OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/3/Counties/Wahkaw

​ WAHKAW COUNTY was created in 1851 by act of the Legislature from territory originally embraced in Benton when that county extended to the Missouri River. The bill which created this county when reported to the Senate gave the name of “Floyd” in memory of Sergeant Floyd of the Lewis and Clark expedition who died in camp in 1804 and was buried on the east side of the Missouri ​River south of Sioux City. The Senate passed the bill as introduced but it was amended in the House by striking out “Floyd” and inserting “Wahkaw,” an Indian name.
An act of the Legislature approved January 12, 1853, provided for the organization of the county and selected commissioners to locate the county-seat, the name of which should be Sergeant’s Bluff. A later act of the same Legislature changed the name of the county to Woodbury, and on the 22d of January, 1853, Wahkaw County ceased to exist.
# Houck v. Little River Drainage District

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 254
Houck v. Little River Drainage District
Argued: October 27 and 28, 1915. --- Decided: November 29, 1915
Messrs. Benson C. Hardesty, Giboney Houck, and Thomas D. Hines for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 255-258 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Robert Burett Oliver, Robert Burett Oliver, Jr., and Allen Laws Oliver for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Hughes 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
# Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons

* 41 U.S.P.Q. 404 (1939)
* 104 F.2d 306 (1939)
* 31 F.Supp. 517 (1940)
* 113 F.2d 627 (1940)
* 1 F.R.D. 506 (1940)
* 40 F.Supp. 975 (1941)
# Hough v. Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 213
Hough v. Railway Company
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. James Turner for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. John C. Brown for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons (1 F.R.D. 506)

Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., et al.
District Court, S. D. New York.
Sept. 26, 1940.
Action by Houghton Mifflin Company against Stackpole Sons, Inc., and another for infringement of copyright. On motion for by defendant for an order that proposed deposition should not be taken or in the alternative that it be taken only on oral examination.
Motion denied unless defendant should pay expenses of plaintiff’s attorney for an oral examination.
Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, of New York City (Archie O. Dawson, and John D. Mooney, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Philip Wittenberg, of New York City, for defendants.
Mandelbaum, District Judge.
This is a motion by defendants, pursuant to Rules 30 and 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order that the deposition of one Fritz Weidemann shall not be taken upon written interrogatories as proposed by the plaintiff, or in the alternative, that it may be taken only on an oral examination.
The action is brought under the Copyright Laws of the United States for an alleged infringement of the book “Mein Kampf” for which it is asserted the plaintiff has been assigned the United States Copyright rights. The interrogatories seek to question the witness with respect to the signature upon the assignment of the copyright rights and his knowledge of the status of the person whose signature appears thereon.
As I interpret the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case (Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., et al., 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 627), plaintiff has the burden of proving the execution of the assignment of July 29, 1933. The plaintiff endeavors to obtain this evidence by way of interrogatories and it should be allowed to prove its case in its own way. All the objections which defendants make here with respect to the competency and materiality of the interrogatories will be before the court at the trial. Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If such objections are then sustained, there will be no injury or prejudice to defendants.
A word should be said with respect to defendants’ request that the testimony of Weidemann be taken by oral examination. I will permit such oral examination in lieu of interrogatories on condition that defendants may plaintiff’s attorneys their reasonable expenses to attend at an oral examination of Fritz Weidemann in San Francisco. Otherwise denied. Submit order on notice.
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
# Halliday v. Stuart

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
151 U.S. 229
Halliday v. Stuart
D. H. Reynolds, A. H. Garland, and H. J. May, for appellant.
Julien S. Jones, 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
# Halliday v. United States (394 U.S. 831)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 831
Halliday v. United States (394 U.S. 831)
Argued: May 5, 1969. --- Decided: June 16, 1969
See 395 U.S. 971, 89 S.Ct. 2106.
Laurence M. Johnson, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold, assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.
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
# Halliday v. United States (315 U.S. 94)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 94
Halliday v. United States
Argued: Jan. 5, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1942
Messrs. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., and R. K. Wise, of Columbia, S.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Wilbur C. Pickett, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BYRNES 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
# Halliday v. United States (394 U.S. 831)/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 831
Halliday v. United States (394 U.S. 831)
Argued: May 5, 1969. --- Decided: June 16, 1969
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.
I do not understand why there should be any discussion of the retroactivity of McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, a decision of this Court this Term interpreting a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. If the rule's relevant portions were in full force and effect when petitioner's guilty plea was entered in 1954, then it should of course be enforced in this case; if not, the McCarthy decision simply has no application here at all. For this reason and for all others set out in my dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 640, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1743, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), I would reverse the judgment below and order that petitioner's guilty plea be vacated so that he may have an opportunity to plead again.

## 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
# Halliday v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Halliday v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Halliday v. United States (315 U.S. 94)
* Halliday v. United States (394 U.S. 831)
# Her—"last Poems"—

Her — "last Poems" — Poets — ended — Silver — perished — with her Tongue — Not on Record — bubbled other, Flute — or Woman — So divine — Not unto its Summer — Morning Robin — uttered Half the Tune — Gushed too free for the Adoring — From the Anglo-Florentine — Late — the Praise — 'Tis dull — conferring On the Head too High to Crown — Diadem — or Ducal Showing — Be its Grave — sufficient sign — Nought — that We — No Poet's Kinsman — Suffocate — with easy woe — What, and if, Ourself a Bridegroom — Put Her down — in Italy?
# Heryford v. Davis/Dissent Bradley

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Bradley
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 235
Heryford v. Davis
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment in this case. I think that, in the absence of express law to the contrary, no only has a man the right to make a conditional sale of his property, but that this right is not opposed to sound public policy, and should be fairly and liberally dealt with. The present case was, in my opinion, clearly a conditional sale, and nothing else; and the owners of the property had a right to reclaim it on the terms contained in the agreement. These terms were fair and just; not involving and forfeiture, but providing for a due allowance for every dollar paid, by requiring a sale of the property if the purchase should not go into effect.

## 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
# Heryford v. Davis

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Bradley
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 235
Heryford v. Davis

## 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
# Hes a Blockhead who wants a proof of what he Can't Percieve

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
From Notebook c.1808-1811 p.28. See also: Satiric verses and epigrams.

#### Edited text:

He's a Blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't Percieve, And he's a Fool who [seeks del.] tries to make such a Blockhead believe.
________________________________________

#### The original text:

Hes a Blockhead who wants a proof of what he Can't Percieve And he's a Fool who tries to make such a Blockhead believe
________________________________________

## Notes

* ↑ "Blake Complete Writings", ed. Geoffrey Keynes, pub. OUP 1966/85, p. 540.
* ↑ "The Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake", ed. by David V. Erdman, Anchor Books, 1988, p. 507.
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
# Hervé Riel

Hervé Riel first appeared in Cornhill Magazine, March, 1871, xxiii. pp. 257-60, and was subsequently reprinted in Appleton’s Journal, April 1871. [Based on Robert Browning: A Bibliography, 1830-1950 (1953) p.25, by Leslie Nathan Broughton, Clark Sutherland Northup and Robert Brainard Pearsall]
* "Hervé Riel", in Pacchiarotto (1876)
* "Hervé Riel", in Poems That Every Child Should Know (1904), edited by Mary Elizabeth Burt
# Hill v. Harding (107 U.S. 631)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 631
Hill v. Harding
George W. Brandt, for plaintiff in error.
Adolph Moses, for defendant in error.
GRAY, 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
# Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 538
HILL et al. v. STATE OF FLORIDA ex rel. WATSON, Attorney General.
Argued: April 4, 5, 1945. --- Decided: June 11, 1945
See 66 S.Ct. 11.
Mrssrs. Joseph A. Padway and Herbert S. Thatcher, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Messrs. J. Tom Watson and Howard S. Bailey, both of Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Hill v. Harding

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hill v. Harding."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Hill v. Harding (107 U.S. 631)
* Hill v. Harding (130 U.S. 699)
# Hampton Court/Introduction

INTRODUCTION
"I AM never merry when I hear sweet music." So, when the "spirits are attentive," is it with the sight of a beautiful old house. The memories of those who have lived in and loved it crowd in upon the mind. Their passions and their sorrows seem to speak now like the "music of the spheres," in a solemn cadence that only the thoughtful and abstracted heart can hear. They are become part of Nature: all that strange symphony of colour and sound and feeling that breathes in upon us as we walk the courts where they lingered, or trace their names cut with a diamond on the old window-panes, or pray where they too have laid down their sins,—all that subtle impression that steals over us and saddens is made of their struggles and their tears. There, we say, men have worked out their lives in duty and loyalty and faith: or there they have made shipwreck, driven by fierce demons of desire, for fame, for pleasure, or for wealth. And now they sleep so still, and thousands pass by and heed them not: and yet they are part of it all, this great Palace, this home of English history, this chronicle in little of what men have done and suffered for their country and their age. Here Wolsey planned to restore the greatness of England. Here Elizabeth ​plotted and schemed, and yet learnt somehow to say, "I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and goodwill of my subjects. . . . I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too"—some of the finest words man-kind ever uttered. Here Charles showed the beauty of his nature through its outer husk of unworthy duplicity. Here Milton meditated and Cromwell agonised: and here, since the days of these heroes, many noble souls have passed, in quietness and simplicity, to their reward. It were as ill to romp and be facetious here as in some old abbey, or in any ancient place where history has been made. It is ours rather to linger over its memories and to cherish them, and to dream again of the great days that are gone by. And so as we ponder, and as the noble names come up before us, and merge insensibly into the present, where still the echoes of renown are heard in the lodgings of the kindred of our English worthies, the scene assumes an unity which brings the old time together with the new.
And thus it is one picture we are to look upon, the old Palace with its history and its memories and its art. It presents one story, and that the world will not willingly let die.
# Hampton v. M'Connel/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
This is precisely the same case as that of Mills v. Duryee. The court cannot distinguish the two cases. The doctrine there held was that the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such state, and none others, could be pleaed in any other court in the United States.
Judgment affirmed.c
credit as it has in the state court from whence it was taken; if in such court it has the effect of record evidence, it must have the same effect in every other court within the United States. 2d. That in every case arising under the act, the only inquiry is, what is the effect of the judgment in the state where it was rendered. 3d. That whatever might be the effect of a plea of nil debet to an action on a state judgment, after verdict, it could not be sustained on demurrer. 4th. That on such a plea the original record need not be produced for inspection, but that an exemplification thereof is sufficient. 5th. That the act applies to the courts of the district of Colombia, and to every other court within the United States.
In the argument of Bordon v. Fitch, 15. Johns. Rep, 121. in the supreme court of New-York, it seems to have been supposed that this court had decided in Mills v. Duryee, that nul tiel record was the only proper plea to an action upon a state judgment. But it is conceived that as to the pleadings, it only decided that nil debet was not a proper plea; and that the court would hold that any plea (as well as nul tiel record) that would avoid the judgment, if technically pleaded, would be good. However this may be, it may safely be affirmed, that the question is still open in this court whether a special plea of fraud might not be pleaded, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgment was obtained; for these might, in some cases, be pleaded in the state court to avoid the judgment.

## 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
# Hampton v. M'Connel

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
16 U.S. 234
Hampton v. M'Connel
ERROR to the circuit court of the district of South Carolina.
The defendant in error declared against the plaintiff in error, in debt, on a judgment of the supreme court of the State of New York, to which the defendant below plead nil debet, and the plaintiff below demurred. The circuit court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff below, and thereupon the cause was brought by writ of error to this court.
Mr. Hopkinson, for the plaintiff in error, suggested, that if, under any possible circumstances, the plea of nil debet could be a good bar to the action, a general demurrer was insufficient. He cited Mills v. Duryee,a and stated that the present case, might, perhaps, be distinguished from that, as it would seem that in Mills v. Duryee the defendant had actually appeared to the suit upon which the original judgment was recovered; but that in the present case there was no averment in the declaration to that effect, and the proceeding in the former suit might have been by attachment in rem, without notice to the party.
Mr. Law, for the defendant in error, relied upon the authority of Mills v. Duryee, as conclusive to show that nul tiel record ought to have been pleaded. He also cited Armstrong v. Carson's executors.b
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# In re Burdett/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 771
In re Burdett
A petition on the part of H. S. Burdett and others, asking for 'mandamus against the judge of the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan, has been presented to us. The case arises out of an action of replevin in which the circuit court decided that it had no jurisdiction. A proceeding was then had to get damages for the taking of the goods in replevin, which the court entertained, and rendered judgment for the damages. The amount in controversy is too small to come to this court by writ of error, and we are asked, by the writ of mandamus, to direct the judge of that court to set aside the judgement which he rendered. Whether there was error in that matter or not, we do not think that we have any power, by writ of mandamus, to compel the judge of that court to reverse his own judgment.

## 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
# In re Bradley

United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 50
In re Bradley
Argued: Jan. 8, 1943. --- Decided: Feb 1, 1943
Mr. Thomas D. McBride, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. W. Marvin Smith, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# In re Burdett

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 771
In re Burdett
[Statement of Case from pages 771-773 intentionally omitted]
Levi T. Griffin, for petitioners.
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
# In re Buchanan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
158 U.S. 31
In re Buchanan
J. J. Noah, Denis A. Spellissy and G. W. Gibbons, for petitioner.
John D. Lindsay, in opposition.
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
# In re Buder

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 461
In re Buder
Submitted on Motion for Leave to File March 1, 1926.
Decided June 1, 1926.
Messrs. North T. Genty, of Jefferson City, Mo., and Oliver Senti, James T. Blair, and Charles P. Williams, all of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners.
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