OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Speers/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 266
United States v. Speers
Argued: Oct. 20, 1965. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1965
Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting.
Section 6323 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code provides that an unfiled tax lien is not 'valid as against any mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, or judgment creditor * * *.' The Court here holds that a bankruptcy trustee must be treated as if he were a 'judgment creditor' thereby reducing government tax claims to the level of unsecured creditors. I am unable to agree. A bankruptcy trustee cannot be treated as a judgment creditor except by giving that term an entirely artificial, fictional meaning. The Court justifies this extraordinary twist of meaning by reference to § 70, sub. c. of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110, sub. c (1964 ed). That section, so far as here pertinent, provides:
'c. * * * The trustee, as to all property, whether or not coming into possession or control of the court, upon which a creditor of the bankrupt could have obtained a lien by legal or equitable proceedings at the date of bankruptcy, shall be deemed vested as of such date with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a creditor then holding a lien thereon by such proceedings, whether or not such a creditor actually exists.'
This language gives no intimation of a purpose to destroy a valid tax lien such as the Government had here when bankruptcy occurred. The section's terms simply show a purpose to make sure that all the property the bankrupt had before bankruptcy will be vested in the trustee. It stretches this language entirely too much to say it was intended to change the law so drastically that the mere appointment of a trustee could render invalid a government tax lien which was perfectly valid the moment before bankruptcy. Nor can this section fairly be read as an attempt by Congress to nullify valid government tax liens by placing the claims of all unsecured creditors of the bankrupt on the same level as valid tax liens. In writing § 70, sub. c Congress was amending the bankruptcy law, not the government tax lien law that dates back nearly 100 years. I still think, as we said in United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U.S. 361, 364, 73 S.Ct. 701, 97 L.Ed. 1071, that in enacting the predecessor of § 6323 Congress used the words 'judgment creditor' in 'the usual, conventional sense of a judgment of a court of record * * *.' The Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have so construed this section. I think they were right. The Court today gives frail and inadequate support, I think, for its judicial destruction of the Government's congressionally created lien.
I would reverse this judgment.

## 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. Spelar

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 217
United States v. Spelar
Argued: Oct. 18, 1949. --- Decided: Nov 7, 1949
Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Arnold B. Elkind, New York City, for respondent.
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
# United States v. Spelar/Concurrence Jackson

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Frankfurter Jackson
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 217
United States v. Spelar
Argued: Oct. 18, 1949. --- Decided: Nov 7, 1949
Mr. Justice JACKSON, concurring.
I reach the same result; but I could hardly do so, as does the Court, by reiteration of the prevailing opinion in Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377, 69 S.Ct. 140. That decision, taken with the present one, adds up to this: If an employee should chance to work overtime on a leased air base, he can maintain an action for extra wages, penalties and interest, because the Court finds the air base to be a 'possession' of the United States. However, if he is injured at the same place, he may not proceed under the Tort Claims Act to recover, because the Court finds the air base then to be a 'foreign country.' To those uninitiated in modern methods of statutory construction it may seem a somewhat esoteric doctrine that the same place at the same time may legally be both a possession of the United States and a foreign country. This disparity results from holding that Congress, when it refers to our leased air bases, at one time calls them 'possessions' and at another 'foreign countries.' While congressional incoherence of thought or of speech is not unconstitutional and Congress can use a contrariety of terms to describe the same thing, we should pay Congress the respect of not assuming lightly that it indulges in inconsistencies of speech which make the English language almost meaningless. There is some reason to think the inconsistency lies in the Court's rendering of the statutes rather than in the way Congress has written them. At all events, the present decision seems to me correct, and, so far as it is contradicted by the effect of Vermilya-Brown, I think we should retreat from the latter.

## 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
# Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Company

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Black
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 411
Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Company
Argued: Nov. 12, 1964. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1965
[Syllabus from pages 411-412 intentionally omitted]
Ralph S. Spritzer and Dean Acheson, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Edward L. Merrigan, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
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
# Whitmore against Whitmore.

The English reports, Volume CLXI, 13
Arches Court, Hilary Term, February 28th, 1752. – Suit for a divorce, by reason of cruelty.
Mabell Whitmore brought a suit in the Consistory Court of London against George Whitmore, her husband, for a divorce for cruelty; she pleaded great variety of facts of cruelty for a long series of years, and examined many witnesses, who made as strong proof as possible. The Chancellor of London, Dr. Simpson, gave sentence for a divorce, and settled an alimony on her of 70l. a year. I was originally counsel for the wife. The husband appealed to the Arches, but never pleaded in either court; the cause upon the appeal was heard before Dr. Pinfold, Surrogate to me as Dean of the Arches, who affirmed the sentence of the Chancellor, and Whitmore appealed to the Delegates.
(a) As for the evidence, see my notes.
(a) Whitmore v. Whitmore was appealed to the High Court of Delegates, on 5th June, 1752, but did not proceed to a sentence in that court. It appears from the assignation books, that, on the 15th November, 1753, the proctors for the parties litigant alleged the cause to be agreed.
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it was created by a public body of the United Kingdom with Crown Status and commercially published before 1974.
See Crown copyright artistic works, Crown copyright non-artistic works and List of Public Bodies with Crown Status.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Company/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Black
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 411
Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Company
Argued: Nov. 12, 1964. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1965
Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting.
For the reasons given in his dissenting opinion, I agree with my Brother DOUGLAS that the District Court has jurisdiction over this controversy and that the question of the Louisiana Act's constitutionality should not be remitted to the Federal Reserve Board, and I join his dissent on both those points. I would go further, however, and affirm the District Court's judgment. As pointed out in Mr. Justice DOUGLAS's dissent, Louisiana now has a law making it unlawful for any bank holding company to open for business in that State and Congress has consented for States to pass such a law. Accordingly, neither the Comptroller nor the Federal Reserve Board has power to permit the Whitney Holding Corporation to open a bank in Louisiana. Under these circumstances there is no reason whatever, except an entirely technical one, to let the litigation over this matter proceed any further. I would therefore end it by affirming the judgments of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the District Court, a disposition which would, of course, call for a dismissal of the related controversy now pending in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

## 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
# Verses upon the Burning of our House

Here follow some verses upon the burning of our house, July 10th, 1666. Copied out of a loose paper - Note by Simon Bradstreet, Jr.
In silent night when rest I took, For sorrow near I did not look, I wakened was with thundering noise And piteous shrieks of dreadful voice. That fearful sound of "Fire" and "Fire," Let no man know, is my desire. I, starting up, the light did spy, And to my God my heart did cry To strengthen me in my distress, And not to leave me succorless. Then coming out, behold a space The flame consume my dwelling place. And when I could no longer look, I blest His name that gave and took, That laid my goods now in the dust; Yea, so it was, and so 'twas just. It was His own; it was not mine. Far be it that I should repine. He might of all justly bereft, But yet sufficient for us left. When by the ruins oft I passed My sorrowing eyes aside did cast And here and there the places spy Where oft I sat and long did lie. Here stood that trunk, and there that chest; There lay that store I counted best, My pleasant things in ashes lie, And them behold no more shall I. Under thy roof no guest shall sit, Nor at thy table eat a bit; No pleasant tale shall e'er be told, Nor things recounted done of old; No candle e'er shall shine in thee, Nor bridegroom's voice e'er heard shall be. In silence ever shall thou lie. Adieu, Adieu, all's vanity. Then straight I 'gin my heart to chide: And did thy wealth on earth abide? Didst fix thy hope on mouldring dust? The arm of flesh didst make thy trust? Raise up thy thoughts above the sky That dunghill mists away may fly. Thou hast a house on high erect; Framed by that mighty Architect, With glory richly furnished Stands permanent though this be fled. It's purchased, and paid for, too, By him who hath enough to do- A price so vast as is unknown, Yet, by His gift, is made thine own. There's wealth enough; I need no more. Farewell, my pelf; farewell, my store; The world no longer let me love. My hope and treasure lie above.
# Verses upon the Burning of our House, July 18th, 1666

In silent night when rest I took, For sorrow near I did not look, I waken'd was with thundring nois And Piteous shreiks of dreadfull voice. That fearfull sound of fire and fire, Let no man know is my Desire. I, starting up, the light did spye, And to my God my heart did cry To strengthen me in my Distresse And not to leave me succourlesse. Then coming out beheld a space, The flame consume my dwelling place.
And, when I could no longer look, I blest his Name that gave and took, That layd my goods now in the dust: Yea so it was, and so 'twas just. It was his own: it was not mine; Far be it that I should repine.
He might of All justly bereft, But yet sufficient for us left. When by the Ruines oft I past, My sorrowing eyes aside did cast, And here and there the places spye Where oft I sate, and long did lye.
Here stood that Trunk, and there that chest; There lay that store I counted best: My pleasant things in ashes lye, And them behold no more shall I. Under thy roof no guest shall sitt, Nor at thy Table eat a bitt.
No pleasant tale shall 'ere be told, Nor things recounted done of old. No Candle 'ere shall shine in Thee, Nor bridegroom's voice ere heard shall bee. In silence ever shalt thou lye; Adieu, Adieu; All's vanity.
Then streight I gin my heart to chide, And didst thy wealth on earth abide? Didst fix thy hope on mouldring dust, The arm of flesh didst make thy trust? Raise up thy thoughts above the skye That dunghill mists away may flie.
Thou hast an house on high erect Fram'd by that mighty Architect, With glory richly furnished, Stands permanent tho' this bee fled. It's purchased, and paid for too By him who hath enough to doe.
A Prise so vast as is unknown, Yet, by his Gift, is made thine own. Ther's wealth enough, I need no more; Farewell my Pelf, farewell my Store. The world no longer let me Love, My hope and Treasure lyes Above.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Verses written in an Alcove

* "Verses written in an Alcove", in Poems (1773)
* "Verses written in an Alcove", in The Works of Anna Laetitia Barbauld (1825)
# Very v. Levy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
54 U.S. 345
Very v. Levy

## 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
# Verses for an Album

Fresh clad from heaven in robes of white, A young probationer of light, Thou wert, my soul, an Album bright.
A spotless leaf; but thought, and care— And friends and foes, in foul or fair, Have “written strange defeature” there.
And time, with heaviest hand of all, Like that fierce writing on the wall, Hath stamp’d sad dates—he can’t recall.
And error, gilding worst designs— Like speckled snake that strays and shines— Betrays his path by crooked lines.
And vice hath left his ugly blot— And good resolves, a moment hot, Fairly began—but finished not.
A fruitless late remorse doth trace— Like Hebrew lore, a backward pace— Her irrecoverable race.
Disjointed numbers—sense unknit— Huge reams of folly—shreds of wit— Compose the mingled mass of it.
My scalded eyes no longer brook, Upon this ink-blurr’d thing to look. Go—shut the leaves—and clasp the book!—
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Washington v. Miller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 422
Washington v. Miller
Argued: November 5, 1914. --- Decided: December 14, 1914
Mr. Lewis C. Lawson for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Nathan A. Gibson for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Washington v. Oregon

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Washington v. Oregon."
* 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.
* Washington v. Oregon (211 U.S. 127)
* Washington v. Oregon (214 U.S. 205)
* Washington v. Oregon (297 U.S. 517)
# Washington v. Northern Securities Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
185 U.S. 254
Washington v. Northern Securities Company
Argued: April 14, 1902. --- Decided: April 21, 1902

## 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
# Washington v. Opie

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
145 U.S. 214
Washington v. Opie
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE HARLAN.
Heirome L. Opie, by deed dated January 1, 1856, conveyed to Henry W. Castleman two tracts of land in Jefferson county, then in Virginia, now in West Virginia,-one tract containing 596 acres and the other 419 acres,-for the price of $41,733.66 1/2, of which $10,000 was paid at the time in cash, and for the remainder the grantee gave his bonds or single bills, bearing interest from date and payable annually, two for $5,000 each, payable, respectively, on the 1st days of January, 1857 and 1858, and six for $3,622.27 3/4 each, payable, respectively, on the 1st days of January, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864. These bonds were secured by a deed of trust to Robert Y. Conrad, which was duly acknowledged by Castleman, and recorded January 2, 1856.
Marshall McCormick and R. T. Barton, for appellants.
Robert White, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, 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
# Wild Nature Won by Kindness/Rearing

Rearing Birds from The Nest.
he most delightful of all pets are the birds one has taken the pains to rear from the nest; they never miss the freedom of outdoor life, they hardly know what fear is, they become devotedly attached to the one who feeds and educates them, and all their winsome ways seem developed by the love and care which is given to them.
I strongly deprecate a whole nest being taken; one would not willingly give the happy little parent ​birds the distress of finding an empty home. After all their trouble in building, laying, sitting, and hatching, surely they deserve the reward of bringing up their little babes.
Too often when boys thus take a nest they simply let the young birds starve to death from ignorance as to their proper food and not rising early enough to feed them.
It is a different matter if, out of a family of six, one takes two to bring up by hand—the labour of the old birds is lightened, and four fledglings will sufficiently reward their toil.
The birds should be taken before they are really feathered, just when the young quills begin to show, as at that stage they will not notice the change in their diet and manner of feeding. They need to be carefully protected from cold, kept at first in a covered basket in flannel, and if the weather is cold they should be near a fire, as they miss the warmth of the mother bird, especially at night.
I confess it involves a good deal of trouble to undertake the care of these helpless little creatures. They should be fed every half-hour, from four in the morning until late in the evening, and that for ​many weeks until they are able to feed themselves.
The kind of food varies according to the bird we desire to bring up, and it requires care to make sure that it is not too dry or too moist, and that it has not become sour, or it will soon prove fatal, for young birds have not the sense of older ones—they take blindly whatever is given them.
# Wild Nature Won by Kindness/Sancho

Sancho the Toad.
bout four years ago I began to feed a toad that had found its way into the conservatory. He sat daily in one place expecting his meal-worms, and when he had snapped them up with his curious sticky tongue he would retire to some hidden nook and be invisible until the next day. Each winter he has hibernated as soon as cold weather began, and reappeared with the spring sunshine. Sancho is now a very portly, and most amusing pet.
Few people would guess how much character ​can be shown by even this poor, despised reptile when treated with real kindness, regularly fed, and never frightened or abused. I will describe what happens when Sancho is "shown to the public."
Some meal-worms are thrown on the pavement near him. He sits for a time gazing at them with his gold-rimmed eyes; then slowly creeps towards them, fixes his eyes on one of the worms bends his head a little towards it, then one hears a snap and the prey is taken. The act is so rapid that one can never see the tongue that has picked up the meal-worm-simply it is gone! The toad's eyes are tightly shut whilst he swallows the morsel, and then he turns to pick up a second. Now is the time to approach him from behind and begin to stroke his leathery, warty skin. In a few seconds he is in a state of perfect ecstasy, his front legs are stretched out, he leans first to one side, then to the other, to guide the hand where he wishes to be stroked, and at last uplifts his ponderous body until he is an inch or more from the ground, supported on the tips of his toes. No description can do justice to the ​absurdity of the attitude, and the rapture seems so intense that food is forgotten, and so long as Sancho can get any one to stroke him, he is quite oblivious to all around him, although at other times he will hop away as soon as any stranger approaches.
Sancho will not, as yet, take anything from my hand, but I hope to bring him to that state of tameness in course of time.
# Who's Who in the Far East/I-KU

Layout 2
​ I-KU (T'AI-VUEN), Commissioner for Reclamation; native of Manchuria; metropolitan graduate, 1892. Assistant Supervisor of Instruction, June, 1900; sub-Chancellor, Grand Secretariat, July, 1900; Senior Vice-President, Board of War, Feb., 1901; Deputy Lieut.-General, Bordered Blue Banner Corps, Nov., 1901;. Tartar -General, Sni-Yuan-Ch'eng, Oct., 1903; Commissioner for Reclamation of Waste Lands, T'aiyuen-fu, Shansi, 1905.
# Who's Who in the Far East/IDE, Hon. Henry C.

Layout 2
​ IDE, Hon. Henry C. (MANILA), LL.D.; Lawyer, Governor-General of Philippine Islands; b. Sept. 18, 1844; m. Oct. 26, 1871, to Mary M. Melcher. Educ.: Dartmouth College, graduated, 1866. Admitted to bar, 1870; States Attorney, Vermont, U.S.A., 1878-80; President, State Conventions, 1884; Senator, 1882-83-84-85-86; United States Commissioner to Samoa, 1891; Chief Justice of Samoa by joint appointment of Great Britain, Germany and U.S.A., 1893-97; U.S. Philippine Commissioner, 1900-06; Secretary of Finance and Justice, P.I., 1901-06, Vice-Governor, 1903-06; Acting Governor, 1905-06; Governor General, 1906; received degree of LL.D. from Dartmouth College, ​1900, and from Tuft's College, 1903. Publications: Various articles for reviews and magazines. Clubs: University; Aimy and Navy; Columbia, Manila. Address: Manila, Philippine Islands.
# Who's Who in the Far East/ICHIHARA, Morihiro

Layout 2
​ ICHIHARA, Morihiro (YOKOHAMA), Mayor of Yokohama"; b. Kamain oto, April, 1856. E due.: Doshisha, Kyoto. Entered Bank of Japan about 1895, (then Baron Shibuzawa's Bank), and was appointed Manager of Bank's Yokohama branch; elected Mayor of Yokohama, 1902. Address: Yokohama, Japan.
# Who's Who in the Far East/ICHIJI, Major-General Kosuke

Layout 2
​ ICHIJI, Major-General Kosuke (TOKYO), Artillery branch, I. J. Army; b. Satsuma, Nov., 1854. Entered Army, 1871, appointed a member of General Staff; was on the staff of General Oyama in Chino-Japanese War; afterwards Military Attache to Japanese Legation at London and Seoul; Chief.Staff Officer under General Nogi in late War with Russia. Address: Tokyo, Japan.