OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan Trust Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
145 U.S. 224
Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan Trust Company
This was a suit to recover of the city of Clay Center two installments of hydrant rental, for $1,850 each, with interest. These rentals were claimed to be due under an alleged contract in respect of the erection of waterworks, between the city and one Bonebrake and a waterworks company, his assignee and successor, and to be payable under said contract to the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, trustee in a trust deed to secure bonds issued by the waterworks company for the purpose of borrowing money to complete the construction of the works.
The bill prayed that the city be decreed to have contracted with the trust company to pay directly to it so much of the hydrant rental as might be necessary to pay the interest on the bonds, and to pay the two installments then due, with interest. The decree sustained the contract and the liability to pay the trust company directly, and awarded recovery to the amount of $4,042.65. This was all that could be recovered in this suit, if the contract were valid and binding as found. If the circuit court had arrived at the contrary conclusion on that point, this was all that in this suit complainant could have lost; and as in the latter contingency complaint could not have brought the case here, so defendant cannot, because the decree, which allowed all that was claimed, is for less than the jurisdictional amount. The value of the matter in dispute was the accrued rental and interest, and, although the determination that such rental was due and should be paid to the trustee involved the existence and validity of the contract, yet causes of action for hydrant rental, which had not accrued, but might subsequently accrue, cannot be availed of to make out jurisdiction of the case by this court upon appeal. Security Co. v. Gay, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 815.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

## 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
# Cross v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 546
Cross v. California
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
# Cross v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 546
Cross v. California
The motion to use the record in No. 1161, Misc., October Term, 1965, 383 U.S. 573, 86 S.Ct. 1078, 16 L.Ed.2d 108, is granted.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

## 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
# Cross v. Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 128
Cross v. Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

## 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
# Cross v. Evans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
167 U.S. 60
Cross v. Evans
James Hagerman and F. C. Dillard, for plaintiffs in error.
Rush Taggart, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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
# Cross v. Harrison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
57 U.S. 164
Cross v. Harrison

## 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
# Convalescence

* "Convalescence" in Sword Blades and Poppy Seed (1914)
* "Convalescence" in A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919 (1917)
# Contzen v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
179 U.S. 191
Contzen v. United States
Argued: November 7, 1900. --- Decided: December 3, 1900
Appellant filed his petition in the Court of Claims, alleging that on October 20, 1861, a band of Apache Indians raided the settlement at San Xavier, near Tucson, Arizona territory, and stole from his ranch certain cows, horses, and mules of the value of $10,330; that these Indians were in amity and under treaty relations with the United States at that date; and 'that petitioner is a naturalized citizen of the United States, and has at all times borne true allegiance to the government of the United States,' etc.
The United States pleaded that the claimant was not a citizen of the United States at the date of the alleged depredation, and that the court was therefore without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause.
The court adopted as its findings of fact the following agreed statement of facts:
'The claimant, Fritz Contzen, was born in Germany on the 27th day of February, 1831, and emigrated to Texas in July, 1845. He remained in Texas until the admission of the state into the Union, December 29, 1845.
'Since the admission of Texas the claimant has resided continuously in the United States, mostly in Arizona and some time in California. He visited Germany with his wife and child from 1873 to 1800, his home and furniture remaining all the time in this courtry. He was married in the United States. His residence was in Texas until he came to Arizona, in 1855, with Major Emory, on the boundary commission.
'In the year 1854 he went into court at San Antonio, Texas, and he was told that he being a resident of Texas when it became part of the United States, that made him a citizen of the United States, and he voted there. He never took any further steps about naturalization. There is no record of naturalization, from 1847 on, of anyone of the claimant's name, when such record should appear in the courts of San Antonio.
'That in October, 1861, the defendant Indians were in amity with the United States.'
Judgment was thereupon given sustaining defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissing the petition. 33 Ct. Cl. 475.
Messrs. A. B. Browne, Alexander Britton, J. W. Douglass, and Alexander Porter Morse submitted the case for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Thompson for appellees.
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
# Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations

* related portals: Bilateral documents.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This was a document signed at Lausanne, Switzerland, January 30, 1923, between the governments of Greece and Turkey.
The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and the Greek Government have agreed upon the following provisions:

## Articles

Article 1.
As from the 1st May, 1923, there shall take place a compulsory exchange of Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory. These persons shall not return to live in Turkey or Greece respectively without the authorization of the Turkish Government or of the Greek Government respectively.
Article 2.
The following persons shall not be included in the exchange provided for in Article 1: a) The Greek inhabitants of Constantinople b) The Muslim inhabitants of Western Thrace. All Greeks who were already established before the 30th October, 1918, within the areas under the Prefecture of the City of Constantinople, as defined by the law of 1912, shall be considered as Greek inhabitants of Constantinople. All Muslims established in the region to the east of the frontier line laid down in 1913 by the Treaty of Bucharest shall be considered as Muslim inhabitants of Western Thrace.
Article 3.
Those Greeks and Muslims who have already, and since the 18th October, 1912, left the territories the Greek and Turkish inhabitants of which are to be respectively exchanged, shall be considered as included in the exchange provided for in Article 1. The expression "emigrant" in the present Convention includes all physical and juridical persons who have been obliged to emigrate or have emigrated since the 18th October, 1912.
Article 4.
All able-bodied men belonging to the Greek population, whose families have already left Turkish territory, and who are now detained in Turkey, shall constitute the first installment of Greeks sent to Greece in accordance with the present Convention.

## Appendix C

Kingdom of Greece General Administration of Thraka Interior Office Number of Protocol A1043
Komotene, 27/12/1954
URGENT
TO: The Mayors and Presidents of the Communes of the Prefecture of Rodope.
Following the order of the President of the Government (Prime Minister) we ask you that from now on and in all occasions the terms "Turk-Turkish" are used instead of the terms "Muslim- of Muslim".
The General Administrator
of Thraka
G. Fessopoulos
Kingdom of Greece General Administration of Thraka Interior Office Number of Protocol A202
Komotene, 5/2/1955
In spite of the strict orders of the government to replace the terms "Muslim-of Muslim" and use from now on the terms "Turk-Turkish", in the village Aratos on the public road connecting Komotene and Alexandroupole there exists a very prominent sign with the words "Muslim School". It, as well as any other such signs that might exist in the area of the Prefecture of Rodope, should be replaced immediately.
The General Administrator of Thraka
G. Fessopoulos
# Clyde v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 38
Clyde v. United States
However useful and proper such a rule as that complained of by the appellant may have been prior to the enactment of the law passed June 25th, 1868, which requires the Attorney-General to obtain from the proper department, and the department to furnish, such facts, circumstances, and evidence as it might be in possession of in relation to any claim prosecuted in the Court of Claims, we are of opinion that it was not competent for the Court of Claims to impose it as a condition of presenting a claim in that court. Instead of being a rule of practice, it was really an additional restriction to the exercise of jurisdiction by that court. It required the claimant to do what the acts giving the court jurisdiction did not require him to do before it would assume jurisdiction of his case.
The act of 1855, which created the court, declares that it shall 'hear and determine all claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the government of the United States, which may be suggested to it by a petition filed therein.' The rule adopted by the court required that the claimant should not only have such a claim as stated in the act, but should have first gone through the department which might have entertained it, before he would be permitted to prosecute in that court. This was establishing a jurisdictional requirement which Congress alone had the power to establish.
This judgment of dismissal is therefore reversed, and the record remitted with directions to proceed to a hearing on the second count.

## 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
# Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama ex rel. State Docks Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 261
Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama ex rel. State Docks Commission
Argued: Nov. 15, 1935. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1935
Messrs. Roscoe H. Hupper, of New York City, and Alexis T. Gresham, of Mobile, Ala., for appellant.
Mr. S. Palmer Gaillard, Jr., of Mobile, Ala., for appellee.
Mr. 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
# Clyde Steamship Company v. Walker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 255
Clyde Steamship Company v. Walker
Argued: February 28, 1916. ---
Restored to docket for reargument November 13, 1916.
Reargued January 31 and February 1, 1917.
Decided May 21, 1917.
Messrs. Norman B. Beecher and Ray Rood Allen for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. E. Clarence Aiken, Harold J. Hinman, and Mr. Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney General of New York, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McReynolds 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
# Clyde v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 38
Clyde v. United States
APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being argued and disposed of at the same time with the preceding one.
Clyde, the claimant in the preceding case, presented his petition in that court, the same petition mentioned in that case, claiming by the second count of it compensation for the use of his barge William Hunt, as he had in the former appeal, claimed by the first count, compensation for the use of the Tallacca.
The Court of Claims dismissed the claim on the ground that it was not presented in conformity with a rule of practice which the court then had, but which has since been abrogated. This rule required that where the case was such as is ordinarily settled in any executive department, the petition should show that application for its allowance had been made to that department, and without success, and its decision thereon.
From the action of the court, Clyde, the claimant, appealed to this court.
Messrs. C. F. Peck and T. J. Durant, for the appellant, argued that the rule in question was one both arbitrary and without authority.
Messrs. B. H. Bristow and C. H. Hill, contra, contended that it was both useful and proper; and that not having been complied with, the court below properly refused to hear the case.
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
# Clytemnestra

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Clytemnestra."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* "Clytemnestra" (1855), a poem by Edward Robert Bulwer Lytton (as Owen Meredith)
* "Clytemnestra" (1917), a poem by Ewart Alan Mackintosh
* "Clytemnestra," in Collier's New Encyclopedia, New York: P. F. Collier & Son Co. (1921)
* "Clytæmnestra," in Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition (1875–1889)
# Clytemnestra, The Earl's Return, The Artist, and Other Poems

CLYTEMNESTRA,
THE EARL'S RETURN, THE ARTIST, AND OTHER POEMS.
BY
OWEN MEREDITH.
LONDON: CHAPMAN AND HALL, 193, PICCADILLY. 1855.
LONDON: BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS
* Clytemnestra
* Good-night in the porch
* The earl's return
* A soul's loss
* The artist
* The wife's tragedy
* Minor poems
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
# Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh/Preamble

BISMILLAH-AR-RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM
(In the name of Allah, the Beneficient,
the Merciful)
In the name of the Creator, the Merciful.
PREAMBLE
We, the people of Bangladesh, having proclaimed our independence on the 26th day of March, 1971 and through a historic struggle for national liberation, established the independent, sovereign People's Republic of Bangladesh;
Pledging that the high ideals of nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism, which inspired our heroic people to dedicate themselves to, and our brave martyrs to sacrifice their lives in, the national liberation struggle, shall be the fundamental principles of the Constitution;
Further pledging that it shall be a fundamental aim of the State to realise through the democratic process a socialist society, free from exploitation a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political, economic and social, will be secured for all citizens;
Affirming that it is our sacred duty to safeguard, protect and defend this Constitution and to maintain its supremacy as the embodiment of the will of the people of Bangladesh so that we may prosper in freedom and may make our full contribution towards international peace and co operation in keeping with the progressive aspirations of mankind;
In our Constituent Assembly, this eighteenth day of Kartick, 1379 B.S., corresponding to the fourth day of November, 1972 A.D., do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.
# Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh

Related documents: Proclamation of Bangladeshi Independence
* Promulgated: 4 November 1972
* Effected: 16 December 1972
CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH
Contents
    Preamble Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII Part VIII Part IX Part X Part XI
# Cutter of Coleman-street/Act 3 Scene 8

Scene 8.
Enter Lucia.
# Cutter of Coleman-street/Act 3 Scene 9

Scene 9.
Enter Trum. Jun.
# Cutter of Coleman-street/Act 4 Scene 1

Act 4. Scene 1.
Truman Junior.
# Cutter of Coleman-street/Act 3 Scene 2

Scene 2.
Enter Truman junior.
# Cutter of Coleman-street/Act 3 Scene 4

Oh! that's well! my Hand I'm sure's as like hers as the Left is to the Right, we were taught by the same Master, pure Italian, there's her A's and her G's I'l swear——— Oh! are you come? that's well.}}
# Crowell v. Randell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 368
Crowell v. Randell

## 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
# Crowd Endangers Steamer to Get Passing Glimpse of Humorist Mark Twain

The April 27, 1907 edition of Virginian-Pilot newspaper reporting on the arrival of Twain and Rogers.
Crowd Endangers Steamer to Get Passing Glimpse of Humorist Mark Twain
Collision Between Steamer Sylvester and Yacht Kanawha Narrowly Averted
--Author Responds To Calls.
It was a very close shave that the steamer John Sylvester had yesterday morning as she was proceeding down the river for the exposition grounds with 1,200 people aboard.
The steam came within an ace of colliding with H. H. Rogers' steam-yacht the Kanawha. It was a frightened crown of passengers for a short time. The yacht was clearly at fault.
If the vessels had come together it would have been what is known as a "sideswipe" collision. It is a question as to which vessel would have gotten the worse of it.
Crowd Wanted to See Mark.
The Sylvester was just below Fort Norfolk making pretty good time when the Kanawha crept up on the steamer. As it had been printed that Mark Twain, the famous humorist, was aboard the Standard Oil magnate's vessel, the passengers on the steamer all seemed to get on the starboard side of the vessel, which caused her to careen. There were cries for Twain. The skipper of the yacht heard them and it appeared that he tried to run his vessel as close to the steam as possible.
The master of the yacht evidently did not count on the current for the yacht was swept close to the steamer and it appeared that a collision was inevitable. Seeing the danger, the master of the yacht steered away and soon the vessels were far apart.
Mr. Clemens, whose nom de plume is Mark Twain, heard the shouting. He had been seen in the saloon of the yacht, his thick, bushy white locks standing out plainly through the windows.
The demand for his presence on the deck was so great that the famous writer came out, took off his hat and bowed. A mighty shout went up from the passengers on the steamer. Then Mark retired. He wore that famous white suit. On his head was a yachting cap. The yacht anchored near the warships.
Second Narrow Escape.
While the Sylvester was going through the long lane of warships in the Roads she had another narrow escape from colliding, this time with the yacht Embia, of New York. Again it was the fault of the other vessel, for the yacht tried to cross the bow of the steamer. The captain of the steamer exercised rare judgment and maneuvered his vessel so that she steered clear of the white flyer that got in her way.
The police lines in the Roads were drawn tight. The Sylvester hadn't proceeded far before a navy launch hove in sight and the commander through the megaphone warned the master of the steamer not to get within the lines.
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
# Crowell v. Benson

Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) is the first United States Supreme Court decision that approved the adjudication of private rights by an administrative agency, not an Article III court. The Court held that the United States Employees' Compensation Commission satisfied Fifth Amendment Due Process and the requirements of Article III with its court-like procedures and because it invests the final power of decision in Article III courts. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 22
Crowell v. Benson
Argued: Oct. 20, 21, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1932
[Syllabus from pages 22-25 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General, and Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C. (Messrs. Erwin N. Griswold and Wilbur H. Friedman, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner Crowell.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 25-31 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Alexis T. Gresham and Palmer Pillans, both of Mobile, Ala., for petitioner Knudsen.
[Argument of Counsel intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Harry T. Smith and Vincent Kilborn, both of Mobile, Ala., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 32-36 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief 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