OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Paving Company v. Mulford/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 147
Paving Company v. Mulford
This was a suit in equity brought by the Ballard Paving Company against Michael Mandle and sundry persons who claimed to have purchased from him certain certificates of the Auditor of the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, which it was alleged were the property of the company. Mulford and Campbell, the appellees, were two of the defendants, but they were proceeded against as holders of separate and distinct certificates. Their liability as set forth in the bill was several only. There was no pretence of a joint obligation, and it is conceded that in no event could there be a recovery against either of them separately for more than $2,500. On the hearing, the bill was dismissed as to these defendants, and the paving company has appealed.
We think it clear that we have no jurisdiction in this case. Although many defendants have been brought into the suit, the proceeding is, in fact, against each of the several purchasers to enforce his separate and distinct liability. It is a joinder of distinct causes of action against distinct parties. The same decree is to be entered against each as in case of separate suits. The recovery, if any, must be against each defendant separately for the amount he may personally be found accountable. Such being the case, the value of the matter in dispute with each defendant must be the sum for which he is separately liable. It is well settled that neither co-defendants nor co-complainants can unite their separate and distinct interests for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give us jurisdiction on an appeal. Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 id. 41. In such cases, the appeal of each separate defendant or complainant must stand or fall according as his own interest in the controversy exceeds or falls short of our jurisdictional amount. The same principle applies here. For the purposes of an appeal, each separate controversy must be treated as a separate suit. Under this appeal, two separate controversies have been brought here, and in neither is the amount involved sufficient to give us jurisdiction.
Appeal 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
# Pavan v. Smith

In Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 2075 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 2016 decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court in Smith v. Pavan, 2016 Ark. 437, 505 S.W.3d 169.
Supreme Court of the United States
582 U.S.
MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas
No. 16-992. --- Decided June 26, 2017.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Gorsuch
2016 Ark. 437, 505 S.W.3d 169, reversed.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier for petitioners.
Nicholas J. Bronni, Deputy Solicitor General, for respondent, with Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, on the brief.
* Briefs were filed for amici curiae Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al., by Stuart F. Delery; for Constitutional Accountability Center, by Brianne Jenna Gorod; for Family Equality Council and COLAGE, by Katherine Keating; and for Family Law Professors, by Claire Laporte.
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
# Pausing Federal Student Loan Payments

Joe Biden′s third statement and release, 2021-01-20
At the request of President Biden, the Acting Secretary of Education will extend the pause on federal student loan payments and collections and keep the interest rate at 0%. Too many Americans are struggling to pay for basic necessities and to provide for their families. They should not be forced to choose between paying their student loans and putting food on the table.
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
# Paxton v. Griswold

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 441
Paxton v. Griswold
Saml. Hepburn, Jr., for plaintiffs in error.
Saml. Hepburn and James Ryon, for defendants in error.
BRADLEY, 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
# Parker Whipple Company v. Yale Clock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 87
Parker Whipple Company v. Yale Clock
C. E. Mitchell, for appellants.
John K. Beach and C. R. Ingersoll, for appellees.
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
# Parker v. Arkansas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
498 U.S. 883
Parker v. Arkansas
No. 89-7631
Case below, 292 Ark. 421, 731 S.W.2d 756; 300 Ark. 360, 779 S.W.2d 156.
Oct. 1, 1990. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice MARSHALL, 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
# Parker v. Dacres

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
130 U.S. 43
Parker v. Dacres
John H. Mitchell, for appellant.
W. W. Upton, C. B. Upton, and B. L. Sharpstein, for appellees.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Parker v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 341
Parker v. Brown
Argued: Oct. 12, 13, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1943
[Syllabus from pages 341-343 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter L. Bowers, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Strother P. Walton, of Fresno, Cal., for appellants.
Mr. G. Levin Aynesworth, of Fresno, Cal., for appellees.
Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for the United States as amicus curiae by special leave of Court.
Mr. Chief 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
# Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company (50 U.S. 647)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 647
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company
THIS case was transferred to this court by an order of Mr. Justice Grier, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the following circumstances.

## 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
# Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company (52 U.S. 528)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 528
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company
ORDERED, that the time for taking testimony in the above cause by the commissioner appointed by the order entered 29th May, 1850, and for making the report to this court therein provided for, be extended till the further order of the court: and, that the authority to take testimony in said cause since the first day of the present term be, and the same is hereby, confirmed.
And now comes the complainant by her counsel, and moves the court to assign a day during the present term of this court for a final hearing upon the bill, answers, exhibits, testimony, and commissioner's report in this case.
C. DARRAGH, Attorney-General of Pennsylvania.
The motion filed by Mr. Walker, the 18th instant, for the hearing of this cause, was argued by Messrs. Stanton and Walker, in support of, and by Messrs. Stuart and Johnson, in opposition to, the same.
The report of the commissioner appointed at the last term having been returned on Thursday, the 13th instant, it is thereupon ordered by the court, that the case be continued to the next term, with leave to each party to file exceptions to the commissioner's report on or before the first Monday of July,-the exceptions to stand for argument on the second Monday in December next. If no exceptions shall be filed by either party, then the case to stand for final hearing on the day last mentioned.

## 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
# Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company (52 U.S. 528)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 528
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company

## 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
# PDS Red Flag Warning on September 10, 2024

A Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) Red Flag Warning by the National Weather Service Reno, NV on September 10, 2024
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
# P. T. Barnum letter to John Greenwood

Museum, 14 May 1864
My dear G,
I still have faith in a beautiful Circassian girl if you can get one very beautiful. But if they ask $4000 each, probably one would be better than two, for $8000 in gold is worth about $14,500 in U.S. currency. So one of the most beautiful would do, but be sure & get a decent-looking chap of 16 years old or more. If you can also buy a beautiful Circassian woman for $2000, do so if you think best; or if you can hire one or two at reasonable prices, do so if you think they are pretty and will pass for Circassian slaves. But in any event have one or two of the most beautiful girls you can find, even if they cost $4000 or $5000 in gold.
Don't fail to have rich-appearing costumes for her and the eunuch, & bring one girl alone with eunuch if you think they will be attractive enough to pay. But of course one or two additional girls will help it if they can be hired right & are pretty, especially if one can pass for a Grecian. But after looking the thing over, if you don't find one that is beautiful & possesses a striking kind of beauty, why of course she won't draw and you must give it up as a bad job & not get them, for there is nothing in her to attract & fascinate, and the papers would cry her down & it would prove a loss. But if she is beautiful, then she may take in Paris or in London or probably both. But look out that in Paris they don't try the law and set her free. It must be understood she is free. . .
Yours truly,
P. T. Barnum
If you get the woman with horns, let American newspapers & correspondents understand that you had a big race for her with European showmen & that the price paid for her was immense. Remember to find every avenue for publicity of the fact that an agent of Barnum's Museum is in the East seeking curiosities. Also, when you get to Paris you had better advertise that an agent for Barnum's Museum, now in Paris, is anxious to secure novelties for America. You had better write all the French which would be likely to give you any new ideas. Write here to the editors giving items of intelligence, among which name the agency. Also describe any curiosities that you may secure, then give the editors here your address (privately). They will publish your letter because it comes from so far.
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
# Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Book II/Chapter 32

Chapter XXXII
The great news of Patay was carried over the whole of France in twenty hours, people said. I do not know as to that; but one thing is sure, anyway: the moment a man got it he flew shouting and glorifying God and told his neighbor; and that neighbor flew with it to the next homestead; and so on and so on without resting the word travelled; and when a man got it in the night, at what hour soever, he jumped out of his bed and bore the blessed message along. And the joy that went with it was like the light that flows across the land when an eclipse is receding from the face of the sun; and, indeed, you may say that France had lain in an eclipse this long time; yes, buried in a black gloom which these beneficent tidings were sweeping away now before the onrush of their white splendor.
The news beat the flying enemy to Yeuville, and the town rose against its English masters and shut the gates against their brethren. It flew to Mont Pipeau, to Saint Simon, and to this, that, and the other English fortress; and straightway the garrison applied the torch and took to the fields and the woods. A detachment of our army occupied Meung and pillaged it.
When we reached Orleans that tow was as much as fifty times insaner with joy than we had ever seen it before—which is saying much. Night had just fallen, and the illuminations were on so wonderful a scale that we seemed to plough through seas of fire; and as to the noise—the hoarse cheering of the multitude, the thundering of cannon, the clash of bells—indeed, there was never anything like it. And everywhere rose a new cry that burst upon us like a storm ​when the column entered the gates, and nevermore ceased: "Welcome to Joan of Arc—way for the Savior of France!" And there was another cry: "Crécy is avenged! Poitiers is avenged! Agincourt is avenged!—Patay shall live forever!"
Mad? Why, you never could imagine it in the world. The prisoners were in the center of the column. When that came along and the people caught sight of their masterful old enemy Talbot, that had made them dance so long to his grim war-music, you may imagine what the uproar was like if you can, for I cannot describe it. They were so glad to see him that presently they wanted to have him out and hang him; so Joan had him brought up to the front to ride in her protection. They made a striking pair.
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 11/Note (Counties)

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
NOTE
A Supplement to the Paper on Oregon's Counties.
To the Quarterly:
As supplemental to my article on Oregon Counties, which was published in the March Quarterly, I wish to say that by the Act of August 14, 1848, establishing the Territorial Government of Oregon, the summit of the Rocky mountains was made the Eastern boundary of Oregon Territory. When Washington Territory was created by the Act approved March 2, 1853, the present boundary line between Oregon and Washington was established; the Eastern boundary of Washington Territory was then the summit of the Rocky mountains.
When Wasco County was created January 11, 1854, it comprised all of Eastern Oregon, that is, all that part of Oregon Territory East of the Cascade mountains, and the Eastern boundary of Wasco County was then the summit of the Rocky mountains. The Act admitting Oregon into the Union was approved February 14, 1859, an d the present boundaries of the State of Oregon were established. The Eastern boundary began at the intersection of parallel of latitude forty-six degrees north with the middle of the main channel of Snake river; and ran thence up the middle of the main channel of Snake river to the mouth of Owyhee river; thence due south to parallel of latitude of forty-two degrees north. This Eastern line of the State of Oregon then became the Eastern line of Wasco County, and continued to be its Eastern line until Baker County was created September 22, 1862.
Frederick V. Holman.
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 11
## Number 1 (March 1910)

* Oregon Counties: Their Creations and the Origins of Their Names. by Frederick V. Holman (address at OHS annual meeting)
* Opinion of William D. Fenton: On the Power of the Legislature to Increase the Number of Justices Constituting the Supreme Court of Oregon
* Notes"

## Number 2 (June 1910)

* Financial History of the State of Oregon: Oregon's Public Domain - The Sale of Oregon's Lands F. G. Young
* Recollections of a Pioneer of 1859: Lawson Stockman B. F. Manring
* What I Know of Dr. McLoughlin and How I Know It John Minto
* Ogden journals editorial notes by T. C. Elliott
* The Peter Skene Ogden Journals
* An estimate of the character and services of Judge George H. Williams Harvey W. Scott
* Note (Counties) Frederic V. Holman

## Number 3 (September 1910)

* Peter Skene Ogden, Fur Trader. by T. C. Elliott (annual OHS address)
* The Late George H. Williams. by T. W. Davenport
* Financial History of the State of Oregon: Public Expenditures. by F. G. Young
* "Documents"
* "Notes"

## Number 4 (December 1910)

* The Rise and Early History of Political Parties in Oregon. by W. C. Woodward
* The Peter Skene Ogden Journals. by editorial notes by T. C. Elliott
* Journal of Peter Skene Ogden: Snake Expedition, 1827-1828. by as copied by Miss Agnes Laut in 1905
* "Corrections"
* "Document"
* Financial History of Oregon: Use of Public Credit by the State of Oregon. by F. G. Young

## Index

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Peugh v. Porter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 737
Peugh v. Porter
S. Shellabarger and J. M. Wilson, for appellant.
S. V. White, for appellees.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Peurifoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 59
Peurifoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: Oct. 16, 20, 1958. --- Decided: Nov 10, 1958
See 358 U.S. 913, 79 S.Ct. 227.
Mr. Daniel R. Dixon, Raleigh, N.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Earl E. Pollock, Washington, D.C., for the respondent pro hac vice by special leave of Court.
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
# Peugh v. Davis (113 U.S. 542)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
113 U.S. 542
Peugh v. Davis
R. T. Merrick, M. F. Morris, T. T. Crittenden, and L. H. Pike, for appellant.
A. G. Riddle and H. E. Davis, for appellee.
MILLER, 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
# Petersen Baking Company v. Bryan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 570
Petersen Baking Company v. Bryan
Argued: Dec. 8, 1933. --- Decided: Jan 8, 1934
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska.
Messrs. John C. Grover, of Kansas City, Mo., and Harold D. Le Mar, of Omaha, Neb., for appellants.
Mr. Paul F. Good, of Lincoln, Neb., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Peterson's Magazine

* related portals: Periodicals.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Monthly American magazine focused on women (1842-1898)
* Peterson's Magazine Volume I & II, January–December 1842.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume III & IV, January–December 1843.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume V & VI, January–December 1844.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume VII & VIII, January–December 1845.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume IX & X, January–December 1846.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XI & XII, January–December 1847.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XIII & XIV, January–December 1848.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XV & XVI, January–December 1849.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XVII & XVIII, January–December 1850.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XIX, January-June 1851.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XX, First pages, Vol. XX, 1851.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XX, July-December 1851.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXI, January-June 1852.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXII, July-December 1852.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXIII, January-June 1853.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXIV, July-December 1853.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXV, January-June 1854.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXVI, July-December 1854.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXVII, Table of Contents, Vol. XXVII.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXVII, January-June 1855.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXVIII, July-December 1855.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXIX, January-June 1856.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXX, July-December 1856.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXI, January-June 1857.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXII, July-December 1857.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXIII, January-June 1858.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXIV, July-December 1858.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXV, January-June 1859.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXVI, July-December 1859.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXVII, January-June 1860.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXVIII, July-December 1860.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XXXIX, January-June 1861.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XL, July-December 1861.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLI, January-June 1862.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLII, July-December 1862.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLIII, January-June 1863.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLIV, July-December 1863.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLV, January-June 1864.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLVI, July-December 1864.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLVII, January-June 1865.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLVIII, July-December 1865.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume XLIX, January-June 1866.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume L, July-December 1866.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume LI, January-June 1867.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume LII, July-December 1867.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume LIII, January-June 1868.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume LIV, July-December 1868.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume LV, January-June 1869.
* Peterson's Magazine Volume LVI, July-December 1869.