OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 216
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. United States
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

## 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
# Gridley v. Westbrook/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 503
Gridley v. Westbrook
This suit was commenced in the District Court of Jackson county, Iowa, by the appellees, under articles 2025 and 2026 of the code of Iowa, to quiet their title and possession to certain lands in that county against the impending and adverse claim of the appellants, the heirs at law of Sarah A. Blakely, deceased.
The appellants appeared, and answered the petition, and procured the removal of the cause to the District Court of the United States for Iowa, under the 12th section of the judiciary act of September, 1789. After the removal of the suit to the District Court, the appellants commenced a cross-suit, asserting therein their own title to the lands in controversy, and praying for a decree of delivery of the possession to them, and an account of the mesne profits. The original and cross-suit were 'consolidated' on the motion of the appellants, and were heard as one suit.
The proceedings in these causes seem to have been framed upon the course of practice prevailing under the code of Iowa; and we have found some difficulty in entertaining the suit, as not conforming to the mode of proceeding prescribed for courts of the United States in chancery proceedings; but as we are enabled to ascertain, from the pleadings and proofs, the matter in dispute between the parties, we shall proceed to adjudicate the questions they present.
The facts disclosed by the proofs show that William. B. Beebe, an insolvent debtor, in order to carry on business without interruption, made purchases and sales of property on his own account, in Iowa, but under the shelter of the name of Sarah A. Blakely, the mother of his wife, a resident of Missouri. To enable him to do so with facility, he procured from her powers of attorney, which conferred authority for that purpose.
The land described in the petition was purchased by Beebe with his own money, and the titles were made for his use to Mrs. Blakely. Subsequently he sold them to one of the parties to the cross-suit (Mrs. Wells) for a valuable consideration, and, as attorney in fact for Mrs. Blakely, executed to her a deed; and the appellees, Westbrook and Guager, claim as purchasers from this person.
At the time of the execution of the deed of Mrs. Blakely, and of her death, she was a feme covert. The appellants insist, that the conveyance to Mrs. Wells in the name of Mrs. Blakely is void, and that they are entitled to hold the lands as heirs at law.
We discover no material variation between the principles applicable in this cause and that of the same appellants and Wynant, which we have just decided. Upon the authority of that case, we determine that the decree of the District 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
# Gridley v. Westbrook

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 503
Gridley v. Westbrook
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa.
It arose out of the same circumstances nearly as the preceding case, as will be evident from the statement in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Grant for the appellants, and by Mr. Wilson for the appellees.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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
# Grief (Chekhov)

English-language translations of Горе include:
* Woe, translated by Robert Edward Crozier Long in The Kiss and Other Stories, 1908
* Grief, translated by Constance Garnett
# Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 216
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. United States
Amos Mathews and Robert J. Bernard, for appellant.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Raymond M. Zimmet, for appellees the United States and others.
John L. Arrington, Jr., for appellee Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Coach Lines.
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
# Gridley v. Wynant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 500
Gridley v. Wynant
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Grant for the appellants, and by Mr. Smith for the appellee.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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
# Hagner v. Musgrove

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Hagner versus Musgrove.
The plaintiff having had a verdict in the abscence of the defendant, and having agreed to withdraw it, and submit to a referrence, three persons, nominated by the Court, accordingly met. Upon entering into the case, the parties, who were present, began a warm altercation, which proving troublesome to the referrees, they ordered the disuptants to withdraw, and called the witnesses one after another, examining them separately out of the hearing of both plaintiff and defendant, and finally reported in favour of the former.
These facts being established, the report was set aside, on motion of the defendant’s counsel.
Levy for the plaintiff.—Lewis for the defendant.
# Hagner v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 427
Hagner v. United States
Argued: March 14, 1932. --- Decided: April 11, 1932
[Syllabus from 428 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William E. Leahy, William J. Hughes, Jr., and Lucien H. Van Doren, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D. Thaoher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
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
# Haggai (Bible)

Haggai is a book in the Bible.
    For commentaries and encyclopedia articles, see Haggai.
English-language translations of Chaggai include:
* Bible (Wycliffe)/Haggai (1380s)
* Bible (Tyndale)/Haggai (1526)
* Bible (Bishops')/Haggai (1568)
* Bible (Douay-Rheims)/Haggai (1610)
* Bible (Authorized Version)/Haggai (1611)
* Bible (King James)/Haggai (1769)
* Bible (American Standard)/Haggai (1901)
* Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)/Haggai (1917)
* Bible (Literal Standard Version)/Haggai (2020)
# Haggar Company v. Helvering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
308 U.S. 389
Haggar Company v. Helvering
Argued: Dec. 15, 1939. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1940
See 111 F.2d 144.
Messrs. Thomas M. Wilkins, of Washington, D.C., and Lloyd E. Elliott, of Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.
Miss Helen R. Carloss, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
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
# Graiméar na Gaedhilge/Part II Chapter I

PART II.—ETYMOLOGY.
36. There are nine parts of speech in Irish corresponding exactly to those in English.
CHAPTER I.
The Article.
37. In Irish there is only one article, an, which corresponds to the English definite article, "the."
There is no indefinite article, so that capall means either "horse" or "a horse."
38. In all cases of the singular number the article has the form an, except in the genitive feminine, when it becomes na.
39. The article an had formerly an initial s. This s reappears after the following prepositions, i, in, or ann, in; go, to; le, with; tré, through. Although this s really belongs to the article, still it is usually written as part of the preposition; as ins an leaḃar, in the book; leis an ḃfear, with the man.
INITIAL CHANGES PRODUCED BY THE ARTICLE
Singular.
40. (a) If a noun begins with an aspirable consonant (except d, t, and s), it is apirated by the article ​in the nominative and accusative feminine and in the genitive masculine, as an ḃó, the cow; an ḃean, the woman; mac an ḟir, (the) son of the man; ceann an ċapaill, the horse’s head (or the head of the horse).
(b) If a noun begins with s followed by a vowel, or by l, n, r, the s is replaced by t, in the nominative and accusative feminine and genitive masculine, and sometimes in the dative of both genders: an tsál, the heel; an tsúil, the eye; teaċ an tsagairt, the house of the priest; mac an tsaoir, the son of the artizan; do’n tsagart, to the priest; ar an tsléiḃ, on the mountain.
Strictly speaking, it is only in the dat. fem. that the s is replaced by t, but custom permits it in the masculine.
(c) If a noun begins with a vowel, the article prefixes t the nominative and accusative masculine, and h to the genitive feminine, as an t‑aṫair, the father; an t‑uisge, the water; an t‑eun, the bird; an t‑uan, the lamb; bárr na h‑uiḃe, the top of the egg; fuaċt na h‑aimsire, the coldness of the weather.
(d) When the noun begins with an eclipsable consonant (except d and t, the article generally eclipses when it is preceded by a preposition, as ar an gcnoc, on the hill; ó’n ḃfear, from the man. After the prepositions do and de aspiration takes place, not ​eclipsis, as ṫug sé an t‑airgead do’n ḟear, he gave the money to the man; cuid de’n ḟeur, some of the grass.
(e) No change is produced by the article in the singular if the noun begins with d, n, t, l, s (followed by a mute), or r. In Munster d and t are often eclipsed in the dative.
Plural.
(f) If a noun begins with an eclipsable consonant the article eclipses it in the genitive plural, as a ḃean na dtrí mbó, O woman of (the) three cows; Sliaḃ na mban, "the mountain of the women."
(g) If the noun begins with a vowel the article prefixes n to the genitive plural and h to the nom., the acc., and dative plural, as luaċ na n‑uḃ, the price of the eggs; na h‑asail, the asses; ó na h‑áitiḃ seo, from these places.
(h) The letter s is never replaced by t in the plural number under the influence of the article.
* ↑ The letters d, t, and s are aspirable in the singular, but not usually by the article.
* ↑ For the effects of gan and the article, see Syntax, par. 606 (b).
# History of West Australia/James Montgomery Speed

CR. JAS. MONTGOMERY SPEED.
* Photo byCR. JAMES M. SPEED, J.P., M.L.A.Greenham & Evans.
THE ranks of the Western Australian bar received an undeniable strengthening by the admission of a large number of the brothers of the wig and gown who elected to come from the other colonies and elsewhere to cast in their lot with this growing colony. Among those who came was Mr.James Montgomery Speed, who, besides obtaining mark in his profession, is on the fair way to make his influence forceful in public matters. James Montgomery Speed was born at Wanganui, New Zealand, in 1859. He was educated at Nelson College, in the Nelson Province, where he distinguished himself as a scholar, and later in the broader sphere of the New Zealand University he carried off several scholarships, and then took up the law as a profession. Young Speed became articled to one of the leading legal practitioners of Wellington—Mr. W. T. L. Travers. At his final examination he secured first place among the successful candidates. After his admission to the New Zealand bar, he practised at Auckland for some time, when he received a highly important mission, which meant considerable travel and the employment of the attributes of a diplomat. He was asked to proceed to Samoa, on behalf of an influential syndicate of Americans, to report on America's claims on that picturesque island. After investigating the matter thoroughly, Mr. Speed went to San Francisco, and laid the result of his labours before his clients, who were well satisfied with his exertions on their behalf Mr. Speed returned to Auckland, and resumed his practice there. Eventually he left the Pacific, and, arriving in Perth in 1892, he joined legal partnership with Mr. Lancelot de Hamel. These gentlemen remained ​together for over twelve months, when Mr. Speed started practice on his own account, and was alone for about three years. Recently he took Mr. Durston into partnership with him, as the practice he had acquired was rather too large for him to cope with single-handed. His many excellent legal qualifications have won for him an ever-expanding circle of clients, who have benefited by his legal knowledge.
In public matters Mr. Speed has always been most outspoken, both in the press and on the platform. He has broken many a lance with the champions of Protection, and in the columns of the papers of the day he has "written down" the food duties in forcible English, and never has he resorted to the custom of expressing views under the ambush of a nom de plume. Mr. Speed has several times been asked to stand for Parliament, but pressure of business has caused him to decline the honour. In June, 1897, he was elected as senior representative of the South Ward in the Perth City Council.
Mr. Speed is pleasantly intellectual, whether as philosopher, logician, or as the man of worldly wisdom.
# Hannegan v. Esquire

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 146
Hannegan v. Esquire
Argued: Jan. 11, 1946. --- Decided: Feb 4, 1946
Mr.Marvin C. Taylor, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Bruce Bromley, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Hanner v. DeMarcus/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Brennan
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 736
Hanner v. DeMarcus
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACK concur, dissenting.

## 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
# Hannewinkle v. Georgetown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 547
Hannewinkle v. Georgetown
APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Hannewinkle filed his bill against the corporation of the city of Georgetown and its collector of taxes, to enjoin them from selling certain real estate for a tax claimed by the corporation under a certain act of Congress, which made part of the city charter. The bill alleged that the corporation attempted to condemn to public use, and open and improve Stoddard Street in that city; that the complainant owned certain premises described on that street; that a part of the premises were condemned to public use, and his damages assessed at $3139; that the same jury which thus assessed his damages, assessed him also for benefits to the residue of his property arising from the same improvements in the sum of $3425, and attempted to make the assessment a lien and charge on the said residue, by and for which the same could be sold. This the bill alleged was without authority of law and countrary to the act of Congress under which the city professed to act. The bill prayed that the defendants might be restrained from selling the property. An answer was put in. The cause was brought to a hearing upon an agreed state of facts, and the bill dismissed with costs. From this decree of dismissal the defendant now appealed to this court.
Mr. Samuel Tyler, for the appellant; Mr. W. A. Cook, contra.
Mr. Justice HUNT 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
# Hanner v. DeMarcus

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 736
Hanner v. DeMarcus et ux.
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona
No. 497. Argued: March 28, 1968 --- Decided: April 29, 1968
102 Ariz. 105, 425 P. 2d 837, certiorari dismissed.
Philip M. Haggerty argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Raymond R. Wein.
N. Pike Johnson, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. On the brief was Robert John Walton.
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
# Hanner v. DeMarcus/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Brennan
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 736
Hanner v. DeMarcus
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, dissenting.
I agree with my Brother Douglas, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion, that the federal question respecting notice was raised and therefore that we have the duty to decide whether Endicott-Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, 266 U.S. 285, 45 S.Ct. 61, 69 L.Ed.2d 288, should be overruled. In my view the situation in this case is indistinguishable from that in Endicott-both involve money judgments and present the identical question whether actual notice to the judgment debtor of execution and judicial sale was required by procedural due process. In that circumstance the judgment before us cannot be reversed without overruling Endicott. Since the Court refuses to consider whether Endicott should be overruled, I see no alternative but to vote to affirm on its authority.

## 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
# Hanner v. Moulton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
138 U.S. 486
Hanner v. Moulton
J. D. Park, for appellants.
Sawnie Robertson, for appellees
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 547
Hannewinkle v. Georgetown
The action in this case cannot be sustained. It has been the settled law of the country for a great many years, that an injunction bill to restrain the collection of a tax, on the sole ground of the illegality of the tax, cannot be maintained. There must be an allegation of fraud; that it creates a cloud upon the title; that there is apprehension of multiplicity of suits, or some cause presenting a case of equity jurisdiction. This was decided as early as the days of Chancellor Kent, in Mooers v. Smedley, and has been so held from that time onward. The remedy was held to be at law by writ of certiorari or by action of trespass.
It has long been held, also, that there exists no cloud upon the title which justifies the interference of a court of equity, where the proceedings are void upon their face, that is, the same record which must be introduced to establish the title claimed, will show that there is no title.
The whole subject has been recently examined in this court in Dows v. The City of Chicago. The head note of the case is in these words: 'A suit in equity will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax on the sole ground that the tax is illegal. There must exist in addition, special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction, such as that the enforcement of the tax would lead to a multiplicity of suits or produce irreparable injury, or where the property is real estate, throw a cloud upon the title of the complainant.' The sole ground of the present bill is the illegality of the tax.
We are all of the opinion that the bill states no cause of action, and that it was properly dismissed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

## Notes

* ↑ 6 Johnson's Chancery, 28.
* ↑ Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 New York, 534; Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors Broome County, 25 New York, 312.
* ↑ 11 Wallace, 109.
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
# Grand Gulf Railroad v. Marshall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 165
Grand Gulf Railroad v. Marshall
THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred.
It was argued by Mr. Strawbridge, for the plaintiffs in error.
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
# Grand Chute v. Winegar at Law

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 355
Grand Chute v. Winegar at 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