OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/John A. Elliott

​ JOHN A. ELLIOTT was born on the 24th of September, 1824, in Armagh, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. He received a liberal education and taught school for some time in Ohio. In 1853 he removed to Wisconsin where he was engaged in mercantile business. In 1857 he came to Iowa, locating in Mitchell County on a farm. In 1858 he was elected county treasurer, holding that position until 1864, when he was elected Auditor of State on the Republican ticket. He served three terms and was then appointed land commissioner of the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company and employed in selling the lands obtained by grant from the General Government. He was one of the organizers of the Citizen's National Bank, also of the State Printing Company and was for many years president of the State Insurance Company. He died at his home in Des Moines.
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/James Thorington

​ JAMES THORINGTON was born on the 7th of May, 1816, in Wilmington, North Carolina. He was a graduate of the State University of Alabama, and studied law with his father. He located at Davenport, Iowa, in 1839, where he began practice. In 1842 he was chosen mayor of the city, serving four years. He was one of the leaders in the Free Soil movement and in 1854 was nominated for Representative in Congress for the Second District by the antislavery elements of the various parties. The district embraced all of the northern half of the State and few expected the Free Soil candidate to be elected. Several prominent men declined the nomination and it was offered to Mr. Thorington. He said, “Gentlemen, I am not anxious to take the chances, but if you choose to nominate me, I will make an aggressive canvass and shall expect to be elected.” His response aroused enthusiasm, he was nominated and made a vigorous campaign, having for his Democratic competitor Ex-Governor Stephen Hempstead. Thorington was elected by more than 1,500 majority. He served two years from March, 1855, and was largely instrumental in securing to Iowa the land grants of 1850 for the aid of railroads. This most important act gave to his district three trunk lines of railroad from the Mississippi to the Missouri River. But it compassed his defeat for renomination. Delegates in the convention from counties not on the lines of the projected railroads united against him and nominated a Republican in Dubuque. Mr. Thorington was one of the leaders in the political movement which resulted in uniting the antislavery elements into the Republican party in 1855-6. In 1858 he was a candidate for United States Senator to succeed George W. Jones but James W. Grimes was nominated and elected. ​Mr. Thorington was appointed by the Governor agent for the State at Washington to secure title to the swamp lands embraced in the grant. In 1872 he was appointed by President Grant United States Consul to Aspinwall, where he served ten years. It has often been remarked that our State never sent a Representative to Congress who accomplished so much in a single term as this first Republican member from Iowa, died June 12, 1889, at Santa Fe in New Mexico.
# German Alliance Insurance Company v. Hale

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
219 U.S. 307
German Alliance Insurance Company v. Hale
Argued: and submitted November 29, 1910. --- Decided: January 16, 1911
Messrs. Alexander C. King, H. Pillans, Shelton Sims, J. H. Webb, King & Spalding, and Pillans, Hanaw, & Pillans for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 308-311 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Thomas M. Stevens and Stevens & Lyon for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 311 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
# Gulf-Canal Lines, Inc. v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 348
Gulf-Canal Lines, Inc. v. United States
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is 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
# Gulf Fisheries Company v. Macinerney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 124
Gulf Fisheries Company v. Macinerney
Argued: Jan. 16, 1928. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1928
Mr. Brantley Harris, of Galveston, Tex., for appellant.
Messrs. D. A. Simmons and Claude Pollard, both of Austin, Tex., for appellee.
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
# Gulf Colorado Santa Fe Railway Company v. W Railroad Dennis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 503
Gulf Colorado Santa Fe Railway Company v. W Railroad Dennis
Argued: March 6, 1912. --- Decided: April 29, 1912
Messrs. J. W. Terry, Gardiner Lathrop, A. H. Culwell, A. B. Browne, Alexander Britton, and Evans Browne for plaintiff in error.
No counsel 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
# Gulf-Canal Lines, Inc. v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 348
Gulf-Canal Lines, Inc. v. United States
Harry C. Ames, Jr., T. Randolph Buck, Nuel D. Belnap and Richard J. Hardy, for appellants.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn, for the United States and others.
Nuel D. Belnap and Richard J. Hardy, for Waterways Freight Bureau, amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company v. Hewes (183 U.S. 66)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
183 U.S. 66
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company v. Hewes
Argued: October 15, 16, 1901. --- Decided: November 18, 1901
This was a bill in equity filed in the court of chancery of Harrison county, Mississippi, by the railroad company, against the tax collector of that county, to enjoin the collection of certain property and privilege taxes assessed against the railroad company for the fiscal year 1896.
The bill averred in substance the incorporation of thr railroad company by an act of the legislature of the state of Mississippi, approved February 23, 1882, the 18th section of which act declared 'that said company, its stock, its railroads and appurtenances, and all its property in this state, necessary or incident to the full exercise of all powers herein granted, shall be exempt from taxation for a term of twenty years from the passage of this act;' that immediately thereafter the corporation entered upon the construction of its road, and at the time of the filing of the bill had about 75 miles in operation; that, notwithstanding this charter exemption, the state railroad commission has returned its property for taxation, and that defendant has demanded, not only a privilege tax, but a property tax levied for state and county purposes, and threatens seizure of its property. Wherefore an injunction was prayed.
To this bill defendant interposed a demurrer for want of equity, and because the exemption was a mere bounty, repealable at the pleasure of the legislature, and void of any element of contract. The demurrer was sustained, and leave granted the plaintiff to amend its bill. Thereupon it filed an amendment alleging that the exemption in the charter constituted a contract between the plaintiff and the state, that the railroad was constructed upon the faith of such contract, and that it was not within the power of the state to repeal the exemption; and invoking in that connection the contract clause of the Constitution. Defendant again demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and an appeal granted to the supreme court of the state, which affirmed the decree of the court below. Whereupon plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court, which defendant moved to dismiss.
Messrs. E. J. Bowen and Edward Mayes for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. R. C. Beckett and Frank A. Critz for defendant 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
# Gulf Company v. Wells

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 455
Gulf Company v. Wells
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 18, 1927. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1928
Mr. Ellis B. Cooper, of Laurel, Miss., for petitioner.
Mr. W. Calvin Wells, of Jackson, Miss., for respondent.
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
# History of Modern Philosophy

HISTORY OF
MODERN PHILOSOPHY
From Nicolas of Cusa to the Present Time
BY RICHARD FALCKENBERG Professor of Philosophy in the University of Erlangen
THIRD AMERICAN FROM THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION
TRANSLATED WITH THE AUTHOR'S SANCTION BY A. C. ARMSTRONG, Jr. Professor of Philosophy in Wesleyan University
NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
Copyright, 1898 by HENRY HOLT & CO.
* Translator's Preface
* Preface to the first German edition
* Preface to the second German edition
* Introduction
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 6/Index

Table of Contents
INDEX.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G.
H
I
J.
K.
L.
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
# History of Modern Philosophy/Preface 2nd German edition

PREFACE TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION.
The majority of the alterations and additions in this new edition are in the first chapter and the last two; no departure from the general character of the exposition has seemed to me necessary. I desire to return my sincere thanks for the suggestions which have come to me alike from public critiques and private communications. In some cases contradictory requests have conflicted—thus, on the one hand, I have been urged to expand, on the other, to cut down the sections on German idealism, especially those on Hegel—and here I confess my inability to meet both demands. Among the reviews, that by B. Erdmann in the first volume of the Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, and, among the suggestions made by letter, those of H. Heussler, have been of especial value. Since others commonly see defects more clearly than one’s self, it will be very welcome if I can have my desire continually to make this History more useful supported by farther suggestions from the circle of its readers. In case it continues to enjoy the favor of teachers and students, these will receive conscientious consideration.
For the sake of those who may complain of too much matter, I may remark that the difficulty can easily be avoided by passing over Chapters I., V. (§§ 1-3), VI., VIII., XII., XV., and XVI.
Professor A. C. Armstrong, Jr., is preparing an English translation. My earnest thanks are due to Mr. Karl Niemann of Charlottenburg for his kind participation in the labor of proof-reading.
    Erlangen, June 11, 1892.
# Hart Refineries v. Harmon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 499
Hart Refineries v. Harmon
Argued: Jan. 15, 1929. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1929
Mr. John E. Patterson, of Missoula, Mont., for appellant.
Messrs. L. A. Foot and A. H. Angstman, both of Helena, Mont., for appellee.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Hart v. B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 271
Hart v. B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange
Argued: May 2 and 3, 1923. --- Decided: May 21, 1923
Messrs. Martin W. Littleton and L. B. Eppstein, both of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Geo. W. Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# Hart Steel Company v. Railroad Supply Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 294
Hart Steel Company v. Railroad Supply Company
Argued: April 17 and 18, 1917. --- Decided: May 21, 1917
Messrs. Frederick P. Fish, Frank F. Peed, and Edward S. Rogers, for petitioners.
Messrs. Taylor E. Brown and Clarence E. Mehlhope for respondent.
Mr. Justice Clarke 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
# Harshman v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 607
Harshman v. United States
Upon suggestion of the Solicitor General the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

## 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
# Hart-leap Well

* "Hart-leap Well" in Lyrical Ballads Volume II (1800)
* "Hart-leap well" in Poems Volume II (1815)
# Harshman v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 607
Harshman v. United States
Francis Heisler, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg and Richard W. Schmude, for the United States.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

First published in Songs before Sunrise (1871)
* "Hertha", in Songs before Sunrise (1871)
* "Hertha" (unsourced)
# Hershfield v. Griffith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 657
Hershfield v. Griffith
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana.
Griffith sued Starr in one of the District Territorial courts of Montana, on a mortgage on certain property; the suit being brought under the Civil Practice Act, quoted in the preceding case; an act passed under circumstances there set forth, and which it is necessary for the reader to possess himself of in order to understand at all this case. One Hershfield intervened, asserting that he had a mortgage on the property, of a date prior to that sued on by Griffith. The court gave judgment in favor of Griffith, and Hershfield took the case to the Supreme Court of the Territory, which affirmed the judgment below. Hershfield now brought the case here by appeal, assigning among other errors the blending of equity and common-law jurisdiction.
Mr. Lyman Trumbull, for the appellant, adverting to the seventh amendment to the Federal Constitution, the Process Act of 1792, the organic law of the Territory, and the Civil Practice Act all set forth in the preceding case (supra, p. 648-650),-and to the same cases as Mr. Leech referred to in the argument there, argued, that a foreclosure of a mortgage-a proceeding in its essence equitable-had been performed through common-law means, and argued further, as Mr. Leech did in the preceding case, that it was not competent for the Territorial legislature of Montana to abolish, as it had sought to do by its Civil Practice Act, the distinction between chancery and common-law proceedings, which the organic act, adopting the Process Act, had recognized; and that this court had in numerous cases so decided.
Messrs. J. Hubley Ashton and N. Wilson, contra, contended that a proceeding to obtain satisfaction of a mortgage was not necessarily a proceeding in equity, and adverted to the practice in Pennsylvania, where regarding a recorded mortgage as in the nature of a judicial record, a scire facias was by statute allowed to be issued thereon through common-law courts; the only courts which, with rare exception, the State of Pennsylvania had ever had. It was not necessary, therefore, to assume that the proceeding below had been an equitable one. Being had in courts not courts of chancery, it was to be regarded as a common-law proceeding, and proper. If, therefore, the appeal was not to be dismissed, the decree should be affirmed.
But the appeal should be dismissed. The proceeding having been, as shown above, one at law, a writ of error was the only proper means to bring it here.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY 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
# Hertz Corporation v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 122
Hertz Corporation v. United States
Argued: March 30, 1960. --- Decided: June 27, 1960
Mr. Edgar Bernhard, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Howard A. Heffron, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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
# Hertz v. Woodman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
218 U.S. 205
Hertz v. Woodman
Argued: April 25, 26, 1910. --- Decided: May 31, 1910
Messrs. H. T. Newcomb, Edward Lauterbach, and Underwood & Smyser for Woodman et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 206-210 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lurton 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
# Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 664
Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works

## 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
# Hershfield v. Griffith/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 657
Hershfield v. Griffith
The only point made in this case is, that being one of equity jurisdiction it was tried by jury as an action at law. This being so it would seem that, under the seventh article of amendments to the Constitution, it should have been removed by writ of error and not by appeal. But that aside, we have just decided in Hornbuckle v. Toombs that equitable as well as legal relief may be pursued by the form of action prescribed by the Territorial legislature. There is no complaint that this was not done, or that substantial justice was not administered between the parties.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Dissenting, Justices CLIFFORD, DAVIS, and STRONG.

## 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
# History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic

* History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic, 1st edition (1837)
* History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic, 3rd edition (1841)
* History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic, 10th edition (1846)
# Huntington v. Saunders (163 U.S. 319)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 319
Huntington v. Saunders
Bancroft Gherardi Davis, for appellant.
Wm. B. Durant, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER 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