OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bignall v. Gould/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 495
Bignall v. Gould
By the rules now established, at law as well as in equity, the sum of $10,000, named in this bond, is a penalty only, and not liquidated damages. As observed by Lord TENTERDEN in a similar case: 'Whoever framed this agreement does not appear to have had any very clear idea of the distinction between a penalty and liquidated damages; for the sum' in question 'is described in the same sentence as a penal sum and as liquidated damages.' Davies v. Penton, 6 Barn. & C. 216, 222; S.C.. 9 Dowl. & r. 369, 376. The object of the bond is to secure the obligee's discharge from a large number of claims against him held by certain third persons severally, amounting in all to something like $39,000, and varying from more than $8,000 to less than $10 each. A failure of either of those persons to release any one of those claims would be a breach of the bond; and for any such breach a just compensation might be estimated in damages. The sum of $10,000 must therefore be regarded as simply a penalty to secure the payment of such damages as the obligee may suffer from any breach of the bond. Watts v. Camors, 115 U.S. 353; S.C.. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 91; Boys v. Ancell, 5 Bing. N. C. 390; S.C.. 7 Scott, 364; Thompson v. Hudson, L. R. 4 H. L. 1, 30; Fisk v. Gray, 11 Allen, 132.
Upon the evidence introduced and the admissions made by the plaintiff at the trial, it does not appear that he suffered any damage whatever. Although there was a technical breach of the bond at the expiration of a year from its date, by the third persons therein named having failed to release the plaintiff from any of the debts held by them, yet, within a month afterwards, and before this action was brought, he was legally discharged from all those debts by obtaining a certificate of discharge in bankruptcy. This discharge was not the less complete and effectual because the creditors had not received payment in full, nor because the plaintiff might, if he saw fit, by new promises to them, waive the discharge, and revive so much of the debts as had not been satisfied by the dividends paid by the assignee in bankruptcy.
Judgment for nominal damages affirmed.

## 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
# Bihn v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 633
BIHN v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: March 26, 1946. --- Decided: June 10, 1946
Mr. Henry K. Chapman, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. John J. Cooney, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Bigler v. Waller

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Bigler v. Waller."
* 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.
* Bigler v. Waller (79 U.S. 142)
* Bigler v. Waller (81 U.S. 297)
# Bihar, the Land of Buddhist World

A web-book on civilisational achievements of Bihar (associated with Lord Buddha and Ashoka the Great)

## Publication history

* Bihar, the Land of Buddhist World was first published as a web-book in 1990 from the UK using domain www.Bihar.world
This work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license, which allows free use, distribution, and creation of derivatives, so long as the license is unchanged and clearly noted, and the original author is attributed—and if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same license as this one.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Bank of Leavenworth v. Hunt Assignee/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
78 U.S. 391
Bank of Leavenworth v. Hunt Assignee
The question presented for our consideration arises upon the refusal of the Circuit Court to give the instruction prayed; and it is one easily answered. It would have been error to have given the instruction, for it assumes that there was an original valid agreement between the parties that the plaintiffs should deliver to the bank the entire stock of goods when desired.
In the first place, the record does not disclose that any such agreement was established; it only discloses that the evidence introduced tended to show that, in conversations preliminary to the execution of the mortgage, the bankrupts made a promise to the president of the bank to that effect.
Courts cannot assume, in their instructions to juries, that material facts upon which the parties rely are established, unless they are admitted, or the evidence respecting them is not controverted. The courts would otherwise encroach upon the appropriate and exclusive province of juries.
In the second place, the supposed agreement, if established, was void as against other creditors of the bankrupts. It did not create any lien upon the property, or entitle the bank to any preference over other creditors in the event of the debtors being afterwards proceeded against under the Bankrupt Act. The subsequent sale, even if made in pursuance of the agreement, did not take effect by relation at its date. Transfers of personal property, situated as in this case, only take effect as against creditors from the delivery of the property to the purchaser.
The stipulation in the chattel-mortgage, providing that in case of default in the payment of the notes or interest, it should be lawful for the cashier of the bank to take possession of the property and sell the same, does not aid the defendants for two reasons, both equally conclusive. 1st; The mortgage was never deposited in the office of the register of deeds of the county where the property was situated or the mortgagors resided, and was therefore void as against creditors under the statute of Kansas. 2d; The mortgagors remained in possession of the goods notwithstanding the mortgage, and by its terms; and the testimony tended to show that they continued to sell the goods, with the assent of the defendants, until the transfer in July, 1867. The court could not assume the instrument to be valid in the face of this testimony, for if the facts were found by the jury which the testimony tended to establish, the mortgage was fraudulent and void as against creditors. #fn-s-s
In any view of the case the instruction prayed was properly refused.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
# Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
28 U.S. 431
Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar
Mr Vinton moved to amend the judgment of this court rendered in this cause at the January term of 1829; 2 Peters, 318; by giving to the defendants in error, damages on the judgment at the rate of six per centum per annum, and that the judgment of the court be so reformed.
Mr Vinton stated, that the mandate, though issued, had never been presented to the circuit court, and it was now in this court. Under these circumstances, and as the omission was a mere clerical error, he hoped the motion would prevail.
Mr Bibb, for the plaintiffs in error, objected to the amendment being made, as the whole subject was res adjudicata at the last term; and was not now to be opened. The mandate is a solemn act of the court; it passes under the view of the court, and is the proceeding of the court. The omission it is asked to correct was not a clerical misprison. If, in the course of adjudication in this court, an act of congress should not have been adverted to, would the court, at a subsequent term, open their judgment to correct the error which existed from their disregard of the act? The rules of court are not of higher sanction; and if in the issuing of the mandate that rule which allows interest has not been applied, the court will not go back to reform what has passed into judgment. Such a proceeding would expose the court and suitors to great inconvenience, and be productive of frequent injustice.
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
# Bank of Kentucky v. Kentucky

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
207 U.S. 258
Bank of Kentucky v. Kentucky
Argued: October 23, 1907. --- Decided: December 2, 1907
Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 258-260 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Henry Lane Stone, Samuel B. Kirby, and Robert W. Bingham for defendant in error.
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
# Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
28 U.S. 431
Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar
In the case of the motion to amend the mandate, the court directs the amendment to be made, and the judgment of the court to be reformed, allowing interest at the rate of six per cent. The reason is, that by a rule of this court, when there are no special circumstances, six per cent. interest is allowed upon the amount of the judgment in the court below; under special circumstances, damages to the amount of ten per cent. are awarded by the court. The omission is deemed by this court a mere clerical error.
On consideration of the motion made by Mr Vinton, of counsel for the defendants in error, in this cause, on a prior day of this term, to amend the judgment of this court rendered in this cause at the January term of this court in the year of our Lord 1829: to wit, on the 14th day of February of the said last mentioned year, by giving to the defendants in error in said cause on said judgment damages at the rate of six per centum per annum: it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the said judgment of this court of February 14, A. D. 1829, be reformed by the amendment of damages at the rate of six per centum per annum, so that the judgment read thus: 'it is adjudged and ordered by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court in this case be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum.

## 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
# Bank of Lewisburg v. Sheffey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 445
Bank of Lewisburg v. Sheffey
[Statement of Case from pages 445-450 intentionally omitted]
A. C. Snyder, for appellant.
A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, and Jas. Bumgardner, for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Bank of Marin v. England

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 99
Bank of Marin v. England
Argued: Oct. 20, 1966. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1966
Edgar B. Washburn, San Rafael, Cal., for petitioner.
Thomas B. Donovan, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
    Clark

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 58
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
Argued: Dec. 3 and 4, 1962. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1963
[Syllabus from pages 58-59 intentionally omitted]
Horace S. Manges, New York City, for appellants.
J. Joseph Nugent, Providence, R.I., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Banta v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 33
Banta v. United States
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# Banta v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 33
Banta v. United States
Messrs. Richard Swan Buell and Justin W. Seymour, for appellant.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Charles H. Weston, W. Louise Florencourt, Robert W. Ginnane and B. Franklin, Taylor, Jr., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
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
# Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Douglas Clark
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 58
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
Argued: Dec. 3 and 4, 1962. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1963
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.

## 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
# Bond Administrator of Cade v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 254
Bond Administrator of Cade v. Brown
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
It was a suit brought by Brown, a citizen of Mississippi, against Bond, as the administrator of Mary Ann Cade, upon a bond with a collateral condition, given by one Witherspoon, for which Mary Ann Cade was responsible.
The petition set out the bond and the breaches. The defendant answered, denying some of the material facts stated in the petition, and alleging other facts, which, if proved, were sufficient to bar a recovery. Neither party claimed a trial by jury; and, according to the Louisiana code of practice, articles 494, 495, the whole case was submitted to the judge.
In February, 1849, the cause came on for trial, and, after argument, the court pronounced the following judgment:
'JAMES BROWN}
v. }1596.
J. B. BOND, Adm'r, &c. }
'This cause having been argued and submitted to the court, on a former day, on the pleadings, law, and evidence, and the court having maturely considered the same, and being fully advised in the premises, and satisfied that the plaintiff has fully substantiated the allegations in his petition, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, James Brown, and against the defendant, Joshua B. Bond, administrator of the estate of Mary Ann Cade, widow of Elias M. Witherspoon, for the sum of fourteen thousand dollars, with interest thereon, at the rate of five per centum per annum, from the eleventh day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, until paid; and costs of suit to be taxed.
'Judgment rendered 13th June, 1849.
'Judgment signed 18th June, 1849.
'THEO. H. McCALEB, [SEAL.] U.S. Judge.'
The defendant sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this court.
It was argued by Mr. Marr, for the defendant in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Marr contended that, according to the plaintiffs, the judgment of the court was equivalent to a general judgment for the plaintiff. There was no objection in any form to any portion of the testimony offered on the trial, no bill of exceptions taken, no motion for a new trial, no case stated by argument of counsel. It is not the province of this court to determine questions of fact, merely as such, on a writ of error. It must legally presume that the allegations of the petition were proven by sufficient and competent testimony; and the decision of the Circuit Court, to this effect, is as conclusive upon this court as if the facts stated in the petition had been found to be true by the verdict of a jury; 5 How., 289; 7 How., 846; and the authorities cited by Mr. Justice Wayne, 7 How., 865.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Fan and His Way

THE FAN AND HIS WAY.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Game

THE GAME.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Bug's View-Point

THE BUG'S VIEW-POINT.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Bushers

THE BUSHERS.
(A big advance order is now in for Christy Matthewson's [sic] forthcoming volume on baseball; John L. Sullivan is at work upon a romance of the ring, of which he is the hero; Battling Nelson has just closed up a comfortable wad upon his edition of "The Life and Battles of Matthew Battling Nelson.")
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Goods

THE GOODS.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Grand Old Winter League

THE GRAND OLD WINTER LEAGUE.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Bush Leaguer's Dream

THE BUSH LEAGUER'S DREAM. (From our "Songs of the Spring Recruit.")
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Courtship of a Son of Swat

THE COURTSHIP OF A SON OF SWAT.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Champs of the Alley League

THE CHAMPS OF THE ALLEY LEAGUE.
# Base-Ball Ballads/The Climax of Fan Joy

THE CLIMAX OF FAN JOY.
The greatest laugh of all crowns a scrappy game of ball When a foul-tip cracks the umpire on the knee.
# Bond Administrator of Cade v. Brown/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 254
Bond Administrator of Cade v. Brown
The record in this case is voluminous; but a very brief statement will show the grounds upon which it is decided in this court.
The suit was brought by the defendant in error in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, upon a bond with a collateral condition. The breaches for which he sued are set out in the petition. The plaintiff in error answered, denying some of the material facts stated in the petition, and alleging other facts, which, if supported by testimony, were sufficient to bar the recovery.
Upon these issues the parties proceeded in the case, and evidence on both sides was offered, which is stated at large in the record. And, as neither party demanded a jury, the fact as well as the law was, according to the Louisiana practice, submitted to the court.
The plaintiff in error has not presented any argument in this court, nor assigned any particular error of which he complains. None of the testimony on either side appears to have been objected to in the Circuit Court. Nor does it appear, from the pleadings, or by exception, or by the opinion of the court, that any question of law arose or was decided in the case. On the contrary, the opinion of the court, inserted in the record, according to the Louisiana practice, states that, being satisfied that the defendant in error had fully substantiated the allegations in his petition, the court proceeded to give judgment in his favor. The language of the opinion, when taken in connection with the pleadings and issues, implies that the case turned upon the comparative weight of the testimony; upon the fact, and not upon the law. And, whether the fact was rightly decided or not, according to the evidence, is not open to inquiry in this court. The decision of the court below, in this respect, is as conclusive as the verdict of a jury when the case is brought here by writ of error. And, as no error in law appears in the record, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs and damages, at the rate of six per centum per annum.

## 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
# Bond v. Floyd

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 116
Bond v. Floyd
Argued: Nov. 10, 1966. --- Decided: Dec 5, 1966
Howard Moore, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., and Leonard B. Boudin, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Griffin, Ga., for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Bond v. Green/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 271
Bond v. Green
The motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio, certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Smith v. Bennett, and Marshall v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39.
Mr. Justice STEWART took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.

## 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
# Bond v. Davenport

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 619
Bond v. Davenport
W. F. Brannan, for appellant.
G. E. Hubbell, for appellee.
WAITE, 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
# Bond v. Dustin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 604
Bond v. Dustin
A. Stirling, Jr., and Nicholas P. Bond, for plaintiffs in error.
H. S. Greene, for defendant in error.
GRAY, 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