OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bondurant Tutrix v. Watson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 278
Bondurant Tutrix v. Watson
We have no jurisdiction in this case, as no writ of error has ever been issued. Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355. By the ninth section of the act of May 8, 1792, c. 36 (1 Stat. 278), it was made the duty of the clerk of this court to transmit to the clerks of the several courts the form of a writ of error approved by two of the justices of this court. This was done, and the form adopted required the writ to be issued in the name of the President of the United States, and have the teste of the Chief Justice of this court. Sect. 1004 of the Revised Statutes is as follows:--
'Writs of error returnable to the Supreme Court may be issued as well by the clerks of the circuit courts under the seals thereof, as by the clerk of the Supreme Court. When so issued they shall be, as nearly as each case may admit, agreeable to the form of a writ of error transmitted to the clerks of the several circuit courts by the clerk of the Supreme Court, in pursuance of section nine of the act of May eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-two, chapter thirty-six.'
The writ in this case was in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. It bore the teste of that Chief Justice, and was signed by the clerk, and sealed by the seal of that court. It had not a single requisite of a writ of this court. Had it been even colorably issued from this court, it might have been amended under sect. 1005 of the Revised Statutes, which is certainly very liberal, and as follows:--
'The Supreme Court may, at any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it may deem just, allow an amendment of a writ of error, when there is a mistake in the teste of the writ, or a seal to the writ is wanting, or when the writ is made returnable on a day other than the day of the commencement of the term next ensuing the issue of the writ, or when the statement of the title of the action or parties thereto in the writ is defective, if the defect can be remedied by reference to the accompanying record, and in all other particulars of form: Provided the effect has not prejudiced, and the amendment will not injure, the defendant in error.'
But here there is nothing which even purports to be a writ from this court, and there is, therefore, nothing to amend. If we should permit the parties to change the seal, or the title, or to do everything else which this section allows, there would still be no writ, for nothing has been done either in the name of the President or under the authority of the United States. The Supreme Court of the State has directed that its record be certified here for examination and review, but no writ to that effect either in form or substance has ever issued from this court. As such a writ is necessary to our jurisdiction, the suit is
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
# Boyd v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Boyd 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.
* Boyd v. United States (116 U.S. 616)
* Boyd v. United States (142 U.S. 450)
* Boyd v. United States (271 U.S. 104)
See also United States v. Boyd.
# Boyd v. United States (116 U.S. 616)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Miller
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 616
Boyd v. United States
Argued: February 1, 1886. ---
E. B. Smith and S. G. Clarke, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Goode, for defendant 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
# Boyd v. State of Nebraska

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Field
United States Supreme Court
143 U.S. 135
Boyd v. State of Nebraska

## 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
# Belinda

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Belinda."
* 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.
* Belinda, a poem by Letitia Elizabeth Landon
* Belinda, a play by A. A. Milne
* Belinda, a novel by Maria Edgeworth
* Belinda. a novel by Rhoda Broughton
# Belinda (Milne)

Belinda is an early play by A. A. Milne. A light and escapist comedy, Milne himself called it "a purely artificial comedy whose only purpose was to amuse". It opened at the New Theatre in London on 8 April 1918, with Irene Vanbrugh playing the title role of Belinda.

### Contents

* Characters
* Act I
* Act II
* Act III
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1956, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 67 years or less. 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
# Belgium (Coates)

Published in The Bellman (21 Sept 1918).
I had a dream of Greatness; and I saw— Not one enthroned, before whose golden crown And jeweled scepter many bowed them down;
 Not one full-armored who, more fearful awe Inspiring, with war's pestilential breath Sowed havoc as he moved, despair and death;
 Nay, in my lofty dream, such greatness paled Before the image of one nobly fair, Despite torn raiment and disheveled hair,
 The hope within whose eyes had never failed. Victim of unrelenting Tyranny That fain would hold her captive, she is free—
 Stronger, I wis, than e'en her tyrants be— Because of something that hath never died: Her glorious, tameless soul, grief-crucified!
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1927, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 96 years or less. 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
# Believers Assemble, Come With Songs To Bethlem

From Select Portions of Psalms from the new versions, Hymns, and Anthems, sung at the Parish Church, in Sheffield, 2nd ed., 1816; retrieved from hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com
1. Believers assemble, come with songs to Bethlem, O come ye, O come ye with one accord; View with surprise, a child, the king of angels, O come, and let us worship Christ the Lord.
2. Behold! God of God, and Light of Light, th’ Almighty, The womb of a virgin to man afford ; God, very God, begotten, not created, O come, &c.
3. Then to Jesus let glory be ascribed, Whose birth on this day life to us restor’d ; Word of th’ eternal Father in our nature, O come, &c.
4 Break forth into singing, all ye choirs angelic, In numbers celestial be God ador’d ; Glory to God, exalted in the highest, O come, &c.
# Belgium

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Belgium."
* 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.
* Belgium, a poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox ("Ruined? destroyed? Ah, no; though blood in rivers ran")
* Belgium, a poem by Florence Earle Coates ("I had a dream of Greatness; and I saw—")
* Belgium, a work by Frances Trollope
* Belgium, a poem by Edith Wharton ("Not with her ruined silver spires")

## See also

* Portal:Belgium
# Bohemia's claim for freedom/Czech folklore

CZECH FOLKLORE
OUR national lyric just as our national epic carries you away by the power of its simplicity and the directness of its art. By small means it attains ends which even a most profound poetry seldom attains. Here is not the naive simplicity of poverty, but the restraint of an already fully matured refinement. It is difficult not to learn from these great masters of prose, and it will come to it that our folklore, just as our national song, will form a starting-point for a real understanding of the inner substance of stylistic art.
​Peter lives a worldly, everyday life, but Christ is already not of this world, and cannot be measured by superficial appearances of things. And this conflict between the two worlds, higher and lower, is given with such masterful plasticity, with such nerve and skilful dramatisation of simple acts, that we could hardly find a similar work even amongst the greatest masters. One or two touches and the whole figure is as if chiselled from a rock. There is nothing aggressive, nothing fragmentary, all seems to evolve from itself, without any ostentatious "idea." It is a real model of moralism. It does not offend, does not labour, but with pleasant communicativeness, by way of humour, it glides into poetry, never into a sermon.
The humour emanating from these tales is quite its own. It is entirely original, grown from itself—our very own. It stands by itself in the whole European literature. In it there is nothing sermonising or puritanical as in English, nothing moralistic or melancholy as in Russian, nothing heavy as in German, nothing wordly as in French, but innocent human Czech humour, free from all these aberrations, pure as crystal. It is the humour of the poetic cottages of our peasants, humour that is not angry, quarrels not, but yet soars above all worldly vanity. In it is enshrined the whole outlook on life of our people, the calm and somewhat cheerful appreciation of a sorely tried man of the faults and mistakes of his fellow-man. Humour that only a man can master, who, in spite of all his troubles, is full of the joy of life. Even this humour will become a ​starting-point of a serious study into the nature of our humour in general. Its foundations are already given in these tales, and what will be added can be only by way of enriching, not of changing. It is possible to learn, but not to imitate. We have something of our own that is beautiful and good.
Irony light as breath flows through all the incidents of these tales. But this irony does not disgust you with man, on the contrary, it reconciles and equalises; it teaches us to love, does not punish, but excuses; and it leads to good through goodness. It neither fumes nor rages; it is a man's consciousness of his own superiority over the whole surrounding world. The charm of this irony does not freeze, but it warms; it loves and teaches to love. This is the philosophic aspect of our folklore.
V. Mrstik.
# Bohemia's claim for freedom/Back matter

The De La More Press Ltd. 32 George Street, Hanover Square London, W.
# Bohemia's claim for freedom

* related portals: Czech lands.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
To the memory of John Hus
BOHEMIA's :
| | CLAIM |
| FOR FREEDOM |||
with an introduction by G·K· CHESTERTON·
Old Hussite war hymn
Dedication
Introduction
The country of the book and the cup
Short survey of Bohemian history
The language and literature of Bohemia
Bohemian music
Peasant art in Bohemia
Some typical Czech artists
Czech folklore
Journalism
In conclusion…
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1961, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 62 years or less. 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
# Bank v. Tennessee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 493
Bank v. Tennessee
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William Y. C. Humes for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Benjamin J. Lea, Attorney-General of Tennessee, contra.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Bank v. McVeigh/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 332
Bank v. McVeigh
The motion to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction will be granted upon the authority of Bethell v. Demaret, 11 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Insurance Company, 14 id. 661; Tarver v. Keach, 15 id. 67; Rockhold v. Rockhold et al., 92 U.S. 129; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Hendren, id. 286. All the court below decided was, that by the general principles of commercial law, if, during the late civil war, an indorser of a promissory note abandoned his residence in loyal territory, and went to reside permanently within the Confederate lines before the note matured, a notice of protest left at his former residence in the loyal territory was not sufficient to charge him, if his change of residence was known, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence might have been known, to the holder of the note when it matured. It is true that, upon a former decision of the same cause, something was said in the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to the effect of the ordinance of secession of Virginia upon the rights of the parties, and that upon the last trial in the Corporation Court an effort was made by the plaintiff in error to obtain a ruling upon the constitutionality of that ordinance; but it is equally true that the Corporation Court declined to rule at all upon the question, and that the Court of Appeals, in the opinion filed with the judgment brought here for review, says: 'The court before refused to give any opinion on the constitutionality of the ordinance of secession, as it does now, such question being irrelevant and not involved, as we think, in the decision of the cause. The decision of this court would be the same, whether it held the said ordinance of secession to be constitutional or unconstitutional.' A careful examination of the record satisfies us of the correctness of this statement. The case was decided 'upon principles of general law alone,' and it nowhere appears in the record that the plaintiff in error set up or claimed any 'title, right, privilege, or immunity,' under the Constitution or authority of the United States, which was denied him by the decision below.
Writ 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
# Bank v. Sherman Hickling

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 403
Bank v. Sherman Hickling
APPEALS from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Julius Rosenthal and Mr. A. M. Pence, for bank.
Mr. Albion Cate for Hickling.
Mr. J. S. Polk and Mr. L. H. Bisbee for Sherman.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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
# Bank v. Partee

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Miller
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 325
Bank v. Partee
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Mr. William A. Maury for the appellants.
No counsel appeared for the appellees.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Bank v. McVeigh

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 332
Bank v. McVeigh
MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.
The Bank of the Old Dominion sued the makers, and W. N. McVeigh, the indorser, of certain promissory notes which were payable at that bank. At the date of the notes the bank had its place of business at the city of Alexandria, Va., and the other parties resided there. Before the paper matured, the forces of the United States had taken possession of that city, which they retained during the rebellion; and the indorser had, with the knowledge of the officers of the bank, gone within the Confederate lines, where his family then was, and where he remained, engaged in business in the city of Richmond, until 1874. The notes were in due time and manner presented at the bank for payment, and, payment not having been made, were protested.
Upon the second trial of the case in the Corporation Court of the city of Alexandria, the controlling question being as to the sufficiency of the notice of dishonor and protest, the proof was, that notice in respect to one of the notes was left at the place of business of the indorser in Alexandria, and that notice as to the others was left at his former dwelling in that city, 'in the hands of his white servant.' The court charged the jury that 'if, on or about the 30th of May, 1861, and prior to the maturity of said notes, W. N. McVeigh, having previously sent his family, went himself within the Confederate lines, with the intention of not returning to Alexandria during its occupation by the United States forces, and remained with them continuously within the Confederate lines throughout the whole period of the war, and until the year 1874, and such absence at the maturity of said notes, respectively, was known, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence must have been known, to the plaintiff, there is no such evidence of notice of dishonor in the case as is sufficient to fix his liability as indorser, and the jury must find for him as to all except the two notes of May 17 and June 17, as to which notes they will find for the plaintiff.'
The jury having found accordingly, judgment was rendered on the verdict, and the bank took the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia, where the judgment below having been affirmed, the bank sued out this writ of error.
Mr. Conway Robinson, Mr. Philip Phillips, and Mr. William A. Maury in support of the motion.
Mr. H. O. Claughton, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Bank v. Partee/Dissent Miller

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Miller
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 325
Bank v. Partee
MR. JUSTICE MILLER dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case, and especially from that part of the opinion which holds that the judgment against Mrs. Partee and her husband, under which the land in question was sold, was absolutely void.
It is to be remembered that the question is not whether such a judgment would be held errorneous on an appeal from that judgment, but whether it can be held absolutely void when assailed collaterally in another action, where it is relied upon as the foundation of a title based on a sale under execution issued on the judgment.
Mrs. Partee was sued jointly with her husband. Both by the common law and by the law of all the States, a married woman could sue or be sued by joining her husband with her. The statutes of Mississippi, where this judgment was rendered, largely increased the liability of married women to be sued beyond what it was at common law. It made her liable, out of her separate estate, for supplies to the farm owned or cultivated by her, for any debt contracted with reference to her own property, whether the contract was made with the consent of her husband or not. In the case in which the judgment is held void, she signed a joint note with her husband, her name being signed before his; and she was sued with him on that note, and personally served with process. She has never denied the validity of that judgment, or sought to set it aside or vacate its force. Other persons, not parties to that suit, now come into court and say that all that was done was void because it does not appear affirmatively, by the record, that the note on which the suit was brought was a contract concerning her private property. That was a matter which, if it were true, should have been pleaded as a defence. She was subject personally to the jurisdiction of the court. Her contracts were subjects of which the court had jurisdiction. It had jurisdiction to enforce those contracts by sale of her individual property. The note on which she was sued had every indication that it was her individual contract, as it no doubt was, and that her husband's name was placed there to show his consent.
To hold that persons not interested in that contract, nor parties to the suit, can now come in and treat the judgment as absolutely void, on its face, is such a departure from all the principles on which the jurisdiction of the court is determined, that even the authority of the courts of Mississippi should not, in my opinion, control us in the matter.

## 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