OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Chicago Railway Company v. Campbell/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 718
Chicago Railway Company v. Campbell
The facts of this case are substantially the same as in No. 236 (Railway Co. v. Strum, 19 Sup. Ct. 979), except as to the amount involved, and the court in which the proceedings in attachment were commenced, and the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 369
Chicago Railway Company v. C. C. Whitnack Produce Company
Argued: March 3, 1922. --- Decided: April 10, 1922
Messrs. Wymer Dressler, of Omaha, Neb., and Thomas P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 370-371 intentionally omitted]
Mr. H. H. Wilson, of Lincoln, Neb. (Messrs. Elmer J. Burkett, Elmer W. Brown, and Ralph P. Wilson, all of Lincoln, Neb., on the brief), for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Chicago Railway Company v. Chicago

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
164 U.S. 454
Chicago Railway Company v. Chicago
E. E. Osborn, for plaintiff in error.
John S. Miller, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Central Greyhound Lines Inc of New York v. Mealey

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Rutledge

## Dissenting Opinion

    Murphy
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 653
Central Greyhound Lines Inc of New York v. Mealey
Argued: Oct. 13, 1947. --- Decided: June 14, 1948
Mr. Tracy H. Ferguson, of Syracruse, N.Y., for appellant.
Mr. John C. Crary, Jr., of Albany, N.Y., for appellees.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Central Greyhound Lines Inc of New York v. Mealey/Concurrence Rutledge

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Rutledge
* Dissenting Opinion Murphy
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 653
Central Greyhound Lines Inc of New York v. Mealey
Argued: Oct. 13, 1947. --- Decided: June 14, 1948
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice MURPHY, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concur, dissenting.

## 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
# Central Company v. Bourbon Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 538
Central Company v. Bourbon Company
Argued: February 1, 1886. ---
[Statement of Case from pages 538-540 intentionally omitted]
J. G. Carlisle, on behalf of J. W. Stevenson, for plaintiff in error, submitted the motion.
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
# Central Company v. Bourbon Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 538
Central Company v. Bourbon Company
Argued: February 1, 1886. ---
This motion is denied. Cases in which the execution of the revenue laws of a state have been enjoined or stayed are only to be advanced on motion of the state or the party claiming under such laws. Rev. St. § 949. Here the motion is made by the party taxed, and the suit is by the county claiming under the tax laws for the recovery of a tax. Inasmuch as the county does not move, we cannot presume that 'the operations of the government of the state will be embarrassed by delay.' Under the rule announced in Hoge v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 93 U.S. 1, it must be shown that such will be the effect of delay before a case will be advanced, even on motion by the state or those claiming under it. Motion denied.

## 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
# Central Company of New Jersey v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 247
Central Company of New Jersey v. United States
Argued: Nov. 17, 1921. --- Decided: Dec 5, 1921
Messrs. Henry Wolf Bikle, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Alexander H. Elder, of New York City, for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 248-251 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Chicago, ILL., for the United States.
Mr. Walter McFarland, of Norfolk, Neb., for Interstate Commerce commission.
[Argument of Counsel from page 252-253 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Chinese Fables and Folk Stories/What the Yen Tzi taught the Hunter

WHAT THE YEN TZI TAUGHT THE HUNTER
獵人受敎於鳥
One day a hunter was looking for a fox in the wilderness, when suddenly he saw thousands of birds coming ​towards the river, and he lay quite still and waited for them all to come.
The Yen Tzi, or Kind Birds, were talking together, and the hunter listened. One asked, "Is all our company here?"
And the Leader Bird said, "No, little One-Month-Old and Two-Month and Mrs. This-Year are not here yet."
And the Leader Bird said to the Lookout Birds, "You must go after them and help them to the river before five days. Our boats are dried and ready to sail. It is growing cold and we must all go south together."
So the Lookout Birds flew all around the country to hunt the lost birds. They found one with a broken wing, and a little one with not enough wing feathers to fly far, and one with a wound in his leg made by a hunter, and others that were tired or very hungry. They found every missing bird, and this great family of friends were soon all together again.
But while the Lookout Birds were seeking the lost ones from their own family, they heard another bird cry, "Save me! save me, too!" And they stopped and said, "Who is calling? Some one must be in trouble." ​They flew to a lemon tree and saw a Tailor Bird with her leg all covered with blood. The Kind Birds said, "Friend, how came you in such trouble? What is your name and where do you live?"
The Tailor Bird said, "I live in the South Province, eight hundred miles away. I came here to see my friends and relatives. Three of my children are with me, and we were on our way home to the south. We had gone sixty miles, when I asked my children to stop and rest in this lemon tree, and now I do not even know where they are. I fear the hunter got them. I am hurt, too, and I do not think I shall ever see my home again. I shall lose my life here, I fear."
The Yen Tzi heard all the Tailor Bird said. They talked together and were sorry for her who had no one to care for her, for they knew her children had been killed by the hunter. "If we do not save her life, she will surely die," they said.
So they asked, "Would you like to go with us? We know you eat different food. We live on rice and fruit and a few bugs. We do not know that you can live as we do. And we must ride on our boats, many, many hours."
The Tailor Bird answered, "Yes, I will go gladly, and will eat what you have and cause you no trouble."
The Kind Birds helped the Tailor Bird to their ​company and put her in one of their boats, and two or three birds fed her and cared for her until she was well.
The hunter who told this story said, "I have learned many things by watching and studying the habits of the Kind Birds. I will never kill birds again."
Ee-Sze (Meaning): In time of trouble, man should help not only his own, but others.
# Chinese Fables and Folk Stories/Woo Sing and the Mirror

WOO SING AND THE MIRROR
借鏡訓子
One day Woo Sing's father brought home a mirror from the great city.
Woo Sing had never seen a mirror before. It was hung in the room while he was out at play, so when he came in he did not understand what it was, but thought he saw another boy.
​This made him very happy, for he thought the boy had come to play with him.
He spoke to the stranger in a very friendly way, but received no reply.
He laughed and waved his hand at the boy in the glass, who did the same thing, in exactly the same way.
Then Woo Sing thought, "I will go closer. It may be that he does not hear me". But when he began to walk, the other boy imitated him.
Woo Sing stopped to think about these strange actions, and he said to himself, "This boy mocks me, he does everything that I do;" and the more he thought about it, the angrier ho became, and soon he noticed that the boy became angry too.
So Woo Sing grew very much enraged and struck the boy in the glass, but he only hurt his hand and he went crying to his father.
The father said, "The boy you saw was your own image. This should teach you an important lesson, my son. You ought never to show your anger before other people. You struck the boy in the glass and hurt only yourself.
"Now remember, that in real life when you strike without cause you will hurt yourself most of all."
# Chicago Great Western Railway Company v. Kendall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 94
Chicago Great Western Railway Company v. Kendall
Argued: Oct. 7, 1924. --- Decided: Nov 17, 1924
Messrs. Donald Evans, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Thos. P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Chicago Great Western Ry. Co.
Messrs. J. G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Thos. P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
Mr. Ben J. Gibson, of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.
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
# Chicago Great Western Railway Company v. Minnesota/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
216 U.S. 234
Chicago Great Western Railway Company v. Minnesota
Argued: and submitted November 8, 1909. --- Decided: February 21, 1910
The rights of the plaintiff in error depend primarily upon the construction of the act incorporating the Minnesota & Northwestern Railroad Company (Territorial Laws, 1854, chap. 47, the amendatory act of 1855, chap. 58, the amendatory act of 1856, chap. 47, and the act of 1883, Special Laws, chap. 83). That act of 1856 imposed a 2 per cent gross earnings tax in lieu of all other taxes. The supreme court of the state observed that until the present case arose it had never had occasion to construe the charter of the original company, and the acts amendatory thereof, nor determine whether the state could change the rate of taxation thereby imposed. It was of opinion that the question of taxation here involved was substantially the same as the one involved in Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota [[[216 U.S. 206]], 54 L. ed. --, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344]. That court consequently adjudged, upon the authority of that case, that the defendant, as a successor in interest of the Minnesota & Northwestern Railroad Company, could not claim the benefit of an irrepealable, unchangeable contract relating to taxation that passed or could, under the state Constitution, have passed, unimpaired from the old company to a successor in interest, or that prevented the state from enacting the statute of 1903, chapter 253, General Laws of 1903. Without repeating what was said in the former case, we hold, upon the grounds set forth in the opinion in that case, that the state court rightly held that the state was not prevented by contract from passing the gross earnings tax law of 1903, and it properly reversed the judgment of the court of original jurisdiction, with directions to enter judgment in favor of the state for the amount claimed in its complaint. The judgment herein must be affirmed.
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
# Chicago Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
219 U.S. 486
Chicago Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. United States
Argued: December 16, 1910. --- Decided: February 20, 1911
Messrs. E. C. Field and H. R. Kurrio for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 487 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Barton Corneau for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 488-490 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Harlan 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
# Chicago Great Western Company v. Schendel

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 287
Chicago Great Western Company v. Schendel
Argued: Jan. 6, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Mr. A. G. Briggs, of St. Paul, Minn., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 287-289 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Tom Davis, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Chicago Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. McGuire

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
196 U.S. 128
Chicago Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. McGuire
Argued: December 2, 5, 1904. --- Decided: January 3, 1905
This was a suit in the nature of a bill in equity instituted in the circuit court for Pulaski county, by the railroad company, to quiet its title to certain land, and for an injunction. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict returned for the defendants, under instruction of the court.
Both parties claimed title through the Louisville, New Albany, & Chicago Railway Company,-plaintiff in error, which was also plaintiff below,-through certain mortgages given by the New Albany company in 1886, 1890, and 1894, which were foreclosed in the United States circuit court, and through which foreclosure and subsequent sale its title became vested; defendants, through a judgment recovered by McGuire September 24, 1896, in the circuit court of White county, against the New Albany company for $2,416.30, upon which an execution was issued October 16, 1897, to the sheriff of Pulaski county, and a levy made upon the real estate in dispute. A sale was made November 13, 1897, to the defendant Hathaway, to whom a deed was executed by the sheriff November 23, 1898.
It was insisted by the plaintiff railroad company that the property in controversy was a part of the ground appurtenant to its station at Francesville, Indiana, and that the foreclosure and sale of the property of the New Albany road, through which it obtained its title, carried with it the title to the premises in dispute. The judgment of McGuire was obtained after the execution of the mortgages through which the plaintiff claimed its title. Defendants insisted that the disputed property was not embraced within the mortgages under the after-acquired property clause inserted therein, because entirely foreign to the operation of the railroad, and therefore could not have been embraced within the foreclosure and sale.
The appellate court of Indiana sustained their contention, held that the trial court was right in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the appellees, and affirmed its judgment. 31 Ind. App. 110, 99 Am. St. Rep. 249, 65 N. E. 932. The supreme court denied a petition for review.
plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. H. H. Miller and Maurice Winfield for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Porphyreon

From volume 12 of the work.
Titular see, suffragan of Tyre in Phoenicia Prima. It is described in the "Notitia Episcopatuum" of Antioch as belonging to the sixth century (Echos d'Orient, X, 1907, 145), but does not appear in that of the tenth century (op. cit., 97). Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 829 32) mentions five of its bishops: Thomas, 451; Alexander, at the end of the fifth century; Theodore, 518; Christophorus, 536; and Paul (contemporary of Justinian II), 565 78. There were two Porphyreons in this province, one, described by Scylax (civ, ed. Muller) north of Sidon and also by Palerin of Bordeaux (Itinera hierosolymitana, ed. Geyer, 18) eight miles from Sidon, is now the village of E1 Djiyeh, in the midst of the beautiful gardens between Saida and Beirut, near the Khan en Nebi Yunès; a second Porphyreon, according to the Pseudo Antoninus (Itinera hierosolymitana, 161), may be located six or seven miles north of Carmel. Historians of the Crusades (William of Tyre and James of Vitry) confound this town with the modern Caipha. The latter corresponds to our see. In fact Saint Simeon Stylite the Young, contemporary of Paul Bishop of Porphyreon, affirms (Mansi, "Conciliorum collectio", XIII, p. 160) that the episcopal town may be found near Castra, a place inhabited by the Samaritans. Now, in the same epoch the Pseudo Antoninus (op. cit., 160) locates the "Castra Samaritanorum a Sucamina (Caipha) milliario subtus monte Carmelo" south of Porphyreon. The identification is therefore incontestible. The church of Porphyreon,dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, was not built by Justinian II but by Justinian I (Procopius, "De Aedificiis", V, ix; "Historia arcana", xxx). The ruins of Porphyreon should be found near Belus, the Nahr Namein, in the sands of which may still be seen the murex brandaris and the murex trunculus (thorny shell fish), from which is extracted the famous purple dye of Tyre, and which has given its name to Porphyreon.
S. Vailhé.
# Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffrey Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 373
Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffrey Company
Argued: Dec. 8, 1919. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1920
Mr. Daniel P. Hays, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 374-376 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Philip B. Adams, of New York City, and Thomas B. Kearney, 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
# Cleveland v. Cleveland City Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 517
Cleveland v. Cleveland City Railway Company
Argued: April 26, 27, 1904. --- Decided: May 31, 1904

## 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
# Cleveland v. Chamberlain/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 419
Cleveland v. Chamberlain
It is but proper to say, that the counsel who have been employed in the case are entirely acquitted of any participation in the purposes of the party.
This case came on to be argued on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin; and it appearing to the court here, from affidavits and other evidence filed in this case in behalf of persons not parties to this suit, that this appeal is not conducted by parties having adverse interests, but for the purpose of obtaining a decision of this court, to affect the interests of persons not parties-it is therefore now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the appeal in this case 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
# Cleveland St. Railway Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 404
Cleveland St. Railway Company v. United States
Argued: November 30, 1927. --- Decided: January 3, 1928
Messrs. George B. Gillispie, of Springfield, Ill., Samuel W. Baxter, of East St. Louis, Ill., and Harry N. Quigley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Messrs. Blackburn Esterline and James M. Sheean, both of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Mr. Patrick J. Farrell, of Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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