OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/United States/Crawford, William Harris

See also William Harris Crawford on Wikipedia; the 11th edition; and the disclaimer. This appears in a biographical appendix of Section I (History and Constitution) of the United States article. The section was written by Alexander Johnston.
​Crawford, William Harris, American statesman, was born in Amherst county, Va., Feb. 24, 1772, but removed to Georgia while still a boy. He was admitted to the bar, served in the State legislature, 1803-7, in the United States senate, 1807-13, as minister to France, 1813-15, as secretary of war, 1815-16, and as secretary of the treasury, 1816-25. He was one of the leading aspirants to the presidency in 1816, but Monroe obtained the nomination by a small majority. As the end of Monroe's second term approached, it was thought that Crawford would certainly be his successor. In 1823 he was stricken with paralysis; but his friends endeavoured to conceal his condition, and pressed him for the caucus nomination in 1824. He obtained it, but it did him little service. Indeed, the struggle really put an end to the Congressional caucus as a nominating body. On his defeat he retired from national politics, serving as State judge in his own State from 1827 until he died at Elberton, Ga., Sept. 15, 1834. See J. B. Cobb's Miscellanies, p. 131.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/United States/Garfield, James Abram

See also James A. Garfield on Wikipedia; the 11th edition; and the disclaimer. This appears in a biographical appendix of Section I (History and Constitution) of the United States article. The section was written by Alexander Johnston.
​Garfield, James Abram (1831-1881), president of the United States in 1881, was born at Orange, O., Nov. 19. 1831. His father died in 1833, leaving Garfield's mother to support four children, of whom the future president was the youngest. He learned the trade of a carpenter, earning some little additional money by working as a wood-chopper and as a driver on the canal. At the age of eighteen, he entered a village seminary, working at his trade and at odd jobs for his own support. After preparing himself for college, he carried himself in like manner through Williams College, graduating in 1856. He then became a professor in, and, after one year, president of, Hiram College, O., where he remained until 1861. During this period he studied law, and was admitted to the bar. He had also become a recognized leader of the Republican party of the State, being elected to the State senate for 1860-61. Entering the army as colonel of an Ohio regiment in 1861, he served in Kentucky and Tennessee, soon becoming brigadier-general and chief of staff to General Rosecrans. At Chickamauga he particularly distinguished himself, riding to Thomas's head-quarters after the retreat of the rest of the army, and taking part in the gallant stand made by “the Rock of Chickamauga.” For his services he was promoted to the rank of major-general. He resigned in December 1863, to take his seat in the house of representatives, to which he had been elected by his district in northern Ohio. This seat he never really left. He was re-elected steadily for the remainder of his life, his last term closing with the date of his inauguration as president. Just before this last event in his career, he was elected United States senator by the legislature of Ohio, but never took his seat. From his entrance to Congress in 1863 he was one of the most prominent Republican members; and in 1875, when the Republicans became for the first time since 1860 a minority in the lower House, he became their recognized leader there. In the Republican convention of 1880 he was ultimately nominated by 399 votes out of 756, and in November he was elected by an electoral vote of 214 to 155 for Hancock. He had always protested against the system which made the advice of administration senators the controlling factor in appointments to office; and yet, from the moment of his inauguration, he found himself entangled in a conflict about appointments with the senators from New York. In the midst of the newspaper excitement on this subject, a disappointed office-seeker shot the president in the Baltimore and Potomac railway station, July 2, 1881. After lingering through a Washington summer, he was removed (Sept. 6) to Long Branch, where he died on Sept. 19.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/United States/Burnside, Ambrose Everett

See also Ambrose Burnside on Wikipedia; the 11th edition; and the disclaimer. This appears in a biographical appendix of Section I (History and Constitution) of the United States article. The section was written by Alexander Johnston.
​Burnside, Ambrose Everett (1824-1881), general in the Federal army, was born at Liberty, Ind., May 23, 1824. After graduating at West Point in 1847, he served in the Mexican war and on frontier duty until 1853, when he resigned. For five years he was engaged in the manufacture of fire arms in Rhode Island, and for the next three years in the management of the Illinois Central Railway Company. He entered the civil war as colonel of Rhode Island volunteers, was given command of the land forces operating on the North Carolina coast, at Roanoke Island and elsewhere, and as major-general commanded the ninth corps of the army of the Potomac in the Antietam campaign. His management of the left wing in the final battle has been severely criticized by M‘Clellan, on the ground of his slowness. When M‘Clellan was relieved of the command of the army in November 1862, Burnside was made his successor. He undertook to follow the direct road to Richmond, across the Rappahannock and through Fredericksburgh. He had hardly reached Falmouth, opposite Fredericksburgh, when Lee had begun his lines of defence on the hills behind Fredericksburgh. Burnside's army crossed the river Dec. 10-11, and Lee made the assault December 13. Franklin on the left broke through the Confederate lines, but could not hold his ground; Sumner and Hooker led their men to the most dreadful slaughter of the war. On the night of the 15th of December the Union forces were withdrawn across the river, and Burnside resigned his command late in the following month, being succeeded by Hooker. Burnside served in the west during the year 1863, and commanded the ninth corps under Grant during the final Virginia campaigns. Re-entering civil life, he served as governor of Rhode Island, 1866-69, and as United States senator, from 1875 until his death in Rhode Island, September 13, 1881.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/United States/Hendricks, Thomas Andrews

See also Thomas A. Hendricks on Wikipedia; the 11th edition; and the disclaimer. This appears in a biographical appendix of Section I (History and Constitution) of the United States article. The section was written by Alexander Johnston.
​Hendricks, Thomas Andrews (1819-1885), vice-president of the United States in 1885, was born in Muskingum county, O., Sept. 7, 1819. He removed with his father to Shelby county, Ind., in 1822, graduated at Hanover College in 1841, and was admitted to the bar in 1843. He was a member of the State legislature in 1848-49, a Democratic member of the house of representatives, 1851-55, and commissioner of the land office, 1855-59. He served as United States senator, 1863-69, and as governor of Indiana, 1873-77. In 1876 he was nominated for the office of vice-president by the Democrats, but was defeated. In 1876, 1880, and 1884 he was a prominent candidate for the nomination for the presidency; and in 1884, when Cleveland was nominated, he consented to take the nomination for the vice-presidency, and was elected. He died at Indianapolis, Ind., Nov. 25, 1885.
# Ex Parte Morris and Johnson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 605
Ex Parte Morris and Johnson
THIS was a petition presented by Mr. P. Phillips, in behalf of Morris and Johnson, for a writ of mandamus against Richard Busteed, judge of the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the facts, and 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
# Ex Parte New York (256 U.S. 503)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 503
Ex Parte New York (256 U.S. 503)
Argued: Dec. 14, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1921
Mr. Edward G. Griffin, of Albany, N. Y., for petitioners.
Mr. Irving W. Cole, of Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 504-508 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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
# Ex Parte Mason

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 696
Ex Parte Mason
PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus and a certiorari.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. James M. Lyddy for the petitioner.
Mr. Asa Bird Gardner, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ex Parte Perry/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 183
Ex Parte Perry
We cannot by mandamus correct the judicial errors committed by an inferior court in the progress of a cause. Ex parte Schwab, 98 U.S. 240. We can in this way, in a proper case, compel an inferior court to act, but cannot control its decisions while acting. In the present case it appears that the Circuit Court has acted on the motion of the petitioner, and denied him what he asked. The object of this proceeding is to obtain from us an order requiring that court to reverse its former decision and grant the relief it has once refused. That is the office of a writ of error or an appeal, and not of a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Flippin, 94 U.S. 248; Ex parte Loring, id. 418. Neither is the case changed because the appropriate remedy may involve an inconvenient delay. In Ex parte Whitney (13 Pet. 404), it was held that a writ of mandamus ought not to be used to correct orders made by a judge in the exercise of his authority, even though such orders 'may seem to bear harshly or oppressively upon the party' complaining.
Mandamus refused.

## 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
# Ex Parte New York (256 U.S. 490)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 490
Ex Parte New York (256 U.S. 490)
Argued: Dec. 13 and 14, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1921
Mr. Edward G. Griffin, of Albany, N. Y., for petitioners.
Mr. Ellis H. Gidley, of Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 491-494 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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
# Ex Parte Railway Company (103 U.S. 794)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 794
Ex Parte Railway Company
This motion is denied, 1, because it is an attempt to use the writ of mandamus as a writ of error to bring here for review the judgment of the Circuit Court upon a plea to the jurisdiction filed in the suit; and, 2, because if a writ of mandamus could be used for such a purpose the judgment below was clearly right. Under sect. 739 of the Revised Statutes, no civil suit, not local in its nature, can be brought in the Circuit Court of the United States, against an inhabitant of the United States, by original process, in any other State than that of which he is an inhabitant, or in which he is found at the time of serving the writ. It is conceded that the person against whom this suit was brought in the Circuit Court was an inhabitant of the State of Massachusetts, and was not found in or served with process in Iowa. Clearly, then, he was not suable in the Circuit Court of the District of Iowa, and unless he could be sued no attachment could issue from that court against his property. An attachment is but an incident to a suit, and unless the suit can be maintained the attachment must fall. The act of June 4, 1880, c. 120, pr oviding the times and places of holding the Circuit Court of the United States in the District of Iowa and for other purposes' (21 Stat. 155), divides that district into four divisions, and requires suits against an inhabitant of the district to be brought in the division in which he resides. The provision of the second section, that, 'where the defendant is not a resident of the district, suit may be brought in any division where property or the defendant is found,' applies only to suits which may be properly brought in the district against a non-resident. Such a suit, if not local, must be in the division where the defendant is found when served with process; if local, in the division where the property, which is the subject-matter or the action, is situated. There is not manifested anywhere in this act an intention of repealing sect. 739, so far as it affects the Iowa district.
Motion denied.

## 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
# Ex Parte Poultneys

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
37 U.S. 472
Ex Parte Poultneys
ON a motion, by Mr. Crittenden, for a rule on the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for a rule to show cause why a mandamus, in the nature of a writ of procedendo, should not issue, &c.
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
# Ex Parte Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 711
Ex Parte Railway Company
PETITION for mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. Roscoe Conkling and Mr. Samuel Shellabarger for the petitioner, and by Mr. Sidney Bartlett and Mr. George O. Shattuck, 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
# Ex Parte Reed

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 13
Ex Parte Reed

## 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
# Epitaphs translated from Chiabrera

A collection of six to ten translations of epitaphs. These translations were originally published separately, but are occasionally published as a single unit.
# Epithalamium (Roe)

Two knights set forth to fare a-field,
 And both were blithe and gay,
Quoth one: Now I will bear the shield,
 And the sword shall play.
So all the day they rode away  All through the foeman’s land;
But none could’pferce that perfect shield  And none the sword withstand.
But I mistrust that never knights  Would be so brave for fray If both essayed to bear the shield,  Or both the sword to play.
Their knightly names who fared a-field;  Albert the sword did play, And for the one who bore the shield,
 Her husband called her May.
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
# Epitaphs on John Combe

John Combe was a wealthy businessman and landowner in Stratford-upon-Avon who was a friend of William Shakespeare. He died in 1614. These two epitaphs have both been ascribed to Shakespeare. The first is said to have been a joke, composed while Combe was still alive as a satirical comment on his money-lending at 10% interest (the legal maximum at the time). It may have been based on a similar mock-epitaph on a usurer published in 1608. It is attributed to Shakespeare in several manuscripts, the earliest of which dates from 1634. The second epitaph, composed after Combe's death, is supposed to have been attached his grave at some point, but is no longer present. It refers to his bequest to the poor in his will. It is attributed to Shakespeare in only one manuscript.
Epitaph 1 Ten in the hundred here lies engraved; A hundred to ten his soul is not saved. If anyone asks who lies in this tomb, "O ho", quoth the devil, "'tis my John Combe".
Epitaph 2 Howe'er he lived judge not John Combe shall never be forgot While poor hath memory, for he did gather, To make the poor his issue; he, their father, As record of his tilth and seed Did crown him in his latter deed.
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
# Epitome of Roman History
## Contents

* Preface
* Book 1 (Watson: 1.1 - 3.12)
* Book 2 (Watson: 3.13 - 4.12)
# Ex parte Flippin/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 348
Ex parte Flippin
Ordinarily, this court will not do more than compel the Circuit Court to act, and render some judgment, in a case of which it has improperly refused to take jurisdiction. Railroad Company v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507; Insurance Company v. Comstock, 16 id. 270.
While a mandamus will not lie to control the judicial discretion of the Circuit Court, by dictating what judgment it shall render, it is the appropriate means of preventing the execution of a writ sued out by order of an inferior court against persons not parties to the proceeding.
Mr. William M. Randolp , contra.
The order of the Circuit Court, refusing to quash a writ in execution of a judgment or a decree which is final, is not subject to revision or reversal by mandamus by any other court. Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152; Ex parte De Groot, 6 id. 497; United States v. Addison, 22 How. 174.
The discretion of the court below was invoked and exercised, and no other court has authority to supervise its action. High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, sects. 156, 176, and the cases cited; Wylie v. Cox, 14 How. 1; Connor v. Peugh, 18 id. 394; Warren v. Norton, 20 id. 448; The Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. 298; Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver, id. 575.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
The writ of which the petitioners complained was one of execution to carry into effect the judgment in the original suit for the mandamus. 'The jurisdiction of a court is not exhausted by the rendition of its judgment, but continues until the judgment is satisfied.' Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 23. 'Process subsequent to judgment is as essential to jurisdiction as process anterior to judgment, else the judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate to the purposes for which it was conferred by the Constitution.' Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 187. But if the court has jurisdiction to issue process, it has necessarily jurisdiction to decide as to its appropriate form. Here the process has been issued; and the court, upon motion, has decided that it was good in form, and ought not to be quashed. Of this decision the petitioners complain, and seek to have it reversed. This we cannot do by mandamus. Under that form of proceeding we may compel an inferior court to decide upon a matter within its jurisdiction and pending before it for judicial determination, but we cannot control its decision. Neither can we in that way compel the inferior court to reverse a decision which it has made in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction. That is the office of a writ of error or an appeal, in cases to which such proceeding applies, but not of a writ of mandamus. If there is any thing in the case of McCargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555, to the contrary of this, it is disapproved.
Petition denied.

## 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
# Ex parte Fonda/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
117 U.S. 516
Ex parte Fonda
Argued: April 5, 1886. ---
This motion is denied on the authority of Ex parte Royall, ante, 734, 742. No reason is suggested why the supreme court of the state may not review the judgment of the circuit court of the county upon the question which is raised as to the application of the statute, under which the conviction has been had, to embezzlements by the servants and clerks of national banks, nor why it should not be permitted to do so without interference by the courts of the United States. The question appears to be one which, if properly presented by the record, may be reviewed in this court after a decision by the supreme court adverse to the petitioner. The case, as made by the motion papers, is not one which, under the principles settled in Royall's Case, requires this court to act in advance of the orderly course of proceeding for a review of the judgment by writ of error.

## 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
# Ex parte First National Bank of Dexter New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
228 U.S. 516
Ex parte First National Bank of Dexter New York
Argued: May 5, 1913. --- Decided: March 11, 1913
Messrs. Charles L. Frailey and Augustus S. Worthington for petitioner, in No. 11, Original.
Mr. William W. Millan for petitioner in No. 12, Original.
Mr. J. J. Darlington for respondents.
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
# Ex parte Frasch

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 566
Ex parte Frasch
Argued: December 18, 21, 1903. --- Decided: February 23, 1904
Mr. Charles J. Hedrick for petitioner.
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds and Mr. John M. Coit for respondents.
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