OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/10th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 51

Chap. LI.—An Act to continue in force an act intituled “An act to extend jurisdiction in certain cases to state judges and state courts; and for other purposes.”
Act of March 8, 1806, ch. 14, continued in force without limitation.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act, intituled “An act to extend jurisdiction in certain cases to state judges and state courts,” passed the eighth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and six, be, and the same is hereby continued in force without limitation of time.
​Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the several provisions of the above-mentioned act, intituled “An act to extend jurisdiction in certain cases to state judges and state courts,” be, and the same are hereby extended to the respective county courts within, or next adjoining the revenue districts in the state of Ohio on Lake Erie, and to the district attorney of the United States for the district of Ohio.
Approved, April 21, 1808.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/10th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 52

Chap. LII.—An Act to authorize the President of the United States, under certain conditions, to suspend the operation of the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto.
Act of March 1, 1809, ch. 24, sec. 19. In the event of peace or suspension of hostilities between the belligerent powers of Europe the embargo may be suspended. 1807, ch. 5. 1808, ch. 8.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the event of such peace or suspension of hostilities between the belligerent powers of Europe, or of such changes in their measures affecting neutral commerce, as may render that of the United States sufficiently safe, in the judgment of the President of the United States, he is hereby authorized, during the recess of Congress, to suspend, in whole or in part, the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, under such exceptions and restrictions, and on such bond and security being given as the public interest and circumstances of the case may appear to require: Provided, such suspension shall not extend beyond twenty days after the next meeting of Congress.
Approved, April 22, 1808.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/10th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 53

Chap. LIII.—An Act to alter the time for the next meeting of Congress.
Meeting of Congress on the first Monday in Nov. 1808.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That after the adjournment of the present session, the next meeting of Congress shall be on the first Monday of November next.
Approved, April 22, 1808.
# United States v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 195
United States v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L Railway Company
Argued: March 4, 5, and 6, 1918. --- Decided: May 20, 1918
Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Mr. George Hoadly, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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. Clyde

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 35
United States v. Clyde
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Clyde presented his petition in that court, claiming, by one count of it (the first), compensation for the use of his ferry-boat Tallacca.
The facts found by the court were, that on the 16th of November, 1862, the Tallacca, owned by the claimant and at the time lying at Alexandria, was chartered by Captain Ferguson, an assistant quartermaster of the United States army, at the rate of $115 per day, for every day she might be employed in the service of the United States, and until returned to the port whence taken; and that the said boat continued in the service of the government from the date of the charter-party until the 31st of July, 1863, and was paid at the agreed rate up to the last of February, 1863, without objection; but that, on the 13th of May, 1863, the Quartermaster-General disapproved of the charter-party by the following order:
'The charter of the Tallacca is disapproved by the Quartermaster-General. She will be paid for only at the rate of $75 per day from the date of her charter, so long as she may be retained in the service. The excess of $40 per day already paid will be deducted on the present settlement for her services from March 1st, 1863, &c.'
The claimant received notice of the contents of this order during the month of May. He refused to consent to the reduction, but did not show to the Court of Claims whether, on receiving notice of this order, he determined to allow his boat to remain in the service at the reduced rate, or sought to take her out of it. The boat in fact remained in the service until July 31st, 1863. No further payment was made until December, 1863, when the quartermaster stated the account at the reduced rate, deducted the excess of $40 per day paid on the former settlements, and paid the claimant the balance. The claimant receipted for this balance as 'in full of the above account.'
Upon these facts the Court of Claims decided that the claimant was entitled to be paid at the rate named in the charter-party until he received notice of the reduction made by the Quartermaster-General, and after that, at the reduced rate.
From this decision both parties appealed; the United States on the ground that the payment received and receipt given by Clyde was a bar to any further claim upon the government-a position for which they relied on the United States v. Child et al., decided at the last term-the claimant on the ground that he was entitled to have the full amount stipulated for in the charter-party.
Messrs. B. H. Bristow and C. H. Hill, for the United States; Messrs. C. F. Peck and T. J. Durant, contra, for the claimant.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* 12 Wallace, 232.
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. Clarke (Hempst. 315)

United States v. Clarke, Hempst. 315, 25 F. Cas. 454 (D. Ark. 1844) (No. 14,812)
United States District Court for the District of Arkansas
Hempst. 315
The United States v. LORENZO N. CLARKE, JAMES PITCHER, and CHARLES P. BERTRAND
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Different defences which may be made in an action of covenant.
* An accord must be executed before it can amount to satisfaction. An unperformed agreement is not sufficient, and cannot be pleaded in bar.
December, 1844.—Demurrer to pleas, determined in the District Court, before the Hon. Benjamin Johnson, district judge.
​S. H. Hempstead, district attorney, for the United States.
F. W. Trammall and John W. Cocke, for defendants.
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. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 195
United States v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L Railway Company
Argued: March 4, 5, and 6, 1918. --- Decided: May 20, 1918
In January, 1900, the respondent purchased 30,000 shares of stock of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company for $981,427.92, and sold them January 28, 1909, for $1,795,719-a profit of over $814,000. It included no portion of this profit in its return for the year 1909 under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, (chapter 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, § 38), and the United States brought this suit to recover the tax of 1 per cent. thereon. The District Court directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Upon review the Circuit Court of Appeals held the proceeds of sale of the stock could not be considered as income under the act except to the extent by which they exceeded the market value of the stock on December 31, 1908, ascertained to be $57 per share. It therefore reversed the judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to enter a new judgment to include a tax on this account only upon the balance of the selling price above $57 per share, or $1,710,000 in all. 242 Fed. 18. A writ of certiorari was then allowed.
For reasons sufficiently stated in Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed. , and Hays, Collector, v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., 247 U.S. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. 470, 62 L. Ed. --, this day decided, we concur in the view that defendant was not taxable except with respect to so much of the profit upon the stock as accrued after December 31, 1908. Just how this part is to be separated from that which previously accrued is a matter of some nicety, as we have shown in the Hays case. The Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the theory of an inventory taken as of the time the act went into effect; and although the assets here under consideration were not acquired for the purpose of sale in the manner of merchandise, but were bought for investment, and hence were not inventoried on December 31, 1908, it accepted the stipulated fact that the stock had a regular market value of $57 per share on that date as supplying the lack of an inventory. This result accords wi h the views we have expressed in the cases referred to.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# United States v. Clyde/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 35
United States v. Clyde
On the principles determined by this court in the late case of the United States v. Child et al., we think that the Court of Claims erred in the decision made. From the time that the order of the Quartermaster-General was made, disapproving of the charter-party and razeeing the rate for the whole period of service, the case was clearly one of dispute, at least, if not one of acquiescence on the part of the claimant. Notwithstanding this order he permitted his boat to remain in the service until the 31st of July, knowing the change of terms which the Quartermaster-General had made. It cannot be pretended that there were two lettings, or two charter-parties, of the vessel. There was only one; and as to this one the government determined to allow one rate, and the claimant insisted on another. The government stood on the order of the superior officer and insisted that this should govern the contract; the claimant insisted the contrary. Under these circumstances the final determination of the latter to take the balance of the account as made out on the basis contended for by the government, and his giving a receipt in full, is clear evidence that he agreed to take that balance in satisfaction of the claim; and this fact, under the circumstances of the case, concludes him from making any further demand.
Judgment reversed, and the record remitted with directions to enter a decree of dismissal as to this first count in the petition.
Mr. Justice FIELD dissented from this judgment.
[See the next 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
# United States v. Classic

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Classic 313 U.S. 299 (1941) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the United States Constitution empowered Congress to regulate primary elections and political party nominations procedures—but only in cases where state law made primaries and nominations part of the election and/or whenever the primary effectively determined the outcome of the election. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 299
United States v. Classic
Argued: April 7, 1941. --- Decided: May 26, 1941
[Syllabus from pages 299-301 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Herbert Wechsler, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 301-303 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Warren O. Coleman, of New Orleans, La., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 304-306 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Fleming's Heirs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 478
United States v. Fleming's Heirs
APPEAL from the superior court of East Florida.
The case was submitted to the court by Mr Call, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellees.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 88
United States v. Flanders
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
J. Q. A. Fellows, for defendant in error.
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
# United States v. Fleming's Heirs/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 478
United States v. Fleming's Heirs
This claim is for twenty thousand acres of land, situated on the banks of the river St Sebastian, to the south of Indian river, between the eastern coast of Florida and the river St John's. The complete title was granted by governor Coppinger to George Fleming, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, on the 24th of September 1816. The court decided that it was a valid title, and confirmed it to the plaintiffs to the extent, and agreeably to the boundaries, as set forth in the grant. The judgment is affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, in all respects.

## 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. Flannery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 98
United States v. Flannery
Argued: Jan. 12, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., and the Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. Edward B. Burling, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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. Fleischman

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 349
United States v. Fleischman
Argued: Dec. 15, 1949. --- Decided: May 8, 1950
See 339 U.S. 991, 70 S.Ct. 1017.
Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. O. John Rogge, Washington, D.C., Benedict Wolf, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON 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
# Two excellent new songs (1)

Place of publication and date from external evidence.
TWO EXCELLENT
NEW SONGS.
CONTAINING,
THE
Knight and Shepherds's
DAUGHTER.
To which is added,
The Soldier's Farewell.
Printed this present Year.
* Knight and Shepherds's Daughter
* The Soldier's Farewell
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
# Two expeditions into the interior of Southern Australia

* Volume one
* Volume two
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Two expeditions into the interior of Southern Australia/Volume one

* Contents of the first volume
* Illustrations to the first volume
* Preliminary chapter
* Chapter one
* Chapter two
* Chapter three
* Chapter four
* Chapter five
* Chapter six
* Appendix one
* Appendix two
* Appendix three
* Appendix four
* Appendix five
# Two excellent new songs (1)/The soldier's farewell

Place of publication and date from external evidence.
The Soldiers Farewell.
WE marched out from Scotland,
the fourteenth day of May,
Our colours they were flying,
and soldiers brink and gay.
With mady a pretty fair maid,
with tears all in their eyes,
Take me along with you my dear,
it was their constant cries.
No, no, my dearest Nancy,
with me you must not go. ​For I am going to France my dear,
to face the daring foe.
Where cannons they do rattle,
and bullets they do fly,
O stay at home my Nancy,
and I pray you do not cry.
When you get to France my dear,
there is one thing more I crave,
That you’ll send me a letter
how they to you behave.
Well spoke my dearest Nancy,
there words have won my heart,
Since Providence has ordered it,
That you and I must part.
I'll leave you all my bounty,
and every thing but life,
When I return from France my dear,
I will make you my wife.
But when you’re on the march my dear,
may the Heavens be your guide,
With fife and drums before you,
yourselves for to revive.
​Success to all king–George’s men,
that trips along the plain,
And send our bonny Highland lads,
to Scotland back again.
Twice a day we go to the field,
and when we do retire,
We then look all around us,
our Sweathearts to admire,
But we will bid farewell to you,
we must go cross the main,
And when we’ve beat the Carmagnols,
we will return again.
In Hymen’s bands we then will join
and never more will part,
Therefore my dearest Nancy,
be of a chearful heart.
FINIS
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
# United States v. Commercial Credit Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
286 U.S. 63
United States v. Commercial Credit Company
Argued: April 14, 15, 1932. --- Decided: May 2, 1932
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Duane R. Dills, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 64-65 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 121
United States v. Commodities Trading Corporation Commodities Trading Corporation
Argued: Jan. 10, 11, 1950. --- Decided: March 27, 1950
See 339 U.S. 950, 70 S.Ct. 800.
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for The United States.
Mr. Edward L. Blackman, New York City, for Commodities Trading Corporation et al.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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