OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# New York Herald

daily newspaper based in Manhattan, New York City. For the post merger newspaper see the New York Herald Tribune----
Content exists for this periodical, though at this stage it is not specifically organised beyond a basic hierarchy.
The pages listed below are an automatically generated listing.
Special:PrefixIndex/New York Herald/

## See also

* The New York Herald Tribune, for the merged entity between the New York Herald and the New York Tribune
# Newhall v. Le Breton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 259
Newhall v. Le Breton
The amount secured to be paid by the deed of trust executed on the first day of October, 1870, by Juana M. Estudillo and others to Theodore Le Roy, was $446,849 in gold coin of the United States. Whether that sum included the $49,000 which is alleged to be due to Patterson, Wilson, Crittenden, and Felton, for legal services rendered, cannot be determined by anything in the deed itself. The plaintiff, who sues as assignee of the claims of said attorneys, is compelled to resort to parol evidence to show that the parties to the deed intended to provide for the payment of the $49,000 out of the proceeds of the sale of the trust property; and, to that end, included it in the aggregate of $446,849. If that evidence was competent, it was the right of the defendant to show by parol evidence that the intention of the parties was to apply the proceeds of sale to the reimbursement of Le Roy for all advances and payments made and expenses incurred by him before anything was paid on the claims of the attorneys. Looking at all the evidence, we are satisfied that these propositions are sustained, namely: (1) That the $49,000 was embraced in the $446,849; (2) the former sum was not to be paid until Le Roy was reimbursed the entire amount due and to become due to him on account of principal, interest, advances, and expenses. That the sales of the trust property fell short of meeting these latter demands, by a large amount, is clearly established by the record of the suit in which the accounts of the trustee were audited and settled, and by other evidence in this cause.
Upon the whole case we think the decree was right, and it 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
# Newhall v. Sanger

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Field
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 761
Newhall v. Sanger
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Montgomery Blair for the appellant, and by Mr. George F. Edmunds for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS 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
# Newman Jackson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
25 U.S. 570
Newman Jackson
March 2d.
THIS cause was argued by Mr. Key, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Swann, for the defendant in error. March 12th.
Mr. Justice TRIMBLE 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
# Newhall v. Le Breton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 259
Newhall v. Le Breton
[Statement of Case from pages 259-263 intentionally omitted]
Henry Board and C. H. Armes, for appellant, Newhall.
E. S. Pillsbury, for appellee, Le Breton, Adm'r, etc.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 263-264 intentionally omitted]
HARLAN, 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
# Newhall v. Sanger/Dissent Field

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Field
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 761
Newhall v. Sanger
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE STRONG, dissenting.
I am not able to agree with the majority of the court in this case. The only exception made by Congress from its grant to the Western Pacific Railroad Company consisted of lands within certain limits, which, at the time the line of the road was definitely fixed, had been 'sold, reserved, or otherwise disposed of by the United States,' or to which a pre-emption or homestead claim had then attached. The exception was intended to keep the public lands open to settlement and sale until the line of the road was established. I cannot understand how the presentation of a fraudulent claim to any portion of the lands within the limits designated, founded upon an invalid or forged Mexican grant, could change their character as public lands, or impair the title of the company, or have any other effect than to subject the company to the annoyance and expense of exposing and defeating the claim. Nor can I perceive the bearing upon the case of the act of March 3, 1853, 'to extend pre-emption rights to certain lands therein mentioned;' for that act applies only to pre-emption rights, and by its terms is limited to lands previously reserved.
I think the judgment of the court below should be 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book III/Chapter 32

Chapter 32.—The Second Rule of Tichonius.
45. The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church. And hence this rule might be designated thus: Concerning the mixed Church. Now this rule requires the reader to be on his guard when Scripture, although it has now come to address or speak of a different set of persons, seems to be addressing or speaking of the same persons as before, just as if both sets constituted one body in consequence of their being for the time united in a common participation of the sacraments. An example of this is that passage in the Song of Solomon, “I am black, but comely, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.” For it is not said, I was black as the tents of Kedar, but am now comely as the curtains of Solomon. The Church declares itself to be at present both; and this because the good fish and the bad are for the time mixed up in the one net. For the tents of Kedar pertain to Ishmael, who “shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.” And in the same way, when God says of the good part of the Church, “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known; I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight: these things will I do unto them, and not forsake them;” He immediately adds in regard to the other part, the bad that is mixed with the good, “They shall be turned back.” Now these words refer to a set of persons altogether different from the former; but as the two sets are for the present united in one body, He speaks as if there were no change in the subject of the sentence. They will not, however, always be in one body; for one of them is that wicked servant of whom we are told in the gospel, whose lord, when he comes, “shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cant. i. 5.
* ↑ Matt. xiii. 47, 48.
* ↑ Gal. iv. 30.
* ↑ Isa. xlii. 16.
* ↑ Matt. xxiv. 50, 51.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book III/Chapter 28

Chapter 28.— It is Safer to Explain a Doubtful Passage by Other Passages of Scripture Than by Reason.
39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book III/Chapter 31

Chapter 31.—The First Rule of Tichonius.
44. The first is about the Lord and His body, and it is this, that, knowing as we do that the head and the body—that is, Christ and His Church—are sometimes indicated to us under one person (for it is not in vain that it is said to believers, “Ye then are Abraham’s seed,” when there is but one seed of Abraham, and that is Christ), we need not be in a difficulty when a transition is made from the head to the body or from the body to the head, and yet no change made in the person spoken of. For a single person is represented as saying, “He hath decked me as a bridegroom with ornaments, and adorned me as a bride with jewels” and yet it is, of course, a matter for
interpretation which of these two refers to the head and which to the body, that is, which to Christ and which to the Church.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. iii. 29.
* ↑ Isa. lxi. 10 (LXX.). “As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels” (A.V.).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book III/Chapter 33

Chapter 33.—The Third Rule of Tichonius.
46. The third rule relates to the promises and the law, and may be designated in other terms as relating to the spirit and the letter, which is the name I made use of when writing a book on this subject. It may be also named, of grace and the law. This, however, seems to me to be a great question in itself, rather than a rule to be applied to the solution of other questions. It was the want of clear views on this question that originated, or at least greatly aggravated, the Pelagian heresy. And the efforts of Tichonius to clear up this point were good, but not complete. For, in discussing the question about faith and works, he said that works were given us by God as the reward of faith, but that faith itself was so far our own that it did not come to us from God; not keeping in mind the saying of the apostle: “Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” But he had not come into contact with this heresy, which has arisen in our time, and has given us much labor and trouble in defending against it the grace of God which is through our Lord Jesus Christ, and which (according to the saying of the apostle, “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”) has made us much more watchful and diligent to discover in Scripture what escaped Tichonius, who, having no enemy to guard against, was less attentive and anxious on this point, namely, that even faith itself is the gift of Him who “hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” Whence it is said to certain believers: “Unto you it is given, in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” Who, then, can doubt that each of these is the gift of God, when he learns from this passage, and believes, that each of them is given? There are many other testimonies besides which prove this. But I am not now treating of this doctrine. I have, however, dealt with it, one place or another, very frequently.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Eph. vi. 23.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xi. 19.
* ↑ Rom. xii. 3.
* ↑ Phil. i. 29.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book III/Chapter 35

Chapter 35.—The Fifth Rule of Tichonius.
50. The fifth rule Tichonius lays down is one he designates of times,—a rule by which we can frequently discover or conjecture quantities of time which are not expressly mentioned in Scripture. And he says that this rule applies in two ways: either to the figure of speech called synecdoche, or to legitimate numbers. The figure synecdoche either puts the part for the whole, or the whole for the part.  As, for example, in reference to the time when, in the presence of only three of His disciples, our Lord was transfigured on the mount, so that His face shone as the sun, and His raiment was white as snow, one evangelist says that this event occurred “after eight days,” while another says that it occurred “after six days.” Now both of these statements about the number of days cannot be true, unless we suppose that the writer who says “after eight days,” counted the latter part of the day on which Christ uttered the prediction and the first part of the day on which he showed its fulfillment as two whole days; while the writer who says “after six days,” counted only the whole unbroken days between these two. This figure of speech, which puts the part for the whole, explains also the great question about the resurrection of Christ. For unless to the latter part of the day on which He suffered we join the previous night, and count it as a whole day, and to the latter part of the night in which He arose we join the Lord’s day which was just dawning, and count it also a whole day, we cannot make out the three days and three nights during which He foretold that He would be in the heart of the earth.
51. In the next place, our author calls those numbers legitimate which Holy Scripture more highly favors such as seven, or ten, or twelve, or any of the other numbers which the diligent reader of Scripture soon comes to know. Now numbers of this sort are often put for time universal; as for example, “Seven times in the day do I praise Thee,” means just the same as “His praise shall continually be in my mouth.” And their force is exactly the same, either when multiplied by ten, as seventy and seven hundred (whence the seventy years mentioned in Jeremiah may be taken in a spiritual sense for the whole time during which the Church is a sojourner among aliens); or when multiplied into themselves, as ten into ten gives one hundred, and twelve into twelve gives one hundred and forty-four, which last number is
used in the Apocalypse to signify the whole body of the saints. Hence it appears that it is not merely questions about times that are to be settled by these numbers, but that their significance is of much wider application, and extends to many subjects. That number in the Apocalypse, for example, mentioned above, has not reference to times, but to men.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Luke ix. 28.
* ↑ Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2.
* ↑ Matt. xii. 40.
* ↑ Comp. Ps. cxix. 164 with xxxiv. 2.
* ↑ Jer. xxv. 11.
* ↑ Rev. vii. 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XV/Chapter 14

Chapter 14.—The Word of God is in All Things Equal to the Father, from Whom It is.
23. The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the highest sense, “Yea, yea; nay, nay.” And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.” Through power He cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not one that He does not always see.
24. And that word, then, of ours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but is of that thing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and which therefore belongs to no tongue; and hence is in some sort like, in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God; since this too is born of our knowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the knowledge of the Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to be in some way like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how unlike also it is, as it may be in our power to utter it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. v. 37
* ↑ John v. 19
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XV/Chapter 16

Chapter 16.—Our Word is Never to Be Equalled to the Divine Word, Not Even When We Shall Be Like God.
Wherefore that Word of God is in such wise so called, as not to be called a thought of God, lest we believe that there is anything in God which can be revolved, so that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and be revolved in some sense formlessly. Certainly that excellent master of speech knew well the force of words, and had looked into the nature of thought, who said in his poem, “And revolves with himself the varying issues of war,” i.e. thinks of them. That Son of God, then, is not called the Thought of God, but the Word of God. For our own thought, attaining to what we know, and formed thereby, is our true word. And so the Word of God ought to be understood without any thought on the part of God, so that it be understood as the simple form itself, but containing nothing formable that can be also unformed. There are, indeed, passages of Holy Scripture that speak of God’s thoughts; but this is after the same mode of speech by which the forgetfulness of God is also there spoken of, whereas in strict propriety of language there is in Him certainly no forgetfulness.
26. Wherefore, since we have found now in this enigma so great an unlikeness to God and the Word of God, wherein yet there was found before some likeness, this, too, must be admitted, that even when we shall be like Him, when “we shall see Him as He is” (and certainly he who said this was aware beyond doubt of our present unlikeness), not even then shall we be equal to Him in nature. For that nature which is made is ever less than that which makes. And at that time our word will not indeed be false, because we shall neither lie nor be deceived. Perhaps, too, our thoughts will no longer revolve by passing and repassing from one thing to another, but we shall see all our knowledge at once, and at one glance. Still, when even this shall have come to pass, if indeed it shall come to pass, the creature which was formable will indeed have been formed, so that nothing will be wanting of that form to which it ought to attain; yet nevertheless it will not be to be equalled to that simplicity wherein there is not anything formable, which has been formed or reformed, but only form; and which being neither formless nor formed, itself is eternal and unchangeable substance.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Æn. x. 159, 160.
* ↑ 1 John iii. 2
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XV/Chapter 18

Chapter 18.—No Gift of God is More Excellent Than Love.
32. There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts, too, are given by the Holy Spirit; but without love they profit nothing. Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far imparted to each, as to make him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called the Gift, unless on account of love. And he who has not this love, “though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give his body to be burned, it profiteth him nothing.” How great a good, then, is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal life! But love or charity itself,—for they are two names for one thing,—if he have it that does not speak with tongues, nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives all his goods to the poor, either because he has none to give or because some necessity hinders, nor delivers his body to be burned, if no trial of such a suffering overtakes him, brings that man to the kingdom, so that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love, since faith without love can indeed exist, but cannot profit. And therefore also the Apostle Paul says, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love:” so distinguishing it from that faith by which even “the devils believe and tremble.” Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although He is God, called also the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. xiii. 1–3
* ↑ Gal. v. 6
* ↑ Jas. ii. 19
* ↑ Acts viii. 20