OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# First National Bank of Princeton Illinois v. Charles E Littlefield/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 110
First National Bank of Princeton Illinois v. Charles E Littlefield
Argued: November 4, 1912. --- Decided: December 2, 1912
Albert O. Brown and others, members of a firm known as A. O. Brown & Company, stockbrokers in New York city, were adjudicated bankrupts. The National Bank of Princeton and four other claimants petitioned to have the receiver in bankruptcy return certain sums of money to which they asserted ownership, because the amounts claimed had been sent to the firm to buy shares of stock for account of the claimants, and the stock had never been delivered to them. The special master, to whom the matter was referred, reported in favor of the claimants. The district court, however, disapproved the conclusion of the master and rejected the claims. The circuit court of appeals reversed. 99 C. C. A. 345, 175 Fed. 769. It was held that as the stock bought with the moneys of the claimants and for their account belonged to them, they were entitled as owners, the stock having been wrongfully converted by the bankrupts, to take out of the bankrupt estate so much of the avails of their wrongfully converted stock as they might be able to trace into the hands of the receiver. Upon amended pleadings a further hearing was had before the special master, who reported against the claimants because it was found as a matter of fact that there was a failure to trace any of the proceeds of the converted stock into the hands of the receiver. The report of the master was confirmed by the district court (189 Fed. 432, 442), and the action of that court was in all respects affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (113 C. C. A. 348, 193 Fed. 24). This appeal was then taken, and the claim of the Princeton Bank has been specially presented, under an agreement that the decision as to that claim will govern as to the others.
All the contentions relied upon in various forms simply assert that the master and the two courts erred in their appreciation of the facts. But the burden of proof was upon the claimant to establish its ownership of the fund,-a burden which it cannot in reason be said was sustained in view of the concurrent adverse action of the master and the courts below. Indeed, as the settled rule is that the concurrent action of two courts upon questions of fact will not be disturbed except in a case of manifest error,-a condition which we are of the opinion after an examination of the record does not here obtain,-it follows that the judgment below must be and it is 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
# General Gas and Electric Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 530
GENERAL GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 492 and 493. Argued: March 10, 1939. --- Decided: April 3, 1939.
Miss Helen R. Carloss, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Mr. Maurice Bower Saul, of Philadelphia, Pa., for General Gas & Electric Co.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# General Import Export Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
286 U.S. 70
General Import Export Company v. United States
Argued: April 15, 1932. --- Decided: May 2, 1932
The steamship Sebastopol was seized by Coast Guard officers in the harbor of New York while carrying an unmanifested cargo of intoxicating liquors. The master of the vessel did not produce a manifest for the cargo when a manifest was demanded by the boarding officer. Thereafter a libel of information was filed by the government under sections 584 and 594 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (Act of Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 980, 982, 19 U.S.C., §§ 486, 498 (19 USCA §§ 486, 498)) for the enforcement of two liens, one of $500 for failing to produce a manifest and another for an amount equal to the value of the cargo for having on board merchandise not described in the manifest.
The District Court dismissed the libel on the ground that section 26 of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40) had established a system of forfeiture exclusive of any other. 47 F.(2d) 336. The Circuit Court of Appeals advanced the view that the suit was not strictly one for the forfeiture of the vessel, but one for the enforcement of money penalties charged upon the vessel by reason of the misconduct of the master. 56 F.(2d) 590. On this ground it distinguished its own decision in the case of the Ruth Mildred, announced at the same time, and gave judgment for the government.
For that reason, as well as for the broader reasons stated in General Motors Acceptance Corporation et al. v. United States, 286 U.S. 49, 52 S.C.t. 468, 76 L. Ed. -, and United States v. The Ruth Mildred, 286 U.S. 67, 52 S.C.t. 473, 76 L. Ed. -, decided herewith, the decree will 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
# General Insurance Company of America v. Northern Pacific Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
280 U.S. 72
General Insurance Company of America v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
Argued: Oct. 25, 1929. --- Decided: Nov 25, 1929
Messrs. Ralph S. Pierce and James B. Howe, both of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Mr. Dennis F. Lyons, of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# General Import Export Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
286 U.S. 70
General Import Export Company v. United States
Argued: April 15, 1932. --- Decided: May 2, 1932
Messrs. Milton R. Kroopf and Louis Halle, both of New York City, for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Young-quist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 71 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# General Gas and Electric Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 530
GENERAL GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 492 and 493. Argued: March 10, 1939. --- Decided: April 3, 1939.
These are companion cases to Nos. 486 and 487 Helvering v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 306 U.S. 522, 59 S.Ct. 634, 83 L.Ed. 957, and involve the same question. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that conveyances by subsidiaries to the taxpayer, consummated under the Act of April 29, 1874 (15 P.S.Pa. § 595), did not constitute mergers so as to authorize the taxpayer to take a deduction for unamortized bond discount and expense in respect of bonds issued by the subsidiaries prior to the conveyance.
For reasons given in Nos. 486 and 487 the judgments must be reversed. So ordered
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
# General History of Europe
## Contents

* Book I. The Ancient World
** Chapter I. Prehistoric Man
** Chapter II. Egyptian Civilization
** Chapter III. Western Asia: Babylonia and Assyria, The Persians, and the Hebrews
* Book II. The Greeks
** Chapter IV. The Coming of the Greeks—Their Early Achievements
** Chapter V. The Repulse of Persia and the Rise of the Athenian Empire
** Chapter VI Athens in the Age of Pericles
** Chapter VII. Continued Conflicts Among the Greek States; Art and Literature after Pericles
** Chapter VIII. Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age
* Book III. The Romans
** Chapter IX. The Western Mediterranean World and the Roman Conquest of Italy
** Chapter X. Rome and Carthage
** Chapter XI. Extension of Roman Dominion and Its Results
** Chapter XII. A Century of Revolution and the End of the Roman Republic (133-30 B.C.)
** Chapter XIII. The Roman Empire From Augustus to Marcus Aurelius
** Chapter XIV. A century of disorder and the Divisions of the Roman Empire
* Book IV. The Middle Ages
** Chapter XV. The Period of Invasions and the Work of the Christian Church
** Chapter XVI. Age of Disorder: Feudalism
** Chapter XVII. Popes, Emperors, and Princes in the Middle Ages
** Chapter XVIII. England and France in the Middle Ages
** Chapter XIX. The Crusades: Heresy and the Mendicant Orders
* Book V. Civilization of the Middle Ages
** Chapter XX. Medieval Life in Country and Town
** Chapter XXI. Books and Science in the Middle Ages
** Chapter XXII. England and France During the Hundred Years' War
** Chapter XXIII. Italy and the Renaissance
# Getting Married/The New Attack on Marriage

The answer to this question is an answer which everybody knows and nobody likes to give. What is driving our ministers of religion and statesmen to blurt it out at last is the plain fact that marriage is now beginning to depopulate the country with such alarming rapidity that we are forced to throw aside our modesty like people who, awakened by an alarm of fire, rush into the streets in their nightdresses or in no dresses at all. The fictitious Free Lover, who was supposed to attack marriage because it thwarted his inordinate affections and prevented him from making life a carnival, has vanished and given place to the very real, very strong, very austere avenger of outraged decency who declares that the licentiousness of marriage, now that it no longer recruits the race, is destroying it.
As usual, this change of front has not yet been noticed by our newspaper controversialists and by the suburban season-ticket holders whose minds the newspapers make. They still defend the citadel on the side on which nobody is attacking it, and leave its weakest front undefended.
The religious revolt against marriage is a very old one. Christianity began with a fierce attack on marriage; and to this day the celibacy of the Roman Catholic priesthood is a standing protest against its compatibility with the higher life. St. Paul's reluctant sanction of marriage; his personal protest that he countenanced it of necessity and against his own conviction; his contemptuous "better to marry than to burn" is only out of date in respect of his belief that the end of the world was at hand and that there was therefore no longer any population question. His instinctive recoil from its worst aspect as a slavery to pleasure which induces two people to accept slavery to one another has remained an active force in the world to this day, and is now stirring more uneasily than ever. We have more and more Pauline celibates whose objection to marriage is the intolerable indignity of being supposed to desire or live the married life as ordinarily conceived. Every thoughtful and observant minister of religion is troubled by the determination of his flock to regard marriage as a sanctuary for pleasure, seeing as he does that the known libertines of his parish are visibly suffering much less from intemperance than many of the married people who stigmatize them as monsters of vice.
# Getting Married/The Right to Motherhood

This system certainly shews a much higher development of social intelligence than our marriage system; but if it were physically possible to introduce it into human society it would be wrecked by an opposite and not less important revolt of women: that is, the revolt against compulsory barrenness. In this two classes of women are concerned: those who, though they have no desire for the presence or care of children, nevertheless feel that motherhood is an experience necessary to their complete psychical development and understanding of themselves and others, and those who, though unable to find or unwilling to entertain a husband, would like to occupy themselves with the rearing of children. My own experience of discussing this question leads me to believe that the one point on which all women are in furious secret rebellion against the existing law is the saddling of the right to a child with the obligation to become the servant of a man. Adoption, or the begging or buying or stealing of another woman's child, is no remedy: it does not provide the supreme experience of bearing the child. No political constitution will ever succeed or deserve to succeed unless it includes the recognition of an absolute right to sexual experience, and is untainted by the Pauline or romantic view of such experience as sinful in itself. And since this experience in its fullest sense must be carried in the case of women to the point of childbearing, it can only be reconciled with the acceptance of marriage with the child's father by legalizing polygyny, because there are more adult women in the country than men. Now though polygyny prevails throughout the greater part of the British Empire, and is as practicable here as in India, there is a good deal to be said against it, and still more to be felt. However, let us put our feelings aside for a moment, and consider the question politically.
# Getting Married/The Pathology of Marriage

I shall also say as little as possible of the pathology of marriage and its kerbstone breakwater. Only, as there seems to be no bottom to the abyss of public ignorance on the subject I am compelled to warn my readers that marriage has a pathology and even a criminology. But they are both so frightful that they have been dealt with not only in such treatises as those of Havelock Ellis, Fournier, Duclaux, and many German writers, but in such comparatively popular works as The Heavenly Twins by Sarah Grand, and several of the plays of Brieux: notably Les Avaríes, Les Trois Filles de M Dupont and Maternité. I purposely pass them by quickly, not only because attention has already been called to them by these devoted writers, but because my mission is not to deal with obvious horrors, but to open the eyes of normal respectable men to evils which are escaping their consideration.
As to the evils of disease and contagion, our consciences are sound enough: what is wrong with us is ignorance of the facts. No doubt this is a very formidable Ignorance in a country where the first cry of the soul is "Dont tell me: I dont want to know," and where frantic denials and furious suppressions indicate everywhere the cowardice and want of faith which conceives life as something too terrible to be faced. In this particular case "I dont want to know" takes a righteous air, and becomes "I dont want to know anything about the diseases which are the just punishment of wretches who should not be mentioned in my presence or in any book that is intended for family reading." Wicked and foolish as the spirit of this attitude is, the practice of it is so easy and lazy and uppish that it is very common. But its cry is drowned by a louder and more sincere one. We who do not want to know also do not want to go blind, to go mad, to be disfigured, to be barren, to become pestiferous, or to see such things happening to our children. We learn, at last, that the majority of the victims are not the people of whom we so glibly say "Serve them right," but quite innocent children and innocent parents, smitten by a contagion which, no matter in what vice it may or may not have originated, con- taminates the innocent and the guilty alike once it is launched exactly as any other contagious disease does; that indeed it often hits the innocent and misses the guilty because the guilty know the danger and take elaborate precautions against it, whilst the innocent, who have been either carefully kept from any knowledge of their danger, or erroneously led to believe that contagion is possible through misconduct only, run into danger blindfold. Once knock this fact into people's minds, and their self-righteous indifference and in- tolerance soon change into lively concern for themselves and their families.
# Getting Married/The Question of Population

First, it will have to make up its mind as to how many people we want in the country. If we want less than at present, we must ascertain how many less; and if we allow the reduction to be made by the continued operation of the present sterilization of marriage, we must settle how the process is to be stopped when it has gone far enough. But if we desire to maintain the population at its present figure, or to increase it, we must take immediate steps to induce people of moderate means to marry earlier and to have more children. There is less urgency in the case of the very poor and the very rich. They breed recklessly: the rich because they can afford it, and the poor because they cannot afford the precautions by which the artisans and the middle classes avoid big families. Nevertheless the population declines, because the high birth rate of the very poor is counterbalanced by a huge infantile-mortality in the slums, whilst the very rich are also the very few, and are becoming sterilized by the spreading revolt of their women against excessive childbearing--sometimes against any childbearing.
This last cause is important. It cannot be removed by any economic readjustment. If every family were provided with 10,000 pounds a year tomorrow, women would still refuse more and more to continue bearing children until they are exhausted whilst numbers of others are bearing no children at all. Even if every woman bearing and rearing a valuable child received a handsome series of payments, thereby making motherhood a real profession as it ought to be, the number of women able or willing to give more of their lives to gestation and nursing than three or four children would cost them might not be very large if the advance in social organization and conscience indicated by such payments involved also the opening up of other means of livelihood to women. And it must be remembered that urban civilization itself, insofar as it is a method of evolution (and when it is not this, it is simply a nuisance), is a sterilizing process as far as numbers go. It is harder to keep up the supply of elephants than of sparrows and rabbits; and for the same reason it will be harder to keep up the supply of highly cultivated men and women than it now is of agricultural laborers. Bees get out of this difficulty by a special system of feeding which enables a queen bee to produce 4,000 eggs a day whilst the other females lose their sex altogether and become workers supporting the males in luxury and idleness until the queen has found her mate, when the queen kills him and the quondam females kill all the rest (such at least are the accounts given by romantic naturalists of the matter).
# Getting Married/Too Much of a Good Thing

We must be reasonable in our domestic ideals. I do not think that life at a public school is altogether good for a boy any more than barrack life is altogether good for a soldier. But neither is home life altogether good. Such good as it does, I should say, is due to its freedom from the very atmosphere it professes to supply. That atmosphere is usually described as an atmosphere of love; and this definition should be sufficient to put any sane person on guard against it. The people who talk and write as if the highest attainable state is that of a family stewing in love continuously from the cradle to the grave, can hardly have given five minutes serious consideration to so outrageous a proposition. They cannot have even made up their minds as to what they mean by love; for when they expatiate on their thesis they are sometimes talking about kindness, and sometimes about mere appetite. In either sense they are equally far from the realities of life. No healthy man or animal is occupied with love in any sense for more than a very small fraction indeed of the time he devotes to business and to recreations wholly unconnected with love. A wife entirely preoccupied with her affection for her husband, a mother entirely preoccupied with her affection for her children, may be all very well in a book (for people who like that kind of book); but in actual life she is a nuisance. Husbands may escape from her when their business compels them to be away from home all day; but young children may be, and quite often are, killed by her cuddling and coddling and doctoring and preaching: above all, by her continuous attempts to excite precocious sentimentality, a practice as objectionable, and possibly as mischievous, as the worst tricks of the worst nursemaids.
# Getting Married/The Male Revolt Against Polygyny

Experience shews that women do not object to polygyny when it is customary: on the contrary, they are its most ardent supporters. The reason is obvious. The question, as it presents itself in practice to a woman, is whether it is better to have, say, a whole share in a tenth-rate man or a tenth share in a first-rate man. Substitute the word Income for the word Man, and you will have the question as it presents itself economically to the dependent woman. The woman whose instincts are maternal, who desires superior children more than anything else, never hesitates. She would take a thousandth share, if necessary, in a husband who was a man in a thousand, rather than have some comparatively weedy weakling all to herself. It is the comparatively weedy weakling, left mateless by polygyny, who objects. Thus, it was not the women of Salt Lake City nor even of America who attacked Mormon polygyny. It was the men. And very naturally. On the other hand, women object to polyandry, because polyandry enables the best women to monopolize all the men, just as polygyny enables the best men to monopolize all the women. That is why all our ordinary men and women are unanimous in defence of monogamy, the men because it excludes polygyny, and the women because it excludes polyandry. The women, left to themselves, would tolerate polygyny. The men, left to themselves, would tolerate polyandry. But polygyny would condemn a great many men, and polyandry a great many women, to the celibacy of neglect. Hence the resistance any attempt to establish unlimited polygyny always provokes, not from the best people, but from the mediocrities and the inferiors. If we could get rid of our inferiors and screw up our average quality until mediocrity ceased to be a reproach, thus making every man reasonably eligible as a father and every woman reasonably desirable as a mother, polygyny and polyandry would immediately fall into sincere disrepute, because monogamy is so much more convenient and economical that nobody would want to share a husband or a wife if he (or she) could have a sufficiently good one all to himself (or herself). Thus it appears that it is the scarcity of husbands or wives of high quality that leads woman to polygyny and men to polyandry, and that if this scarcity were cured, monogamy, in the sense of having only one husband or wife at a time (facilities for changing are another matter), would be found satisfactory.