 48 Fed. Rep. 78.
This writ of error was thereupon sued out by the United States, and was allowed by the presiding justice. The defendants in error moved to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
Atty. Gen. Miller and Sol. Gen. Taft, for the United States.
Wm. C. Glenn, A. H. Garland, and H. J. May, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, 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
# United States v. Sanchez

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 42
United States v. Sanchez
Argued: Oct. 20, 1950. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1950
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
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
# United States v. San Jacinto Tin Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Field
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 273
United States v. San Jacinto Tin Company
G. Wiley Wells and Sol. Gen. Jenks, for appellant.
Wm. M. Stewart, 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
# Webster (Sargent)

Written in Marshfield, Mass., Oct. 24th, 1852.
Night of the Tomb! He has entered thy portal;  Silence of Death! He is wrapped in thy shade; All of the gifted and great that was mortal,  In the earth where the ocean-mist weepeth, is laid.
Lips, whence the voice that held Senates proceeded,  Form, lending argument aspect august, Brow, like the arch that a nation's weight needed,  Eyes, wells unfathomed of thought,---all are dust.
Night of the Tomb! Through thy darkness is shining  A light since the Star in the East never dim; No joy's exultation, no sorrow's repining  Could hide it in life or life's ending from him.
Silence of death! There were voices from heaven,  That pierced to the quick ear of Faith through the gloom: The rod and the staff that he asked for were given,  And he followed the Saviour's own track to the tomb.
Beyond it, above, in an atmosphere finer,  Lo, infinite ranges of being to fill! In that land of the spirit, that region diviner,  He liveth, he loveth, he laboreth still.
# Webster-Hayne debate

A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830.
* Hayne's First Speech (January 19, 1830)
** Webster's First Reply to Hayne (January 20, 1830)
* Hayne's Second Speech (January 21, 1830)
** Webster's Second Reply to Hayne (January 26–27, 1830)
# United States v. Vigil (77 U.S. 423)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
77 U.S. 423
United States v. Vigil
THIS was a motion to dismiss an appeal taken on the part of the United States from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.
The suit was brought by Vigil and others to recover a parcel of land in that Territory, under a special act of Congress, passed 21st June, 1860, which gave the right of appeal to either party, if asked for within one year from the rendition of the judgment. A judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below, at the January Term, 1867, from which an appeal was sought to be taken. The only question was as to its regularity. It was maintained on the part of the government that the appeal was prayed for by the district attorney of the United States in court at the time already mentioned, when the judgment was rendered, and was granted, but that the clerk, for some unexplained reason, neglected to make an entry in the minutes of what was thus done.
This omission of the clerk did not appear to have been discovered by the district attorney till January Term, 1869. In the meantime this officer in the Territory had retired from the office, and when the omission was brought to his notice by his successor he expressed his surprise, and stated that he not only prayed for the appeal but charged the clerk to make the entry, and, as he believed, gave him a memorandum to that effect. As soon as the omission came to the knowledge of his successor, he made an application to the court below to amend the record so that it might appear that the appeal had been prayed for, according to the facts, at the term in which the judgment was rendered.
The court granted the application and ordered that an entry be made, nunc pro tunc, of an appeal in the cause, asked for at the January Term, 1867, and that the same be granted. But, of course, no transcript of the record was returned and filed in this court before the end of the next term after the allowance of the appeal regarding it as of that date.
Messrs. Watts and Ewing, Jr., in support of the motion,
Adverting to the fact that the record showed no citation, insisted that although the proceedings finally taken below might establish the appeal and make it valid, as of the January Term, 1867, yet, according to the settled practice of the court, a transcript of the record in the court below must be returned by the clerk and filed in this court before the end of the next term after the allowance of the appeal; otherwise that it would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and that, in this respect, the appeal was defective.
Mr. Akerman, Attorney-General, and Mr. C. H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, contra.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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
# United States v. Village of Hubbard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 474
United States v. Village of Hubbard
Argued: Dec. 3, 1924. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1925
The Attorney General and Messrs. P. J. Farrell, of Washington, D. C., Union C. De Ford, of Youngstown, Ohio, and T. H. Hogsett, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants United States and others.
Messrs. Douglass D. Storey, of Harrisburg, Pa., and Union C. De Ford, of Youngstown, Ohio (Messrs. Hause, Evans & Baker, of Harrisburg, Pa., and Harrington, De Ford, Huxley & Smith, of Youngstown, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co.
Messrs. Thomas H. Hogsett, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Agnew Hice, of Beaver, Pa., for appellant Steubenville, E. L. & B. V. Traction Co.
Mr. P. J. Farrell, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. Edmond H. Moore, John J. Boyle, and Moore, Barnum & Hammond, all of Youngstown, Ohio, for Village of Hubbard.
Messrs. Charles Boyd and George D. Ingram, City Sol., both of Wellsville, Ohio, for appellant City of Wellsville.
Harry Brokaw, City Sol., of East Liverpool, Ohio, amicus curiae.
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
# United States v. Vigil

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Vigil."
* 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.
* United States v. Vigil (77 U.S. 423)
* United States v. Vigil (80 U.S. 449)