OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Armstrong v. United States (364 U.S. 40)/Concurrence Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stewart
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 40
Armstrong v. United States (364 U.S. 40)
Argued: March 28, 1960. --- Decided: June 27 1960
Mr. Justice STEWART concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice CLARK join, dissenting.
I agree that petitioners had valid liens on the uncompleted work and supplies at the time the property was transferred to the Government, and that such liens represented compensable property interests within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. But the Fifth Amendment renders the Government liable only if there was a 'taking' by it of such interests. I cannot conclude, as the Court so readily does, that simply because the value of those liens was 'destroyed' there was a 'taking' of petitioners' property.
As the Court concedes, not every governmental act which ultimately destroys property rights constitutes a compensable taking of those rights. We are not here dealing with a situation in which the United States has condemned the full fee interest in property, thus purporting to extinguish all claims therein. In such a case, it may well be that lienholders are entitled to compensation for the value of their interests. See Thibodo v. United States, 10 Cir., 187 F.2d 249; cf. United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377-378, 65 S.Ct. 357, 359, 89 L.Ed. 311. In this instance, however, the Government has not exercised its power of eminent domain with the intent and purpose of extinguishing petitioners' liens; indeed it has not exercised its power of eminent domain at all. All it has done is to exercise its undoubted power to contract and to acquire title to the property, the consequent effect of which is to render the liens unenforceable because of the independent principle of sovereign immunity. The very nature of the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes regarding its interposition as a Fifth Amendment 'taking.' It seems to me that a Court which, having established this immunity, then declares that the Government must pay for exercising it, is effectively negativing it.
I would affirm.

## 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
# Armstrong v. United States (182 U.S. 243)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
182 U.S. 243
Armstrong v. United States
Argued: January 8, 9, 10, 11, 1901. --- Decided: May 27, 1901
This case is controlled by the case of Dooley v. United States (No. 501), just decided, 181 U.S. --, ante, 762, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762. So far as the duties were exacted upon goods imported prior to the ratification of the treaty of April 11, 1899, they were properly exacted. So far as they were imposed upon importations after that date and prior to December 5, 1899, plaintiff is entitled to recover them back.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed, and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

## 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
# Aron Company v. Mississippi Shipping Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 115
Aron Company v. Mississippi Shipping Company
Messrs. Eberhard P. Deutsch, Brunswick G. Deutsch and Rene H. Himel, Jr., for petitioner.
As Amended Dec. 14, 1959.
On Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
# Aron Company v. Mississippi Shipping Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 115
Aron Company v. Mississippi Shipping Company
It appearing from the petitioner's suggestion of mootness that, subsequent to the judgment of reversal by the Court of Appeals of the original interlocutory decree of the District Court and the filing of the petition for writ of certiorari, a consent judgment for damages and costs was entered by the District Court, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to dismiss the appeal as moot.

## 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
# Aromatics and the Soul: A Study of Smells/front matter

* DISEASES OF THE THROAT, NOSE, AND EAR
* By Dan McKenzie, M.D.,
* F.R.C.S.E. Royal 8vo. 650 pages, 2 Coloured Plates and 198 Illustrations. 42s. net.
* Times Literary Supplement.—“There is probably no better book on this branch of medicine and surgery in existence.”
* LONDON
* WILLIAM HEINEMANN
* (MEDICAL BOOKS) LTD.
# Aron v. Manhattan Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 84
Aron v. Manhattan Railway Company
M. B. Philipp, for appellant.
Edwin H. Brown and Julien T. Davies, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 25

25. Reference to the Saying of Paul About Crucifixion with Christ.
Moreover in regard to the saying, “Let him deny himself,” the following saying of Paul who denied himself seems appropriate, “Yet I live, and yet no longer I but Christ liveth in me;” for the expression, “I live, yet no longer I,” was the voice of one denying himself, as of one who had laid aside his own life and taken on himself the Christ, in order that He might live in him as Righteousness, and as Wisdom, and as Sanctification, and as our Peace, and as the Power of God, who worketh all things in him. But further also, attend to this, that while there are many forms of dying, the Son of God was crucified, being hanged on a tree, in order that all who die unto sin may die to it, in no other way than by the way of the cross. Wherefore they will say, “I have been crucified with Christ,” and, “Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of the Lord, through which the world has been crucified unto me and I unto the world.” For perhaps also each of those who have been crucified with Christ puts off from himself the principalities and the powers, and makes a show of them and triumphs over them in the cross; or rather, Christ does these things in them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 24.
* ↑ Gal. ii. 20.
* ↑ 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. ii. 14.
* ↑ Gal. ii. 20; vi. 14.
* ↑ Col. ii. 15.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 18

18. Jesus Was at First Proclaimed by the Twelve as a Worker and a Teacher Only.
But he who holds that the things spoken to the Twelve refer to the times subsequent to this, and that the Apostles had not as yet announced to their hearers that He was the Christ, will say that He wished the conception of the Christ which was involved in the name of Jesus to be reserved for that preaching which was more perfect, and which brought salvation, such as Paul knew of when he said to the Corinthians, “I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” Wherefore, formerly they proclaimed Jesus as the doer of certain things, and the teacher of certain things; but now when Peter confesses that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, as He did not wish it to be proclaimed already that He was the Christ, in order that He might be proclaimed at a more suitable time, and that as crucified, He commands His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. And that this was His meaning, when He forbade proclamation to be made that He was the Christ, is in a measure established by the words, “From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders,” and what is annexed; for then, at the fitting time, He proclaims, so to speak, to the disciples who knew that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living God, the Father having revealed it to them, that instead of believing in Jesus Christ who had been crucified, they were to believe in Jesus Christ who was about to be crucified. But also, instead of believing in Christ Jesus and Him risen from the dead, He teaches them to believe in Christ Jesus and Him about to be risen from the dead. But since “having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over in the cross,” if any one is ashamed of the cross of Christ, he is ashamed of the dispensation on account of which these powers were triumphed over; and it is fitting that he, who both believes and knows these things, should glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which, when Christ was crucified, the principalities—among which, I think, was also the prince of this world—were made a show of and triumphed over before the believing world. Wherefore, when His suffering was at hand he said, “Now the prince of this world has been judged,” and, “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out,” and, “I, if I be lifted from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself;” as he no longer had sufficient power to prevent those going to Jesus who were being drawn by Him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. ii. 2.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 21.
* ↑ Col. ii. 15.
* ↑ Gal. vi. 14.
* ↑ John xvi. 11.
* ↑ John xii. 31, 32.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 24

24. Self-Denial and Cross-Bearing.
“Then Jesus said to His disciples, If any man wills to follow after Me,” etc. He shows by these words that, to will to come after Jesus and to follow Him, springs from no ordinary manly courage, and that no one who has not denied himself can come after Jesus. And the man denies himself who wipes out by a striking revolution his own former life which had been spent in wickedness; as by way of illustration he who was once licentious denies his licentious self, having become self-controlled even abidingly. But it is probable that some one may put the objection, whether as he denied himself so he also confesses himself, when he denied himself, the unjust, and confesses himself, the righteous one. But, if Christ is righteousness, he who has received righteousness confesses not himself but Christ; so also he who has found wisdom, by the very possession of wisdom, confesses Christ. And such a one indeed as, “with the heart believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth maketh confession unto salvation,” and bears testimony to the works of Christ, as making confession by all these things of Christ before men, will be confessed by Him before His Father in heaven. So also he who has not denied himself but denied the Christ will experience the saying, “I also will deny him.” On this account let every thought and every purpose and every word and every action become a denial of ourselves, but a testimony about Christ and in Christ; for I am persuaded that every action of the perfect man is a testimony to Christ Jesus, and that abstinence from every sin is a denial of self, leading him after Christ. And such an one is crucified with Christ, and taking up his own cross follows Him who for our sakes bears His own cross, according to that which is said in John: “They took Jesus therefore and put it on Him,” etc., down to the words, “Where they crucified Him.” But the Jesus according to John, so to speak, bears the cross for Himself, and bearing it went out; but the Jesus according to Matthew and Mark and Luke, does not bear it for Himself, for Simon of Cyrene bears it. And perhaps this man refers to us, who because of Jesus take up the cross of Jesus, but Jesus Himself takes it upon Himself; for there are, as it were, two conceptions of the cross, the one which Simon of Cyrene bears, and the other which Jesus Himself bears for Himself.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 24.
* ↑ Rom. x. 10.
* ↑ Matt. x. 32.
* ↑ Matt. x. 33.
* ↑ John xix. 17, 18.
* ↑ Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 26

26. The Less of Life; And the Saving of It.
“For whosoever would save his own life shall lose it.” The first expression is ambiguous; for it may be understood in one way thus. If any one as being a lover of life, and thinking that the present life is good, tends carefully his own life with a view to living in the flesh, being afraid to die, as through death going to lose it, this man, by the very willing to save in this way his own life will lose it, placing it outside of the borders of blessedness.  But if any one despising the present life because of my word, which has persuaded him to strive in regard to eternal life even unto death for truth, loses his own life, surrendering it for the sake of piety to that which is commonly called death, this man, as for my sake he has lost his life, will save it rather, and keep it in possession.  And according to a second way we might interpret the saying as follows. If any one, who has grasped what salvation really is, wishes to procure the salvation of his own life, let this man having taken farewell of this life, and denied himself and taken up his own cross, and following me, lose his own life to the world; for having lost it for my sake and for the sake of all my teaching, he will gain the end of loss of this kind—salvation.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 25.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 23

23. Peter as a Stumbling-Block to Jesus.
Next we must inquire how He said to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me,” especially when David says, “Great peace have they that love Thy law, and there is no stumbling-block to them.” For some one will say, if this is said in the prophet, because of the steadfastness of those who have love, and are incapable of being offended, for “love beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, love never faileth,” how did the Lord Himself, “who upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all that be bowed down,” say to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me”? But it must be said that not only the Saviour, but also he who is perfected in love, cannot be offended. But, so far as it depends on himself, he who says or does such things is a stumbling-block even to him who will not be offended; unless perhaps Jesus calls the disciple who sinned a stumbling-block even to Himself, as much more than Paul He would have said from love, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I burn not?” In harmony with which we may put, “Who is made to stumble, and I am not made to stumble?” But if Peter, at that time because of the saying, “God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee,” was called a stumbling-block by Jesus, as not minding the things of God in what he said but the things of men, what is to be said about all those who profess to be made disciples of Jesus, but do not mind the things of God, and do not look to things unseen and eternal, but mind the things of man, and look to things seen and temporal, but that such still more would be stigmatized by Jesus as a stumbling-block to Him, and because stumbling-blocks to Him, as stumbling-blocks to His brethren also? As in regard to them He says, “I was thirsty and ye gave Me no drink,” etc., so also He might say, “When I was running ye caused Me to stumble.” Let us not therefore suppose that it is a trivial sin to mind the things of men, since we ought in everything to mind the things of God. And it will be appropriate also to say this to every one that has fallen away from the doctrines of God and the words of the church and a true mind; as, for example, to him who minds as true the teaching of Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or any one of those who teach the things of men as the things of God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 23.
* ↑ Ps. cxix. 165.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xiii. 7, 8.
* ↑ Ps. cxlv. 14.
* ↑ 2 Cor. xi. 29.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 22.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iv. 18.
* ↑ Matt. xxv. 42.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 22

22. Importance of the Expressions “Behind” And “Turned.”
But you will compare together His saying to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan,” with that said to the devil (who said to Him, “All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me”), “get thee hence,” without the addition, “behind Me;” for to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Wherefore it was said, “Come ye behind Me and I will make you fishers of men.” And to the same effect is the saying, “He that doth not take his cross and follow behind Me is not worthy of Me.” And as a general principle observe the expression “behind”; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says, “Do not walk behind thy lusts.” And Elijah also, in the third Book of Kings, says to the people, “How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him.” And Jesus says this to Peter when He “turned,” and He does so by way of conferring a favour. And if therefore you will collect more illustrations of the “having turned,” and especially those which are ascribed to Jesus, and compare them with one another, you would find that the expression is not superfluous. But it is sufficient at present to bring forward this from the Gospel according to John, “Jesus turned and beheld them”—clearly, Peter and Andrew—“following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?” For observe that, when He “turned,” it is for the advantage of those to whom He turned.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 23.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 9.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 10.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 19.
* ↑ Matt. x. 38.
* ↑ Ecclus. xviii. 30.
* ↑ 1 Kings xviii. 21.
* ↑ John i. 38.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 21

21. The Rebuke of Peter and the Answer of Jesus.
“And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee. Lord, this shall never be unto thee.” To whom He said, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me; for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.” Since Jesus had begun to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things, Peter up to this point learned the beginnings of those things which were shown. But since he thought that the sufferings were unworthy of Christ the Son of the living God, and below the dignity of the Father who had revealed to him so great things about Christ,—for the things that concerned His coming suffering had not been revealed to him,—on this account he took Him, and as one forgetful of the honour due to the Christ, and that the Son of the living God neither does nor says anything worthy of rebuke, he began to rebuke Him; and as to one who needed propitiation,—for he did not yet know that “God had set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,” he said, “God be propitious to thee, O Lord.” Approving his purpose, indeed, but rebuking his ignorance, because of the purpose being right, He says to him, “Get thee behind Me,” as to one who, by reason of the things of which he was ignorant and spake not rightly, had abandoned the following of Jesus; but because of his ignorance, as to one who had something antagonistic to the things of God, He said, “Satan,” which in the Hebrew means “adversary.” But, if Peter had not spoken from ignorance, nor rebuked the Son of the living God, saying unto Him, “God be propitious to thee, Lord, this shall never be unto Thee,” Christ would not have said to him, “Get thee behind Me,” as to one who had given up being behind Him and following Him; nor would He have said as to one who had spoken things adverse to what He had said, “Satan.” But now Satan prevailed over him who had followed Jesus and was going behind Him, to turn aside from following Him and from being behind the Son of God, and to make him, by reason of the words which he spoke in ignorance, worthy of being called “Satan” and a stumbling-block to the Son of God, and “as not minding the things of God but the things of men.” But that Peter was formerly behind the Son of God, before he committed this sin, is manifest from the words, “Come ye behind Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 22.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 23.
* ↑ These three sentences are supplied from the old Latin version, as at this point there is a hiatus in the mss.
* ↑ Rom. iii. 25.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 22.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 23.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 19.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 19

19. Importance of the Proclamation of Jesus as the Crucified.
It is necessary, therefore, to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ, that He should be proclaimed as crucified; and the proclamation that Jesus was the Christ does not seem to me so defective when any of His other miracles is passed over in silence, as when the fact of His crucifixion is passed over. Wherefore, reserving the more perfect proclamation of the things concerning Him by the Apostles, He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ; and He prepared them to say that He was the Christ crucified and risen from the dead, “when He began” not only to say, nor even to advance to the point of teaching merely, but “to show” to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, etc.; for attend to the expression “show”; because just as sensible things are said to be shown so the things spoken by Him to His disciples are said to be shown by Jesus. And I do not think that each of the things seen was shown to those who saw Him suffering many things in body from the elders of the people, with such clearness as was the rational demonstration about Him to the disciples.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 21.