OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Horsburg v. Baker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
26 U.S. 232
Horsburg v. Baker
ON an appeal from the Circuit Court, for the district of Kentucky. The facts and the pleadings in the case, are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
The cause was argued by Mr. Wickliffe, on the part of the appellants; no counsel appearing for the appellees. The following points were stated in the argument, by Mr. Wickliffe.--
1. The loan made in 1784, and as further evidenced, by the deed of confirmation of 1787, was valid, as between the parties to it; and as Baker and wife are proved, in 1813, to be in possession of the negroes, and of a copy, or the original deed of 1781 is admitted, they are estopped from asserting any title to said slaves, which they may have had prior to that deed.
2. The deed of 1787, having been duly recorded in the proper office, on the 4th of July 1787, was notice to all the world; and the subsequent removal of the slaves out of the state of Virginia, without the knowledge and consent of Hosburg, did not destroy the legal effect of that deed, or convert the loan into an absolute title, in Baker and wife.
3. Baker and wife cannot rely upon the lapse of time, or the length of possession, to defeat the right of Horsburg, and those claiming under them.
4. The Court, in this cause, had jurisdiction upon two grounds; the one, arising from the nature of the contract, and its subject matter; the other, from the peculiar circumstances of the case, the difficulty of proving and identifying the slave Charlotte and her increase, without the aid of a discovery on oath; and the repeated attempts by the defendants, and the just fears of the complainant, that the negroes would be secreted, and removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court.
When Courts of Chancery take jurisdiction upon the ground of discovery, or upon any other ground, they will retain the cause for the purpose of granting full relief.
By the Act of Assembly of Virginia, of 1758, a parol gift of slaves was void. 1 Wash. Rep. 339, 331.
The parties to a trust of real or personal property, may resort to a Court of Equity to avail themselves of its benefits. 1 Mad. Chancery, 446.
Between the cestuy que trust, and his trustee, the statutes of limitation, or lapse of time, are no bar. 1 Mad. 453. 2 Vez. 680.
Baker and wife were trustees of the slave and her issue, for the persons entitled to the reversion of them, under the deed of Alexander Horsburg; and they were not authorized to dispose of them; and the sale made by them, while the suit was pending, was void as to the cestuy que trust. 2 Johns. Chan. Cas. 441. 4 Ibid. 136.
As to jurisdiction in this cause, and it being a case for relief in Chancery. 3 Vez. jun. 71.
Slaves, the property of the wife, vest in the husband without being redeemed into possession. 1 Mar. Rep. 517.
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
# Horse

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Horse."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* "The Horse", poem by Alexander Pushkin
* The Horse, book by William Youatt
# Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 264
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Company
The motion to dismiss is granted. McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Lau Ow Bew v. U.S., 144 U.S. 47, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Hubbard v. Soby, 146 U.S. 56, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13; Railway Co. v. Osborne, 146 U.S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281.
Appeal dismissed.

## 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
# Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas (391 U.S. 53)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 53
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of the opinion of this Court in Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 88 S.Ct. 1298, 20 L.Ed.2d 225, decided April 22, 1968.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice DOUGLAS in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 650, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1286, 20 L.Ed.2d 195, decided April 22, 1968.

## 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
# Interstate Circuit v. United States (304 U.S. 55)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 55
Interstate Circuit v. United States
Argued: April 25, 1938. --- Decided: April 25, 1938
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas.
Mr. George S. Wright, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants Interstate Circuit and others.
Thomas D. Thacher, of New York City, for appellants Paramount Picture Distributing Co. and others.
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for the United States.
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
# Interstate Circuit v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Interstate Circuit v. United States."
* 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.
* Interstate Circuit v. United States (304 U.S. 55)
* Interstate Circuit v. United States (306 U.S. 208)
# Interstate Circuit v. United States (306 U.S. 208)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 208
Interstate Circuit v. United States
Argued: Jan. 11, 1939. --- Decided: Feb 13, 1939
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas.
Messrs. Thomas D. Thacher, of New York City, and George S. Wright, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 209-212 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for appellee.
Mr. 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
# Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 264
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Company
In Equity. This was a petition by the Interstate Commerce Commission against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company, the California Central Railway Company, the California Southern Railroad Company, the Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway Company, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, and the Southern California Railroad Company, to enforce an order requiring these companies to desist from charging a greater rate for a shorter than for a longer haul. In the circuit court the petition was dismissed on the ground that the 'circumstances and conditions' shown were substantially dissimilar, thus justifying the charges made. 50 Fed. Rep. 295. From this order of dismissal the Interstate Commerce Commission appeals. Appeal dismissed.
The proceeding was brought in the circuit court under the sixteenth section of the interstate commerce law, as amended March 2, 1889, (25 St. p. 855, c. 382,) which gives to the interstate commerce commission a summary remedy to enforce its orders by a petition to the United States circuit court sitting in equity. The statute, as thus amended, provides that—
'When the subject in dispute shall of the value of two thousand dollars or more, either party to such proceeding before said court may appeal to the supreme court of the United States, under the same regulations now provided by law in respect of security for such appeal; but such appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the court, or the execution of any writ or process thereon, and such court may, in every such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as shall be deemed reasonable.'
The motion to dismiss the appeal was based upon the ground that this provision was repealed, in so far as it provides for a direct appeal to the supreme court, by the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, (26 St. p. 826, c. 517,) and that the appeal should have been taken to the circuit court of appeals, as the case did not belong to any of the classes in which that act allows appeals to the supreme court direct.
Geo. R. Peck, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for the motion.
Wm. A. Day, opposed.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.

## 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
# How the Sun, the Moon, and the Wind went out to Dinner

* "How the Sun, the Moon, and the Wind went out to Dinner", Frere, M. Old Deccan Days
* "Sun, Moon, and Wind Go Out to Dinner" (reprint), Jacobs, J. Indian Fairy Tales
# How the Other Half Lives/Preface
## Preface

The belief that every man's experience ought to be worth something to the community from which he drew it, no matter what that experience may be, so long as it was gleaned along the line of some decent, honest work, made me begin this book. With the result before him, the reader can judge for himself now whether or not I was right. Right or wrong, the many and exacting duties of a newspaper many life would hardly have allowed me to bring it to an end but for frequent friendly lifts given me by willing hands. To the President of the Board of Health, Mr. Charles G. Wilson, and to Chief Inspector Byrnes of the Police Force I am indebted for much kindness. The patient friendship of Dr. Roger S. Tracy, the Registrar of Vital Statistics, has done for me what I never could have done for myself; for I know nothing of tables, statistics and percentages, while there is nothing about them that he does not know. Most of all, I owe in this, as in all things else, to the womanly sympathy and the loving companionship of my dear wife, ever my chief helper my wisest counsellor, and my gentlest critic.
J. A. R.
    "With gates of silver and bars of gold
    Ye have fenced my sheep from their father's fold;
    I have heard the dropping of their tears
    In heaven these eighteen hundred years."
    "O Lord and Master, not ones the guilt,
    We build but as our fathers built;
    Behold thine images, how they stand,
    Sovereign and sole, through all our land."
    Then Christ sought out an artisan,
    A low-browed, stunted, haggard man,
    And a motherless girl, whose fingers thin
    Pushed from her faintly want and sin.
    These set he in the midst of them,
    And as they drew back their garment-hem,
    For fear of defilement, " Lo, here," said he,
    The images ye have made of me ! "
    —James Russel Lowell.
# James Shewan Sons v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 86
James Shewan Sons v. United States
Argued: March 2, 1925. ---
Mr. C. C. Calhoun, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General and Mr. Frederick D. Silber, of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# James Shewan Sons v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 86
James Shewan Sons v. United States
Argued: March 2, 1925. ---
On November 17, 1924, this court reversed the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing a libel in admiralty against the United States, brought to recover the value of repairs made on the steamship Biran, owned by the United States. The suit was brought under an act authorizing suits against the United States in admiralty, etc., approved March 9, 1920, 41 Stat. 525, c. 95 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 1251 1/4-1251 1/4 l). Nothing was said in the opinion about costs. The ordinary rule is that costs are not allowed against the United States. Pine River Co. v. United States, 186 U.S. 279, 296, 22 S.C.t. 920, 46 L. Ed. 1164; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255, 272, 16 S.C.t. 754, 40 L. Ed. 960; United States v. Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150, 163, 8 L. Ed. 899; The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 546, 550, 6 L. Ed. 723. The mandate issued by the clerk accordingly did not award any costs against the United States. The appellant now applies for a withdrawal of the mandate, in order to award them. He relies on section 3 of the act (section 1251 1/4 b) under which the suit was brought. That provides that such suits shall proceed and shall be heard and determined according to the principles of law and to the rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties. A decree against the United States may include costs of suit, and when the decree is for money judgment, interest also at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum until satisfied, or at any higher rate which shall be stipulated in any contract upon which such decree shall be based. Interest is to run as ordered by the court. In accordance with this provision we must assess the costs of this appeal against theUnited States, and direct the District Court to assess also the costs of suit in that court and interest as that court shall order it in accordance with the statute.
It is so ordered.

## 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
# James Stewart Company v. Rivara

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 614
James Stewart Company v. Rivara
Argued: April 22, 1927. --- Decided: May 31, 1927
Messrs. John M. Woolsey and Harrington Putnam, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James M. Gorman, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 94
James Stewart Company v. Sadrakula
Argued: , Jan. 12, 1940. --- Decided: , Jan 29, 1940
Mr. Clarence E. Mellen, of New York City, for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 95-96 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Leo Fixler, of New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# James Shewan & Sons v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 108
James Shewan & Sons v. United States
Argued: Oct. 6, 1924. --- Decided: Nov 17, 1924
Messrs. George V. A. McCloskey, of New York City, and C. C. Calhoun, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. J. Frank Staley, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# James T. Hill 2002-10-25 memo re Counter-Resistance Techniques

From http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf
UNCLASSIFIED
SECRET/NOFORN
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND OFFICE OF THE COMMANDER 3511 NW 91ST AVENUE MIAMI, FL 33172-1217
MEMORANDUM FOR Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC 20318-99999
SUBJECT: Counter-Resistance Techniques
1. The activities of Joint Task Force 170 have yielded critical intelligence support for forces in combat, combatant commanders, and other intelligence/law enforcement entities prosecuting the War on Terrorism. However, despite our best efforts, some detainees have tenaciously resisted our current Interrogation methods. Our respective staffs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Joint Task Force 170 have been trying to identify counter-resistance techniques that we can lawfully employ.
2. I am forwarding Joint Task Force 170's proposed counter-resistance techniques. I believe the first two categories of techniques are legal and humane. I am uncertain whether all the techniques in the third category are legal under US law, given the absence of judicial interpretation of the US torture statute. I am particularly troubled by the use of implied or expressed threats of death of the detainee or his family. However, I desire to have as many options as possible at my disposal and therefore request that Department of Defense and Department of Justice lawyers review the third category of techniques.
3. As part of any review of Joint Task Force 170's proposed strategy, I welcome any suggested interrogation methods that others may propose. I believe we should provide our interrogators with as many legally permissible tools as possible.
4. Although I am cognizant of the important policy ramifications of some of these proposed techniques, I firmly believe that we must quickly provide Joint Task Force 170 counter-resistance techniques to maximize the value of our intelligence collection mission.
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
# In re Stafford v. New Orleans Canal and Banking Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 283
In re Stafford v. New Orleans Canal and Banking Company
This appeal is subject, in principle, to the objections stated in the above case of Stafford and Wife v. The Union Bank of Louisiana; and, for the reasons stated in that case, a peremptory mandamus is ordered in this one, to carry into effect the decree entered in the district court. The motion to dismiss this appeal is overruled.
The Honorable John C. Watrous, district judge of the United States for the district of Texas, having failed to file any return to the rule granted at the last term, in this case, requiring him to appear and show cause, if any he had, why a mandamus should not be awarded, requiring and commanding him to cause the decree rendered by the said court, on the 2d day of March, A. D. 1854, in a cert in case therein then depending, between the said New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, as complainant, and Josiah S. Stafford and Jeannette Kirkland, his wife, as defendants, to be at once carried into execution, according to the terms thereof, notwithstanding the appeal from said decree taken by the said defendants to this court, and the order of the said court that the appeal bond, filed by the said defendants on the said appeal, operated as a supersedeas to the said decree of the said court; and, after due deliberation thereupon had, it appearing to the court that it was the duty of the judge, in allowing the appeal, to take security on the appeal in the sum decreed, and, not having done so, that the appellant was not entitled to a supersedeas of any process necessary to carry the decree into execution, and that the judge was bound to issue the proper process, on the application of the complainant. It is, therefore, now here directed and ordered by this court, that a mandamus be awarded to the district judge of the United States for the district of Texas, requiring and commanding the said judge forthwith to carry the aforesaid decree of the said district court, of the 2d of March, A. D. 1854, into effect.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the district court of the United States for the district of Texas; and it appearing to the court here that a stipulation, by the counsel of the respective parties, to dismiss this appeal, at the costs of the appellants, has been filed in this cause, it is thereupon, on the motion of Mr. Coxe, of counsel for the appellee, now here ordered and decreed by this court, that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs.

## 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
# In re Stafford v. Union Bank of Louisiana

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "In re Stafford v. Union Bank of Louisiana."
* 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.
* In re Stafford v. Union Bank of Louisiana (57 U.S. 135)
* In re Stafford v. Union Bank of Louisiana (58 U.S. 275)
# In re St. Paul F. & M. Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
134 U.S. 493
In re St. Paul F. & M. Insurance Company

## 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
# In re St. Paul F. & M. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
134 U.S. 493
In re St. Paul F. & M. Insurance Company
No opinion. This case is similar in all respects to the case of In re Louisville Underwriters, ante, 587, and a like decision was rendered herein at the same term.

## 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
# In re Stafford v. New Orleans Canal and Banking Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 283
In re Stafford v. New Orleans Canal and Banking Company
THIS, like the preceding case of Stafford and Wife v. The Union Bank of Louisiana, was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the State of Texas, and was, in fact, a branch of the same case.
It is unnecessary, therefore, to recite the circumstances of it, which were similar to those of the preceding case.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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