OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Preston's Heirs v. Bowmar/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
Whatever might be our opinion (and we wish to be understood as expressing none) if the question in this case were entirely new, it cannot be affirmed, that there has been such a clear mistake of construction, as that justice and law require us to depart from the decision of the local tribunals. The question here is, whether the third and fourth lines of this patent (following the order of the lines as they are given in the patent) are to be continued upon the courses called for by the patent until they intersect, or whether the fourth line is to be extended from the beginning to the distance called for by the patent, and then the closing line is to be drawn, so as to strike the termination of the second and fourth lines at the patent distances. In the former case, the fourth line will be longer than the distance called for by the patent; in the latter, the third line will vary from the course called for by the patent. The counsel have stated, that the question resolves itself into this, whether the course shall yield to distance, or distance to the course. It may be laid down as an universal rule, that course and distance yield to natural and ascertained objects. But where these are wanting, and the course and distance cannot be reconciled, there is no universal rule that obliges us to prefer the one or the other. Cases may exist in which the one or the other may be preferred upon a minute examination of all the circumstances. In the present case, whichever construction is adopted, the plaintiffs will hold a larger portion of land than their patent calls for. We must consider that the construction of the patent is somewhat doubtful. That it is susceptible of two constructions, each of which has some reasons to support it. If it be doubtful, it would seem reasonable not to press the broadest construction against a party who is now in actual possession under a perfectly good legal title. That possession ought not to be ousted without a clear title in the other party, especially where it has been upheld by the State tribunals. This very case, between the same parties, has been already adjudicated in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky; and that Court, upon full deliberation, decided in favour of the defendant.a It would be a great mischief for the same title to be in perpetual litigation from the conflict of opinion between the Courts of the State and the federal Courts; and we, therefore, acquiesce in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, upon the ground, that the point is one of local law, has been fully considered in that Court, and is a construction which cannot be pronounced unreasonable, or founded in clear mistake.
Judgment affirmed.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
51 U.S. 81
Preston v. Bracken
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the late Territory of Wisconsin.
The suit was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff below, the defendant in error, in the second; and removed to the third judicial district of the territory, to recover possession of a small piece of land; and was commenced on the 15th of April, 1845.
Issue being joined between the parties, such proceedings were had thereon, that judgment was afterwards rendered against the defendants in the June term of said court in the year 1846.
The case was afterwards removed to the Supreme Court of the territory, and the judgment of the court below affirmed by a divided opinion at the July term of that court, to wit, on the 2d of August, 1847.
The judgment was afterwards removed to this court by a writ of error for review. The citation is signed 22d November, 1847.
The case was, therefore, pending here on the 29th of May, 1848, at the time of the admission of the territory into the Union as a state. It is one not of a Federal character, but belonging to the state judicature, and therefore falls within the decision of the case of McNulty v. Batty and others, just made, and the writ of error must be abated.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wisconsin, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that this writ of error be, and the same is hereby, abated.
MR. WALKER, of counsel for the defendant in error, moved the court to direct the clerk to what court the mandate, or other process prescribed by the forty-third rule of court, should be addressed. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered by the court, that the clerk do not issue any mandate or other process in this case, but only a certified copy of the judgment this day rendered in this cause.

## 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
# Preston v. City of Chicago

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 447
Preston v. City of Chicago
Argued: December 16, 1912. --- Decided: January 6, 1913
Messrs. William H. Sexton and John W. Beckwith for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 448 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Allen B. Chilcoat and Stephen A. Day for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by Mr. Chief Justice White:

## 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
# Preston v. Bracken

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
51 U.S. 81
Preston v. Bracken
THIS was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the late Territory of Wisconsin.
An action of ejectment was commenced at the April term, 1845, of the Iowa County Court, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error, to recover a lot of land situate in that county. The venue was afterwards changed to the county of Milwaukie. Issue having been joined, and a jury impanelled and sworn, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was entered.
On the 19th of July, 1847, the case was carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin Territory, and on the 2d day of August, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed by a divided court.
Whereupon a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wisconsin was sued out of this court, and the citation served on the 24th of November, 1847.
Wisconsin was admitted into the Union as a state by the act of Congress approved 29th May, 1848.
The cause was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. May, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Walker, for the defendant in error. As the case was determined upon the point of jurisdiction, and as the argument for the plaintiffs in error was upon the merits, and as the argument for the defendant in error on the question of jurisdiction, assumed substantially the same ground as was taken by the counsel for the defendant in error in the case of McNulty v. Batty, et al., ante, p. 72, the arguments are not here inserted.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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
# Preston v. Keene

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
39 U.S. 133
Preston v. Keene
'Exchange,' according to the Civil Code of Louisiana, imports a reciprocal contract; which, by article 1758 of that Code, is declared to be a contract where the parties expressly enter into mutual agreements.
An exchange is an executed contract: it operates, per se, as a reciprocal conveyance of the thing given, and of the thing received. The thing given or taken in exchange must be specific, and so distinguishable from all things of the like kind as to be clearly known and identified. Under the Civil Code of Louisiana, the exchanger who is evicted has a choice either to sue for damages, or for the thing he gave in exchange. But he must first be evicted, before his cause of action can accrue.
IN error to the Circuit Court of the United States for East Louisiana.
In May, 1838, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit and Eastern District of Louisiana, Richard Raynal Keene filed his petition against Isaac T. Preston, as executor of James Brown, deceased, alleging that, by virtue of a notarial contract, made in New Orleans, on the 21st day of August, 1807, the said James Brown and his brother, Samuel Brown, also since deceased, became bound for a valuable consideration, &c., to convey and deliver to the petitioner a lot of ground of specific dimensions, containing seven thousand two hundred square feet, situated in or upon the New Orleans or Gravier batture.
The case was argued by Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Clay for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr. Jones and Mr. Key for the defendant.
The decision of the Court having been made, principally, on the facts of the case, the arguments of the counsel are not stated.
The case was tried before the Circuit Court, upon the evidence and exhibits in the same; and a decree was rendered for the complainant for thirty-five thousand five hundred dollars; or that the defendant, the executor of James Brown, should, on or before the 10th day of July then ensuing, convey to said plaintiff, with good and legal title, a lot of ground of the value of thirty-one thousand five hundred dollars, containing sixty feet in front by one hundred and twenty feet in depth, situated on the batture in front of the suburb St. Mary, in New Orleans, the same that was adjudged to John Gravier by the Superior Court of the late Territory of Orleans, in the month of May, 1807; then said judgment, exclusive of costs, shall be deemed satisfied.
The defendant prosecuted this appeal.
The record from the Circuit Court of Louisiana brought up all the testimony exhibited in the cause before that Court.
Mr. Justice BARBOUR 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
# Preston v. City of Chicago/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 447
Preston v. City of Chicago
Argued: December 16, 1912. --- Decided: January 6, 1913
Upon the assertion that he had been wrongfully dropped 'from the pay roll of the policemen of the city of Chicago,' plaintiff in error commenced proceedings in mandamus in the state court to compel the placing of his name upon the said pay rolls, to the end that he might thereafter draw the pay alleged to be due him as a police patrolman 'as the other police patrolmen in said city of Chicago are paid.' This writ of error is prosecuted to a judgment of the supreme court of Illinois (246 Ill. 26, 92 N. E. 591), affirming a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition in mandamus and denying the writ.
Among other contentions made by the plaintiff in error and passed upon by the supreme court of Illinois was one to the effect that he had become an officer of the classified service, and entitled to the protection against removal conferred by an act styled the civil service act, and that hence his removal from office without written charges preferred against him, and without notice and an opportunity to be heard, amounted to a denial of due process of law within the purview of the state Constitution and of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. But the court below held these claims not maintainable, on the ground that, upon a proper construction of the state statutes, the petitioner was not in the classified service, and was subject to removal. This ruling is binding upon us and presents no Federal question. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 44 L. ed. 1187, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 890, 1009. Even, however, if we were at liberty to disregard the action of the state court and attribute to the plaintiff in error the status claimed by him, as in addition the court below held that the right to the relief prayed was in any event barred by long delay and laches, this would be sufficient to prevent us from reviewing the alleged Federal question. Moran v. Horsky, 178 U.S. 205, 207, 44 L. ed. 1038, 1039, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856.
It is strenuously insisted in argument that the plaintiff in error was entitled to participate in a police pension fund to which he had contributed from his wages for a long period of time, and therefore to remove him was additionally to deprive him of property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment. But the specific relief prayed was a writ of mandamus to restore plaintiff in error to the pay rolls as a policeman. What, if any, rights in the pension fund referred to were protected by the Constitution of the United States we therefore may not here consider, and that question, from a Federal point of view, is not concluded by the judgment dismissing the writ of error which we shall enter.
Writ of error 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
# Proclamation 5654

Delivered on 12 May 1987.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
Every American should know the seriousness of osteoporosis and the need to find ways to cure and prevent it. This disease causes bone mass to decrease, which weakens bones and makes them susceptible to fracture. Osteoporosis afflicts 15 to 20 million Americans, most of them women. It affects half of the women in the United States age 45 or older, and 90 percent of women over 75-bringing pain, decreasing mobility, hampering daily functions, and sometimes ending independence. Every year more than a million Americans suffer fractures because of this disease, most often of the spine, wrists, and hips.
Because the number of elderly Americans continues to rise, so does the incidence of osteoporosis. Fortunately, private organizations and the Federal government are conducting research into this malady. Together they are making new research findings and developing new approaches to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. In this way, working together, we can discover the causes and cure of this major public health problem and eliminate or diminish it.
The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 55, has designated the week of May 10 through May 16, 1987, as "National Osteoporosis Awareness Week," and authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this event.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the week of May 10 through May 16, 1987, as National Osteoporosis Awareness Week. I urge the people of the United States and educational, philanthropic, scientific, medical and health care organizations, and professionals to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eightyseven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eleventh.
RONALD REAGAN
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:15 a.m., May 13, 1987]
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
# Proclamation 5656

Delivered on 15 May 1987.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
It is most fitting that we take time to salute the role of fishing in the lives of Americans. Fishing greatly aids our economy, is a source of healthful food, promotes respect for sound conservation and for the bounty and wonder of our natural resources, and introduces millions of people to the benefits of outdoor recreation.
Today, roughly a quarter of all Americans call sport fishing one of their favorite outdoor activities. Fishing represents a fine opportunity for all of us, especially children and young adults, to discover a wholesome, relaxing, and enjoyable pastime. Fishing can teach us the importance of clean water and a stable aquatic environment. Recreational fishing also contributes much to our economy, and each year provides millions of dollars in revenue for fishery restoration projects. Fishermen take pride in our abundant fishery resources and work diligently for their continued well-being.
In recognition of all that recreational fishing and the commercial fishing industry do for America, the Congress, by Public Law 100-22, has designated the week of June 1 through June 7, 1987, as "National Fishing Week" and authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in its observance.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the week of June 1 through June 7, 1987, as National Fishing Week. I encourage all Americans to join with anglers and all who treasure our Nation's fisheries as they work to ensure superior fishing opportunities for our children and for generations to come.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eleventh.
RONALD REAGAN
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:54 a.m., May 18, 1987]
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
# Proclamation 5659

Delivered on 19 May 1987.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
As a mark of respect for the American servicemen who died as the result of the attack on United States Ship STARK, which was struck by a missile on May 17, 1987, while on patrol in the Persian Gulf to keep vital sea-lanes open, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States of America by section 175 of title 36 of the United States Code, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and Possessions through Monday, Memorial Day, May 25, 1987. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eleventh.
RONALD REAGAN
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:33 a.m., May 20, 1987]
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
# Proclamation 5653

Delivered on 12 May 1987.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
In recent years, the American people have begun to work together and make significant progress against the intolerable effects of illegal drugs on our way of life. The possibility of realizing our dream of a drugfree generation of American youth took a giant step forward when young people started to join together and organize around the battle cry of JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS.
Today, Just Say No Clubs are setting a new standard of leadership with young people who want to be drug-free. The clubs are an expression of the concerns and the responsibility of young Americans-a positive, constructive step against the tyranny of drugs in schools and communities. The demand to be drug-free is one all of us should heed in our homes and workplaces; our Nation has a commitment to the safety and well-being of young people, and much remains to be done if we are to have a drug-free society that refuses to tolerate the presence and use of illegal drugs. The heritage and the promise of America bid all of us to live up to our responsibility to say no to illegal drugs and alcohol abuse.
I salute the young people who demonstrate their common sense by saying no to drugs and who exhibit leadership by encouraging their friends to do the same. I urge every American to support and emulate the commendable actions of these young people who give us the hope that our next generation may be drug-free.
To recognize the contributions of these young Americans, the Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 124, has designated the week of May 10 through May 16, 1987, as "Just Say No to Drugs Week" and authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this event.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the week of May 10 through May 16, 1987, as Just Say No to Drugs Week. I call upon officials at every level of government, civic groups, the clergy, educators, the media, and all citizens to support our youth in observing this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. I also ask all Americans to make a personal commitment to Just Say No to illegal drugs and alcohol abuse as they participate in activities during this week.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eightyseven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eleventh.
RONALD REAGAN
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:14 a.m., May 18, 1987]
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