OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Baird

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
150 U.S. 54
United States v. Baird
This was a petition by the marshal of the United States for the territory of Idaho for fees earned in executing warrants of commitment of certain prisoners to the penitentiary at Boise City, and also for commissions upon disbursements for the support of such penitentiary. In connection with the latter claim. the court made the following findings of fact:
'(4) He also, as such marshal, disbursed the sum of fifty-four thousand four hundred and twenty dollars and fifteen cents, ($54,420.15,) funds of the United States, for the use of the penitentiary of said territory. For such penitentiary disbursements he claimed a commission at the rate of two per cent., amounting to one thousand and eighty-eight dollars and forty cents, ($1,088.40,) and his account for the same was likewise approved by said district court for the first district of Idaho.
'(5) The only reason why no commission was allowed him on such disbursements appears to have been that he was allowed compensation for the services required by section 1893 in the government of such penitentiary, which said compensation was fixed by the attorney-general, in accordance with said section, at the rate of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) a year.'
Upon this finding, the court rendered judgment in his favor upon the last item for $1,088.40, and the United States appealed.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge and Chas. C. Binney, for the United states.
George A. King, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, 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
# United States v. Bailey

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Bailey."
* 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.
* United States v. Bailey (34 U.S. 238), 9 L.Ed. 113, 9 Pet. 238
* United States v. Bailey (34 U.S. 267), 9 L.Ed. 124, 9 Pet. 267
# United States v. Baker

United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 646
United States v. Baker
Atty. Gen. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, and F. P. Dewees, for appellant.
Jno. Paul Jones and Robert B. Lines, for appellee.
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
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 44

Chap. XLIV.—An Act altering the times of holding the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Changed to fourth Tuesday in April, and third Tuesday in September. All proceedings to go on as heretofore. That the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut, shall hereafter be held on the fourth Tuesday in April, and on the third Tuesday in September in each year, instead of the last Wednesday in April, and the seventeenth day of September, the times heretofore established by law. And all indictments, informations, recognisances, writs, suits, pleas, actions, motions, and all other proceedings, civil and criminal, shall be heard, tried, proceeded with, and determined by the said court, in the same manner as they might and ought to have been done, had the said court been holden at the times heretofore directed by law.
Approved, February 24, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 34

Chap. XXXIV.—An Act for the relief of the owners of the fund received from the British Government as an indemnity for slaves lost from on board the Comet and Encomium at Nassau, Bahamas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Balance of indemnities to be paid to persons or companies entitled thereto. That the sum of seven thousand nine hundred and sixty-five dollars and twenty-eight cents, a balance of the indemnities received from the British Government for loss of slaves from on board the Comet and the Encomium, at Nassau, paid into the treasury by the late John Forsyth, be paid, on the order of the Secretary of State, to the persons or companies entitled thereto, or to their representatives; and that, for that purpose, the aforesaid sum be, and it is hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, February 18, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 32

Chap. XXXII.—An Act to change the place of holding the circuit and district courts in the district of Maine.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Circuit court to be held at Portland on 1st October. That the term of the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Maine, heretofore held at Wiscasset, in and for said district, on the first day of October, shall hereafter be held at Portland, in said district, on the first day of October, and that all writs, pleas, and recognizances and indictments, and all other proceedings, both civil and criminal, pending in said court, shall be returnable to and have day and be heard, tried, and proceeded in at Portland, in the same manner s they might have been done at Wiscasset, had the place of holding said court not been changed:Proviso. Provided, however, if the first day of October happen on Sunday, then the court shall be held on the second day of said month.
District court to be held at Portland on first Tuesday of February. And at Bangor on fourth Tuesday of June.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the term of the district court of the United States for the district of Maine, heretofore held at Wiscasset, on the fourth Tuesday of February, shall hereafter be held at Portland on the first Tuesday of February, and that the term of said court heretofore held at Portland on the first Tuesday of June, shall hereafter be held at Bangor in said district, on the fourth Tuesday of June.
Approved, February 15, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 45

Chap. XLV.—An Act to continue in force an act therein mentioned, relating to the port of Baltimore.
1850, ch. 17. Act of 17th March, 1800, ch. 15, so far as relates to Maryland, revived and continued to 1st June, 1850. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act passed the seventeenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred entitled “An act declaring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Maryland and Georgia,” and which by subsequent acts has been revived and continued in force until the third of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, be, and the same, so far as it relates to the act of the State of Maryland, is hereby revived and continued in force until the first day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall authorize the demand of a duty on tonnage on vessels propelled by steam employed in the transportation of passengers.
Approved, February 24, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 31

Chap. XXXI.—An Act to authorize the chief clerk in the office of the Secretary of State to frank public and official documents sent from that office.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Franking privilege granted. Act of March 3, 1845, ch. 43, sec. 6. That the right and privilege of franking all public and official documents, that may be sent from the office of the Secretary of State, be, and hereby is, granted to the chief clerk in that office.
Approved, February 15, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 4

Chap. IV.—An Act to continue the office of Commissioner of Pensions.
1835, ch. 46. 1837, ch. 43. 1840, ch. 4. 1849, ch. 20. Office continued until 4th March, 1846. A commissioner to be appointed―his duties. 1846, ch. 4.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of Commissioner of Pensions shall be, and the same is hereby continued until the fourth of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That a Commissioner of Pensions shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that he shall execute, under the direction of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, such duties in relation to the various pension laws as may be prescribed by the President: and also such duties in relation to the laws granting military bounty lands as may be assigned by him by the Secretary of War with the sanction of the President.
Salary, &c. Act of March 3, 1845, ch. 43, sec. 6.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said Commissioner shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars, and shall have the privilege of sending and receiving letters and packets by mail free of postage.
Approved, January 20, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 46

Chap. XLVI.—An Act amendatory of an act establishing the branch mint at Dahlonega, Georgia, and defining the duties of assayer and coiner.
Act of Feb. 13, 1837, ch. 14. Duties of melter and refiner transferred from the assayer to the coiner in the branch mints at Dahlonega and Charlotte.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an act passed the thirteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, to amend an act entitled “An act to establish the branches of the mint of the United States,” passed the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, be, and it is hereby, altered and amended so as to transfer the duties of melter and refiner from the assayer to the coiner at the branches of Dahlonega in Georgia and of Charlotte in North Carolina, respectively, and that all laws and parts of laws conflicting with this act be, and they are hereby, repealed.
Approved, February 27, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 47

Chap. XLVII.—An Act to amend an act entitled “An act making an appropriation for the erection of a marine hospital at or near Ocracoke, North Carolina.”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,The appropriation for Ocracoke hospital not to revert to the surplus fund. 1842, ch. 265. That the sum of ten thousand dollars, appropriated by an act entitled “An act making an appropriation for the erection of a marine hospital at or near Ocracoke, North Carolina,” shall not revert to the surplus fund at the expiration of two years from and after the thirty-first of December, eighteen hundred and forty-four, anything in the act of March third, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Approved, February 27, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 49

Chap. XLIX.—An Act amendatory of “An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen.”
Act of 16th July, 1798, ch. 77, extended to the coasting trade. Act of July 20, 1840, ch. 48. Act of Feb. 12, 1842, ch. 3. Measures to be taken to collect hospital money.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions and penalties of the act of the sixteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, entitled “An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen,” be, and the same hereby are, extended to the masters, owners and seamen of registered vessels employed in carrying on the coasting trade; and the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to issue such instructions to the collectors of the various ports as shall secure the collection of hospital money from said seamen, masters and owners.
Approved, March 1, 1843.
# United States v. Germaine

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 508
United States v. Germaine
On a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# United States v. Gettinger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 734
United States v. Gettinger
Argued: Nov. 30, 1926. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1927
Mr. Gardner P. Lloyd, of New York City, for the United States.
Messrs. Isadore Bookstein, of Albany N. Y., and George A. King, of Corning, N. Y., for defendants 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
# United States v. Gettinger/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 734
United States v. Gettinger
Argued: Nov. 30, 1926. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1927
The District Court entered final judgment for defendants in error March 9, 1925, and certified that the only question involved was one of jurisdiction.
By an indictment returned into the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, February, 1920, defendants in error were charged with violating section 4 of the Lever Act, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, 277, as amended October 22, 1919, c. 80, § 2, 41 Stat. 297, 298 (Comp. St. § 3115 1/8 ff), by selling women's apparel at unjust and unreasonable rates. They entered pleas of nolo contendere October 8, 1920, and each undertook to 'waive any and all claims which I now have or hereafter may have to any and all fines which the court may see fit to impose upon me upon such plea, except in the event that the so-called Lever Act under which said indictment is founded shall be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.' The court adjudged them guilty and imposed a fine of $5,000. This was paid to the clerk and by him passed into the Treasury of the United States.
February 28, 1921, this court held section 4 of the Lever Act invalid. United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.C.t. 298, 65 L. Ed. 516, 14 A. L. R. 1045. April 25, 1924, the court below undertook to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence entered there October 8, 1920.
The present proceeding, begun May 24, 1924, set up the claim that under the abovestated facts the United States became obligated to repay to plaintiffs in error the sum of five thousand dollars with interest. A demurrer which raised the question of the court's jurisdiction was overruled and the matter came here by direct writ of error.
The attempt by plaintiff's in error to reserve rights if the Lever Act should be held unconstitutional amounted at most to a protest, possibly sufficient to overcome the suggestion of an estoppel, but no contract arose out of it which obligated the United States to return the fine. Neither the court nor any federal officer had authority to make such an agreement. The controlling general principles are sufficiently stated in Russell v. United States, 182 U.S. 516, 530, 21 S.C.t. 899, 45 L. Ed. 1210; United States v. Holland-America Lijn, 254 U.S. 148, 41 S.C.t. 72, 65 L. Ed. 193; United States v. Minnesota Mutual Investment Co., 271 U.S. 212, 46 S.C.t. 501, 70 L. Ed. 911.
The court below was without jurisdiction and should have dismissed the complaint. Its judgment must be reversed.

## 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
# United States v. Davis (132 U.S. 334)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 334
United States v. Davis
Asst. Atty. Gen. Cotton, for appellant.
C. C. Lancaster, for appellee.
LAMAR, 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
# United States v. Davis (231 U.S. 183)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 183
United States v. Davis (231 U.S. 183)
Argued: October 17, 1913. --- Decided: December 1, 1913
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Thomas M. Seawell and Oscar T. Hamlin for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 184-186 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief 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
# United States v. Daugherty

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 360
United States v. Daugherty
Argued: Dec. 1, 1925. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1926
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for the United States.
Mr. Anthony P. Nugent, of Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
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
# United States v. Davis

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Davis."
* 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.
* United States v. Davis (131 U.S. 36), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Davis (132 U.S. 334), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Davis (231 U.S. 183), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Davis (243 U.S. 570), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Davis (370 U.S. 65)
* United States v. Davis (397 U.S. 301), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
   * listing incomplete
# United States v. Davis (131 U.S. 36)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
131 U.S. 36
United States v. Davis
Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for appellants.
C. C. Lancaster, for appellees.
FULLER, C. 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
# Wedding-Day

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wedding-Day."
* 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.

## Plays

* The Wedding-Day, a play by Henry Fielding

## Poems

* "The Wedding Day", a poem by Thomas Blacklock
* "The Wedding-Day", a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
* "The Wedding-Day", a poem by Edmund Clarence Stedman

## Short stories

* "Wedding Day", a short story by Gwendolyn Bennett
* "A Wedding Day", a short story by Patricia Wentworth

## See also

* Wedding
* Day
# Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
204 U.S. 176
Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Company
Argued: December 14, 1906. --- Decided: January, 7, 1907
Messrs. Edward C. Kehr, Richard T. Brownrigg, and William L. Mason for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 177 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Robert A. Holland, Jr., Charles P. Wise, George F. McNulty, and James A. Seddon for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Wedding-Hymn

Sidney Lanier composed this poem in Macon, Georgia in 1865. In the volume of complete works The Poems of Sidney Lanier, published posthumously, this poem was characterized as one his “unrevised early works.”
Thou God, whose high, eternal Love  Is the only blue sky of our life, Clear all the Heaven that bends above  The life-road of this man and wife.
May these two lives be but one note  In the world’s strange-sounding harmony, Whose sacred music e’er shall float  Through every discord up to Thee.
As when from separate stars two beams  Unite to form one tender ray: As when two sweet but shadowy dreams  Explain each other in the day:
So may these two dear hearts one light  Emit, and each interpret each. Let an angel come and dwell to-night  In this dear double-heart, and teach!
# Webster v. Upton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 65
Webster v. Upton
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. E. Van Buren for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. L. H. Boutell for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE STRONG 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