OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 49
## Number 1 (March)

* History of Livestock Industry in the Pacific Northwest. by J. Orin Oliphant
* Early Oregon Daguerrotypers and Portrait Photographers. by Theodosia Teel Goodman
* Geographic Names of Western Montana, Northern Idaho. by Elers Koch
* Oregon Geographic Names X: Additions since 1944. by Lewis A. McArthur
* "Minutes of Annual Meeting"
* "Reviews"
* "Affiliated Societies"
* "News Notes"
* "Board and Staff"

## Number 2 (June)

* The Archeological Excavation of Fort Vancouver. by Louis R. Caywood
* The Archeological Excavation of Waiilatpu Mission. by Thomas R. Garth
* Oregon Geographic Names XI: Additions since 1944. by Lewis A. McArthur
* "Reviews"
* "Affiliated Societies"
* "News Notes"
* "Board and Staff"/"OHS Publications"

## Number 3 (September)

* First Associate Justice of Oregon Territory: O. C. Pratt. by Sidney Teiser
* Oregon Volunteer Reminiscences of the War with Spain. by H. C. Thompson
* The Exploratory Excavation of Fort Clatsop. by Louis R. Caywood
* The Pendleton Wool-Scouring and Packing Company. by Alfred L. Lomax
* Oregon Geographic Names XII: Additions since 1944, by L. A. McArthur
* "Reviews"
* “Affiliated Societies"
* "News Notes"
* OHS Board, Staff, PUbs

## Number 4 (December)

* "Some Phases of Oregon History": The Annual Society Address. by Herbert A. Kellar
* A Pioneer Woman's Reminiscences of Christmas in the Eighties. by Polly McKean Bell
* Lower Columbia Indian Weapons. by L. S. Cressman
* Oregon Geographic Names XIII: Additions since 1944. by L. A. McArthur
* "Affiliated Societies"
* "Minutes of the Annual Meeting"
* "Index"
* Board, Staff, PUbs
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works published in 1948 could have had their copyright renewed in 1975 or 1976, i.e. between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st, 1977.
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.
It is imperative that contributors ascertain that there is no evidence of a copyright renewal before using this license. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of the work as a copyright violation.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 5/Corrections

CORRECTIONS.
The proof sheets of the article entitled "The Origin and Authorship of the Bancroft Pacific States Publications: A History of a History" should have been sent to the author, but they were not, and as the author was not given an opportunity to see it, he wishes the following corrections made:
    All parentheses which appeared as such in the copy were intended as footnotes.
    In no instance should there be a colon before a parenthesis.
    Page 289, read "a library on the beginning and early chapters of Pacific Coast history such as in".
    Page 293, read "See" for "see".
    Page 294, read "Pamphlet" for "pamphlet".
    Page 300, biography of Fisher should be on preceding page.
    Page 300, no comma after sixteen.
    Page 303, read "purchase." for "purchase,".
    Page 304, read "Preface" for "preface".
    Page 305, read "Oak;" for "Oak."
    Page 306, read "question)" for "question" and "1873." for "1873.)"
    Page 319, read "often writing" for "after writing".
    Page 320, the sentence beginning "With one exception" should not be included in parenthesis with biography of Petroff.
    Page 828, no comma after "Denver".
    Page 351, in the parenthesis "Histories" for "History".
    Page 353, comma after Statesman.
    Page 355, "Inter Pocula" for "inter pocula".
    Page 359, "Chittenden (History" for "(Chittenden's History".
    Page 363, "interpolation" for "interpretation".
ASAHEL BUSH, FOUNDER OF THE OREGON STATESMAN.
On page 370 in the paper on the "Pioneer Papers of Puget Sound" Joseph S. Smith is given the credit for launching the Oregon Statesman. The paper was started by the Hon. Asahel Bush.
# Otis Company v. Ludlow Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
201 U.S. 140
Otis Company v. Ludlow Manufacturing Company
Argued: March 1, 2, 1906. --- Decided: March 12, 1906
Messrs. Boyd B. Jones, Charles L. Gardner, and John J. Winn for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 141-147 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. James B. Carroll, William H. Brooks, and Walter S. Robinson for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 147-150 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# Otis Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 624
Otis Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Argued: Nov. 17, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 29, 1945
See 324 U.S. 887, 65 S.Ct. 710.
Mr. Robert J. Bulkley, of Washington, D.C., and Mr. Arthur G. Logan, of Wilmington, Del., for petitioner.
Mr. Roger S. Foster, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mr. Donald R. Richberg, of Washington, D.C., for respondent United Light & Power Co.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Otis Weed v. Crane

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 570
Otis Weed v. Crane
J. B. Robb, for plaintiffs in error.
F. A. Brooks, for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice CHASE 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
# Otho the Great

* "Otho the Great. A Tragedy", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
* "Otho the Great: a tragedy in five acts", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder
# Otis Weed v. Crane/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 570
Otis Weed v. Crane
On looking into the record of this cause we find no exception to any ruling of the court upon the trial, nor any exception to the report of the assessor, nor to any ruling of the court in relation to it. There is nothing, therefore, in the record which can be reviewed here upon error, and the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

## 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
# Otis v. Cullum

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 447
Otis v. Cullum
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.
Mr. Alfred Ennis for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. George R. Peck, contra.
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
# Otis v. Oregon Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 548
Otis v. Oregon Company
Argued: February 1, 1886. ---
Geo. H. Adams, for the motion.
John Sessions and John R. Abney, against the motion.
WAITE, 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Seventh Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 5

Extracts from the Acts.
Session VI.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 389.)
Leo the most renowned secretary said: The holy and blessed Synod know how at the last session we examined divers sayings of the God-forsaken heretics, who had brought charges against the holy and spotless Church of the Christians for the setting up of the holy images. But to-day we have in our hands the written blasphemy of those calumniators of the Christians, that is to say, the absurd, and easily answered, and self-convicting definition (ὅρον) of the pseudosyllogus, in all respects agreeing with the impious opinion of the God-hated heretics. But not only have we this, but also the artful and most drastic refutation thereof, which the Holy Spirit had supervised. For it was right that this definition should be made a triumph by wise contradictions, and should be torn to pieces with strong refutations. This also we submit so as to know your pleasure with regard to it.
The holy Synod said: Let it be read.
John, the deacon and chancellor [of the most holy great Church of Constantinople, in Lat. only] read.
[John, the deacon, then read the orthodox refutation, and Gregory, the bishop of Neocæsarea, the Definition of the Mock Council, the one reading the heretical statement and the other the orthodox answer.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Seventh Ecumenical Council/Title Page

The Seventh Ecumenical Council.
The Second Council of Nice.
a.d. 787.
Emperors.—Constantine VI. and Irene.
Pope.—Hadrian.
Elenchus.
Introduction.
The Sacra to Hadrian.
The Sacra read at Session I.
Extracts from the Acts, Session I.
Session II.
Session III.
Session IV.
Session VI. containing the Epitome of the decree of the iconoclastic Conciliabulum.
Excursus On the Conciliabulum.
The dogmatic Decree of the Synod.
Excursus On the present teaching of the Latin and Greek Churches on the subject of images.
The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Synodal Letter to the Emperors.
Excursus On the Two Letters of Gregory II. to the Emperor Leo.
Excursus On the Reception of the Seventh Council.
Excursus On the Council of Frankfort, A.D. 794.
Excursus On the Convention of Paris, A.D. 825.
Historical Note On the so-called “Eighth General Council” and subsequent councils.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Sixth Ecumenical Council
## Contents

* Title Page
* Historical Introduction
* Extracts from the Acts 1
* The Letter of Agatho, Pope of Old Rome
* The Letter of Pope Agatho
* The Letter of Agatho and of the Roman Synod
* Extracts from the Acts 2
* The Sentence Against the Monothelites
* Session XVI
* The Definition of Faith
* The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor
* Letter of the Council to St. Agatho
* Excursus
* The Imperial Edict
# Packet Company v. McCue/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
84 U.S. 508
Packet Company v. McCue
It is insisted on the part of the plaintiff in error that a master is not responsible to a servant for injuries caused by the negligence or misconduct of a fellow-servant engaged in the same general business. Whether this general proposition be true or not it is not necessary to determine in the state of this record. It is conceded, if the employment of McCue by the company terminated before the injury complained of was suffered, that the company is liable, and this the jury have found to be the fact.
But it is said it was the province of the court, and not the jury, to determine the point of time at which the service was ended; that as the facts were undisputed, it was a question of law, and the court should have told the jury the relation of master and servant subsisted when the accident happened.
We do not think so. One of the theories on which the suit was prosecuted was that McCue's special employment had ceased when he was injured. This theory was resisted by the defence, and the court, not taking upon itself to determine as an absolute proposition when the employment terminated, left it to the jury to find how the fact was. This ruling, in our opinion, was correct. It was for the jury to say, from the nature of the employment, the manner of engaging the hands, the usual mode of transacting such a business, and the other circumstances of the case, whether the service had or had not ceased at the time of the accident. The point was submitted fairly to the jury, with no more comments than the evidence justified. It was argued by the plaintiff in error that the employment of necessity terminated on the land, because it was there McCue was engaged to do the work, and he had the right to be provided with the proper means of reaching it from the boat. On the contrary, the defendant in error contended the special service ceased when McCue had finished his work and was paid off; that after this he was not subject to the control or direction of the officers of the boat, but at liberty to stay on the boat or go off as he pleased. The jury took this latter view of the relation of the parties, and we cannot say that they did not decide correctly. At any rate, their decision on a question of fact is not subject to review in this court. The defence at the best was a narrow one, and in our opinion more technical than just.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
[See Railroad Company v. Fort, infra, p. 553.]

## 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
# Packet Company v. St Louis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 423
Packet Company v. St Louis
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. James H. Davidson, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Leverett Bell, contra.
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
# Packet Company v. Sickles (72 U.S. 580)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Miller
United States Supreme Court
72 U.S. 580
Packet Company v. Sickles

## 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
# Packet Company v. Sickles

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Packet Company v. Sickles."
* 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.
* Packet Company v. Sickles (72 U.S. 580)
* Packet Company v. Sickles (86 U.S. 611)
# Ohio v. Huertas/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

## 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
# Ohio v. Helvering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
292 U.S. 360
Ohio v. Helvering
Argued: May 21, 1934. ---
[Syllabus from 360-361 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John W. Bricker, Atty. Gen. (Messrs. William S. Evatt, of Columbus, Ohio, and Isadore Topper, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for plaintiff.
[Argument of Counsel from 362-365 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. Crawford Biggs, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., and Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Messrs. James W. Morris, M. H. Eustace, and Charles Bunn, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for defendants.
[Argument of Counsel from 362-365 intentionally omitted]
[366]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Ohio v. Frank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 697
Ohio v. Frank
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.
Mr. William C. Goudy and Mr. Allan C. Story for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. H. Roberts and Mr. Shelby M. Cullom for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE WOODS 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
# Ohio v. Frank/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 697
Ohio v. Frank
This was an action upon bonds issued by the town of Ohio, the plaintiff in error, and upon certain unpaid coupons attached to them. The bonds were issued by authority of the act of the legislature of Illinois of March 25, 1869, referred to in Walnut v. Wade, supra, p. 683. That case decided every question raised in this except one, which relates to the matter of interest on the bonds.
That interest was at the rate of ten per cent per annum. In entering judgment the court below included interest upon the bonds at that rate from their maturity until the date of the judgment. This was assigned for error because there was no agreement in the bonds to pay interest after maturity. It was claimed that no interest at all should have been allowed on them after they fell due, but that if any interest was allowed it should have been computed only at the rate of six per cent per annum, which is the legal rate in Illinois.
At the date of the bonds sued on the law of Illinois fixed the rate of interest at six per cent per annum where it was not settled by the contract, but allowed parties to contract for any rate not exceeding ten per cent per annum.
No authority is cited in support of the proposition that no interest should have been allowed on the bonds after their maturity. the case of Holden v. Trust per cent interest should have been Company (100 U.S. 72), to support the claim that only six per cent interest should have been computed on the bonds after their maturity.
That case arose in the District of Columbia, where substantially the same regulations on the subject of interest were prescribed by statute as in Illinois. The court in that case said: 'The rule heretofore applied by this court, under the circumstances of this case, has been to give the contract rate up to the maturity of the contract, and thereafter the rate prescribed for cases where the parties themselves have fixed no rate.' But the court added: 'When a different rule has been established it governs of course in that locality. The question is always one of local law.'
A different rule has been established in Illinois by the decisions of the Supreme Court of that State. In Phinney v. Baldwin (16 Ill. 108), it was held that a note given for a sum of money, bearing interest at a given rate per month, continues to bear that rate of interest as long as the principal remains unpaid.
This rule was followed by the court below in computing the amount of the judgment in this case.
Judgment affirmed.

## 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
# Ohio v. Huertas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
498 U.S. 336
Ohio v. Huertas
No. 89-1944
See 498 U.S. 1115, 111 S.Ct. 1027.
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
# Pardue v. State/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Decision per curiam
​PER CURIAM. In 1987, David Pardue was found guilty by a jury of robbery and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Pardue v. State, CACR 88-127 (August 30, 1989). In 1998, Pardue filed in the trial court in Benton County a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the judgment. The petition was denied, and the record on appeal from the order has been lodged here. Appellant Pardue now seeks by motion to supplement the record and to proceed as an indigent.
[1] The motion is denied, and the appeal dismissed as it is clear that the appellant could not succeed on appeal. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of post-conviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994); see Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987).
[2] There was no basis for appellant to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in 1998. First, he was not incarcerated as a direct result of the 1987 conviction, for which a term of five years' imprisonment had been imposed, when he filed in the petition. Moreover, he did not contend that he was in custody in Benton County when he filed the petition there, and the Certificate of Service reflected that he was in fact incarcerated in a federal prison in Texas, apparently as a result of another conviction. Even if the five-year sentence imposed in 1987 had not been ​exhausted, a circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner not in custody in that court's jurisdiction. Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).
Motion denied and appeal dismissed.