OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Sullivan v. The Fulton Steam Boat Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York.
This was a bill in equity, filed in the Court below, in which Sullivan, one of the plaintiffs, was described as a citizen of Massachusetts, and others of the plaintiffs, as citizens of Connecticut and Vermont, and the defendants were described as a corporate body incorporated by the legislature of the State of New-York, for the purpose of navigating, by steam boats, the waters of the East river, or Long Island Sound, ir said State. The object of the bill was to obtain an injunction to prevent the defendants from so exercising the privileges granted to them by the said act, and by an assignment from Livingston and Fulton of their rights under certain other acts of the legislature of New-York, as to obstruct the plaintiffs in the right claimed by them under the constitution and laws of the United States, and under a coasting license, of employing a certain steam boat belonging to the plaintiffs in the transportation of goods and passengers in the waters of the States of Connecticut and New-York. The defendants demurred to the bill, and a decree dismissing it was entered pro forma, by consent, and the cause was brought by appeal to this Court.
Mr. Webster, for the appellants, opened the record, from which it not appearing that the Court below had jurisdiction, as the respective parties were not described as citizens of different States, the decree, dismissing the bill, was affirmed.
DECREE. On motion of the appellants, by their counsel, and on inspection of the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York, it is DECREED and ORDERED, that the decree of the said Circuit Court, in this case, be, and the same is hereby affirmed, it not appearing from the record that the said Circuit Court had jurisdiction in said cause. The said affirmance to be without prejudice to the complainants on the merits of the case.

## 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
# Sullivan v. United States (393 U.S. 1012)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 1012
Sullivan v. United States (393 U.S. 1012)

## 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
# Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 390
Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore

## 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
# Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 390
Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
A decree pro forma was entered, under the agreement of the parties, dismissing a bill filed by Tayloe against the insurance company under the following circumstances.
The office of the insurance company was at Baltimore, but there was an agent at Fredericksburg, Virginia, who was John Minor.
On the 25th of November, 1844, this agent addressed to the company the following letter.
'Fredericksburg, Virginia, November 25, 1844.
'MERCHANTS' FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF BALTIMORE:--
'The undersigned, William H. Tayloe, desires to effect insurance to the amount of eight thousand dollars on his dwelling-house, of stone covered with wood; main building about ninety by sixty feet, two stories; two wings, two stories, covered with wood, about fifty by fifty feet, and connected with the main building by covered ways of stone, covered with wood. The above-mentioned house is known by the name of Mt. Airy, and is situated in Richmond County, about two miles and a half from the court-house.
'J. MINOR, for WILLIAM H. TAYLOE.
'P. S. Mr. Tayloe (not Mr. Taylor) passed through this place this morning on his way to Alabama, and, not having time to attend to his application, desired me to forward one in his name. The measures given are as nearly correct as I can remember; but, as the building is worth double the amount proposed, the measures are not of much importance. I have long been familiarly acquainted with the house. One thing I should state, that it is built of red sandstone, which in my opinion will not stand fire. Mr. Tayloe's family inhabits the house, and he will return in January or February; meanwhile, I am to communicate to him your answer.
'J. MINOR.'
On the 30th of November, 1844, the following answer was received.
'M. F. I. Co., Baltimore, November 30, 1844.
'J. MINOR, ESQ.:--
'Dear Sir,-Yours of 25th and account of 28th are received. I have forwarded Mr. B.'s policy. Mr. Tayloe's risk will be taken at the same rate as Mr. Bernard's, viz. 70 cts. on $8,000, p. $56. Policy, $1.
'Yours, respectfully,
'GEO. B. COALE, Secretary.'
When this letter was received by Minor, Tayloe was in Alabama, and Minor addressed to him the following letter, which he directed to Demopolis, Alabama, and which was sent from Demopolis to Macon, where Tayloe then was.
'Fredericksburg, December 2, 1844.
'This day I received from the secretary of the board of the Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore an answer to your application for insurance to the amount of $8,000 on the Mount Airy house; rate 70.

## 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
# Sylvester

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sylvester."
* 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.
* Sylvester, James Joseph
* Sylvester, Josuah
* Sylvester, Matthew
# Sydney Cup, 1899

This poem was published shortly before the Cup. Paterson's tip went the way of many tips -- the race was won by Diffidence, and Crosslake, the descendant of the famous racehorse Yattendon, came in in the middle of the field. Bobadil wasn't even a starter. — Warren Ham
Of course they say if this Bobadil starts He'll settle 'em all in a flash: For the pace he can go will be breaking their hearts, And he ends with the "Bobadil dash". But there's one in the race is a fance of mine Whenever the distance is far -- Crosslake! He's inbred to the Yattendon line, And we know what the Yattendons are.
His feet are his trouble: they're tender as gum! If only his feet are got straight, If the field were all Bobadils --let 'em all come So long as they carry the weight. For a three-year-old colt with nine-three on his back -- Well, he needs to be rather a star! And with seven stone ten we will trust the old black, For we know what the Yattendons are.
He is sired by Lochiel, which ensures that his pace Is enough, and a little to spare. But the blood that will tell at the end of the race Is the blood of the Yattendon mare. And this "Bobby" will find, when the whips are about, It's a very fast journey and far. And there's just the least doubt -- will he battle it out? Nut we know what the Yattendons are.
In the rest of the field there are some that can stay, And a few that can fly -- while they last. But the old black outsider will go all the way, And finish uncommonly fast. If his feet last him out to the end of the trip -- Bare-footed or shod with a bar -- If he once gets this Bobadil under the whip, Then he'll show what the Yattendons are.
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
# Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist

​ J. W. Childs Port$^t$J Walton Sculp$^t$.
SYLVESTER SOUND
THE
SOMNAMBULIST.
BY HENRY COCKTON.
LONDON: W. M. CLARK, 17, WARWICK-LANE, PATERNOSTER-ROW.
MDCCCXLIV.
London: Steam Press of W. M. Clark, Red Lion-court, Fleet-street.
CONTENTS.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Layout 2
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
# Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist/Chapter 1

SYLVESTER SOUND
THE
SOMNAMBULIST.
Chapter 1.
THE INTRODUCTION.
Among the ancient historians a practice prevailed which may be described thus: Whenever they wrote the lives of men, they explained, in limine, who those men were. This is in all their works manifest. They may have been right: they may have been wrong: it is not proposed to dive to any very great depth with the view of discovering the absolute necessity for the pursuit of this course: it is sufficient for the world to know that they held such explanation to be essential to the perfect knowledge of the very men whose characters they portrayed, and as the practice is extremely convenient, it may not, even in this age, be deemed incorrect—however admirable originality may in itself be—to follow their example, by explaining at once, who Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist was.
Assuming then the correctness of the course prescribed to be admitted, it now becomes proper to state that Sylvester Sound was the only son of Horatio Sound, M.D.; that the doctor's lady departed this life very soon after Sylvester's birth; that the doctor himself survived her several years; that a circumstance—of which the particulars will be dwelt upon anon—not only caused the loss of his practice, but eventually broke his heart; and that, up to the period of his death, Sylvester—for a reason which the doctor himself never explained—was educated by him and lived constantly with him.
Layout 2
# Syllabus of Errors

* related portals: Catholicism.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
The Syllabus of Errors is a document issued by the Holy See under Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1864, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, on the same day as the Pope's encyclical Quanta cura. It was very controversial in its time and remains so to this day, because it condemned concepts such as freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
English-language translations of Syllabus Errorum include:
* "The Syllabus of the Principal Errors of our Time" translated by Martin John Spalding (1865)
* "Syllabus of the Principal Errors of our Time" translated by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin (1875)
# Swearing In of the Honorable Jackie Speier, of California, As a Member of the House

* related portals: United States House of Representatives.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Swearing In of the Honorable Jackie Speier, of California, As a Member of the House. Congressional Record - United States House of Representatives. April 10, 2008. Page H2174-H2175. DOCID:cr10ap08-113. (available online)
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE JACKIE SPEIER, OF CALIFORNIA, AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER. Will the Representative-elect and the members of the California delegation present themselves in the well.
Ms. SPEIER appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations. You are now a Member of the 110th Congress.
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
# Swarts v. Hammer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 441
Swarts v. Hammer
Argued: April 20, 1904. --- Decided: May 16, 1904
The case involves the validity of taxes imposed upon property in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy.
The appellant was duly elected and qualified as trustee of the estate of Siegel-Hillman Dry Goods Company, which had been adjudged a bankrupt. The appellant, as such trustee, had in his hands and on deposit in the designated depository the sum of $68,320, belonging to the estate. The appellee, as collector of the revenue of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, filed before the referee a petition alleging state, school, and city taxes for the year 1901 had been regularly assessed against said sum on the first of June, 1900, and that a bill for said taxes, properly certified, had been delivered to him for collection, and prayed for an order directing the taxes to be paid. The trustee filed an answer denying the liability of the property to the taxes. After hearing, the referee made an order directing the appellant to pay to appellee the sum of $1,298.08, the amount of the tax bill for the year 1901, 'together with the accrued penalties and fees provided by laws.'
The order was affirmed by the district court as to the amount of taxes, but disapproved as to accrued penalties and fees. A decree was duly entered, which was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 56 C. C. A. 92, 120 Fed. 256.
The argument of appellant has taken somewhat wide range. The case, however, is in narrow compass. The question is not the extent of the power of Congress over the subject of bankruptcy, but what Congress intended by the act of 1898. [30 Stat. at L. 548, chap. 541, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3418.] By § 7 of that act the title to all of the property of the bankrupt not declared to be exempt is vested in the trustee. By the transfer to the trustee no mysterious or peculiar ownership or qualities are given to the property. It is dedicated, it is true, to the payment of the creditors of the bankrupt, but there is nothing in that to withdraw it from the necessity of protection by the state and municipality or which should exempt it from its obligations to either. If Congress has the power to declare otherwise, and wished to do so, the intention would be clearly expressed, not left to be collected or inferred from disputable considerations of convenience in administering the estate of the bankrupt. Though the opinion of the circuit court of appeals is brief, it is difficult to add anything to its conclusiveness. But, as showing the trend of judicial opinion, we may refer to Re Conhaim, 100 Fed. 268; Re Keller, 109 Fed. 131; Re Sims, 118 Fed. 356.
Decree 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
# Swearingen v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
161 U.S. 446
Swearingen v. United States
[Syllabus from pages 446-448 intentionally omitted]
J. D. McCleverty, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS, 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
# Swartwout v. Gihon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 110
Swartwout v. Gihon
THE facts in this case are sufficiently set forth in the following opinion.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Swayne Hoyt v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
300 U.S. 297
Swayne Hoyt v. United States
Argued: Feb. 11, 12, 1937. --- Decided: March 1, 1937
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
Messrs. Elisha Hanson and Eliot C. Lovett, both of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
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
# Swarts v. Hammer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 441
Swarts v. Hammer
Argued: April 20, 1904. --- Decided: May 16, 1904
Messrs. Lee Sale, Solomon L. Swarts, and Wolf & Cohen for appellant.
Messrs. Herbert R. Marlatt, George S. Johnson, Charles A. Houts, and Harry B. Hawes for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 441-443 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Swartwout v. Gihon/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 110
Swartwout v. Gihon
This case comes before the court upon a writ of error directed to the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York. The action was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff to recover back certain sums of money paid to him as duties on brown linens, imported into New York in 1836, of which port he was at that time the collector. Some of these duties were paid under protest in writing, and some without any written protest or notice, but evidence was offered for the purpose of showing that the defendants in error verbally notified the collector that the duties charged on all of these goods would be contested. The goods in question were unbleached linens, and had been charged with duty as colored; and the jury found a verdict against the collector for the amount claimed.
At the trial, the court instructed the jury that a written notice of the objections to pay the duty was not necessary, and that it was sufficient if a verbal notice was brought home to the collector; but that the jury must be satisfied that such notice was brought home to him. To this direction the plaintiff in error excepted; and it is upon this point only that the case comes before this court.
The only object of the notice was to warn the collector that the party meant to hold him personally responsible for the money, whether he paid it over or not. It was a question for the jury to decide whether notice was or was not given; and it could make no difference, for the purposes for which it was required, whether it was written or verbal. We think the charge of the court was clearly right, and the judgment is therefore 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
# Sturges v. Carter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
114 U.S. 511
Sturges v. Carter
C. H. Scribner, H. G. Riddle, H. E. Davis, and Jas. E. Padgett, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Jenner, for defendant in error.
WOODS, 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
# Sturges v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
117 U.S. 363
Sturges v. United States
Argued: March 29, 1886. ---
[Statement of Case from pages 363-365 intentionally omitted]
Thos. Harland, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Goode, for the United States.
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
# Sturges v. Crowninshield

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 (1819), dealt with the constitutionality of New York creating bankruptcy laws and retroactively applying those laws. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
17 U.S. 122
Sturges v. Crowninshield

## 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
# Sturges v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
117 U.S. 363
Sturges v. United States
Argued: March 29, 1886. ---
This judgment is reversed on the authority of Mason v. Sargent, 104 U.S. 689, and the cause remanded, with instructions to reverse the judgment of the district court, and to send the case back to that court for further proceedings according to law.

## 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