OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Northern Antiquities/Chapter 10

CHAPTER X.
Of the Maritime Expeditions of the ancient Danes.
HOW formidable soever the ancient Scandinavians were by land to most of the inhabitants of Europe, it must yet be allowed that their maritime expeditions occasioned still more destructive ravages and greater terror. We cannot read the history of the eighth, the ninth and tenth centuries, without observing with surprize, the sea covered with their vessels, and from one end of Europe to the other, the coasts of those countries, now the most powerful, a prey to their depredations. During the space of two hundred years, they almost incessantly ravaged England, and frequently subdued it. They often invaded Scotland and Ireland, and made incursions on the coasts of Livonia, Courland and Pomerania. Already feared, before the time of Charlemagne, they became ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/321 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/322 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/323 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/324 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/325 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/326 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/327 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/328 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/329 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/330 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/331 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/332 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/333 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/334 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/335 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/336 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/337 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/338 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/339 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/340 ​Page:Northern Antiquities 1.djvu/341 ​the same colours. Such were Harold Harfagre, Olave Tryggueson, Magnus king of Norway, Canute the Great, &c. men born with truly heroic qualities, which they alas! degraded by injustice and inhumanity: but who wanted only another age and another education to render them most accomplished persons.
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
# Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District for Summit County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 74
Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District for Summit County
Argued: Feb. 27, 28, 1930. --- Decided: March 12, 1930
[Syllabus from pages 74-76 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frederick A. Henry and Luther Day, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 392
Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach
Argued: April 18, 19, 1927. --- Decided: May 16, 1927
Mr. George S. Hawke, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. D. Ellis, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant in error.
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
# Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 565
Ohio ex rel Davis v. Hildebrant
Argued: May 22, 1916. --- Decided: June 12, 1916
Messrs. Sherman T. McPherson and J. Warren Keifer for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edward C. Turner, Attorney General of Ohio, and Messrs. Edmond H. Moore and Timothy S. Hogan for defendants in error.
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
# Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price (360 U.S. 246)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 246
Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price
Argued: June 8, 1959. ---
On Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Mr. J. Harvey Crow, for appellant.
Messrs. Charles S. Rhyne and Joseph P. Duffy, for appellee.
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
# Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price (360 U.S. 246)
* Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price (364 U.S. 263)
# Of Love (Coates)

"Of Love the gods require no task"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1906), "Of Love" in Harper's Bazar (October 1906).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1909), "Of Love" in Lyrics of Life (1909).
# Of Life to own—

Of Life to own — From Life to draw — But never tough the reservoir —
# Of Love

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Of Love."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Of Love" by Florence Earle Coates
* "Of Love" by Robert Herrick
# Of Nicolette

Published in the 1915 Harvard Advocate, and later in the author's 1923 compendium Tulips and Chimneys
dreaming in marble all the castle lay like some gigantic ghost-flower born of night blossoming in white towers to the moon, soft sighed the passionate darkness to the tune of tiny troubadours,and(phantom-white) dumb-blooming boughs let fall their glorious snows and the unearthly sweetness of a rose swam upward from the troubled heart of May;
a Winged Passion woke and one by one there fell upon the night,like angel's tears, the syllables of that mysterious prayer, and as an opening lily drowsy-fair (when from her couch of poppy petals peers the sleepy morning)gently draws apart her curtains,and lays bare her trembling heart, with beads of dew made jewels by the sun,
so one high shining tower(which as a glass turned light to flame and blazed with snowy fire) unfolding,gave the moon a nymphlike face, a form whose snowy symmetry of grace haunted the limbs as music haunts the lyre, a creature of white hands,who letting fall a thread of lustre from the castle wall glided,a drop of radiance,to the grass-
shunning the sudden moonbeam's treacherous snare she sought the harbouring dark,and(catching up her delicate silk)all white,with shining feet, went forth into the dew:right wildly beat her heart at every kiss of daisy-cup, and from her cheek the beauteous colour went with every bough that reverently bent to touch the yellow wonder of her hair.
# Oxenberg v. Alaska

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 56
Oxenberg v. Alaska
Lyle L. Iversen, for appellant.
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
# Oxenberg v. Alaska/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 56
Oxenberg v. Alaska
The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is 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
# Oxford Book of English Verse

Anthology of English poetry that had a very substantial influence on popular taste and perception of poetry for at least a generation. First published 1900.
* Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900 (1931)
* Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918 (1940)
# Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900/A Divine Rapture

E'EN like two little bank-dividing brooks, That wash the pebbles with their wanton streams, And having ranged and search'd a thousand nooks, Meet both at length in silver-breasted Thames, Where in a greater current they conjoin: So I my Best-Belovèd's am; so He is mine.
E'en so we met; and after long pursuit, E'en so we joined; we both became entire; No need for either to renew a suit, For I was flax, and He was flames of fire: Our firm-united souls did more than twine; So I my Best-belovèd's am; so He is mine.
If all those glittering Monarchs, that command The servile quarters of this earthly ball, Should tender in exchange their shares of land, I would not change my fortunes for them all: Their wealth is but a counter to my coin: The world's but theirs; but my Belovèd's mine.
Layout 2
# Owings v. Tiernan's Lessee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 447
Owings v. Tiernan's Lessee

## 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
# Ownbey v. Morgan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 94
Ownbey v. Morgan
Argued: Nov. 18, 1920. --- Decided: April 11, 1921
Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 94-97 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Willard Saulsbury, of Wilmington, Del., and Harlan F. Stone, of New York City, for defendants in error.
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
# Owings v. Tiernan's Lessee/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 447
Owings v. Tiernan's Lessee
IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.
Mr Underwood, counsel for the defendant in error in this cause, having filed and read in open court certified copies of the writ of error, citation and appeal bond in this case, and the judgment of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, rendered in said cause; and having stated that the plaintiffs in error had failed to have their transcript of the record of said cause filed with the clerk, and their cause placed upon the calendar of this court according to the rules thereof; now moved the court to have said writ of error docketed and dismissed in pursuance of the thirtieth rule of the court: which motion was opposed by Messrs Loughborough and Crittenden, counsel for the plaintiffs in error; who stated that the transcript of the record of the cause had been lodged with the clerk of this court the 24th of October 1835; who refused to file the record or docket the cause until the plaintiffs in error had given the usual fee bond, under and in pursuance of the thirty-seventh rule of this court, of January term 1831; and that at the same time the clerk gave Mr Loughborough, counsel as aforesaid, a blank fee bond, which the plaintiffs in error had not executed, supposing that they had done all that was required by law of them to do: and the said counsel for the plaintiffs in error moved the court to order said transcript to be filed and the cause to be docketed. On consideration whereof, and after mature deliberation thereupon, it was ordered by the court, that the motion of Mr Underwood to docket and dismiss be overruled. 'And it is further considered and ordered by the court, that the motion of Messrs Loughborough and Crittenden to have the transcript filed and the cause docketed without the usual fee bond, be, and the same is hereby overruled. And it is further now here ordered by the court, that upon the plaintiffs in error giving to the clerk the usual fee bond, he, the clerk, shall file the transcript and docket the cause. And it is further now here ordered by the court, that if the plaintiffs in error shall fail to give to the clerk of this court the usual fee bond required by the thirty-seventh rule of this court, of January term 1831, on or before the 1st day of March next ensuing this date, that then and in that case the writ of error in this cause shall be docketed and dismissed.'

## 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
# Norton v. Whiteside

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 144
Norton v. Whiteside
Argued: November 4 and 5, 1915. --- Decided: November 29, 1915
Messrs. Jed L. Washburn, William D. Bailey, Oscar Mitchell, and Albert C. Gil lette for appellant.
Messrs. Luther C. Harris, Alfred Jaques, and Theodore T. Hudson for Robert B. Whiteside.
Messrs. Daniel G. Cash and John B. Richards, Jr., for Andrew J. Tallas.
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
# Nortz v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 317
Nortz v. United States
Argued: Jan. 10, 1935. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1935
Messrs. Otto C. Sommerich and Raymond T. Heilpern, both of New York City, for Nortz.
The Attorney General and Mr. Angus D. MacLean, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 318-322 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# Norton v. Switzer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 355
Norton v. Switzer
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
Switzer brought suit against Mary Hein and John Hein in the Second Judicial District Court for the parish of Jefferson, which, by consent of parties, was transferred to the Fifth District Court of the parish of Orleans. During its pendency, he suggested that since the institution thereof the defendants had taken the benefit of the bankrupt law, and that Emory E. Norton had been appointed and qualified as their assignee. The court ordered that the latter, in his capacity as such assignee, be made a party to the suit in their place and stead. Process was personally served upon him; but he failed to appear. The cause coming on for trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Switzer against Norton, said assignee. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court of the State; and the judgment having been there affirmed, he sued out this writ of error.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. E. T. Merrick and Mr. G. W. Race for the plaintiff in error, who, upon the question as to whether an assignee in bankruptcy can, after citation in a pending suit, be substituted by a State court as a defendant in the place and stead of the bankrupt, referred to In re Cook and Gleason, 3 Biss. 119; In re Ernest Sacchi, 10 Blatchf. 29; In re Geo. W. Anderson, 9 Bank. Reg. 360.
No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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
# Norton v. Warner Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 565
Norton v. Warner Company
Argued: Feb. 28, 29, 1944. --- Decided: March 27, 1944
Mr. Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Samuel B. Fortenbaugh, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for National Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n, amicus curiae by special leave of Court.
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (256 U.S. 602)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 602
Oklahoma v. Texas (256 U.S. 602)

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (257 U.S. 616)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 616
Oklahoma v. Texas (257 U.S. 616)

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (257 U.S. 616)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 616
Oklahoma v. Texas (257 U.S. 616)
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
Messrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., and C. M. Cureton and W. A. Keeling, both of Austin, Tex., and T. W. Gregory, of Washington, D. C., for the State of Texas.
Order.
The receiver is hereby authorized to make the following payments and to charge the same as expenses of the receivership:
To Nagel & Kirby the sum of six thousand dollars as compensation for services rendered by them between December 6, 1920, and this date;
To McKinney & Flannery the sum of fifteen thousand dollars as compensation for services rendered by them for the year following December 6, 1920;
And to Frederic A. Delano the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars on account of his services as receiver.

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (256 U.S. 70)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 70
Oklahoma v. Texas (256 U.S. 70)
Argued: Dec. 14 and 15, 1920. --- Decided: April 11, 1921
Mr. Leslie C. Garnett, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 71 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. C. M. Cureton, of Austin, Tex., and Thomas Watt Gregory, of Washington, D. C., for State of Texas.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 72-81 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph Weldon Bailey, of Austin, Tex., and A. H. Carrigan, of Wichita Falls, Tex., for landowners.
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for State of Oklahoma.
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (258 U.S. 574)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 574
Oklahoma v. Texas (258 U.S. 574)
Argued: Dec. 13 and 14, 1921. --- Decided: May 1, 1922
[Syllabus from pages 574-577 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank Dale, of Guthrie, Okl., and Jesse B. Roote, of Denver, Colo., for Burke Divide Oil Co. and others.
Mr. T. P. Gore, of Washington, D. C., for Melish Consolidated Placer Oil Mining Ass'n and others.
Messrs. Henry E. Asp, of Oklahoma City, Okl., George P. Rowell, of Stamford, Conn., and L. H. Boggs, of Washington, D. C., for E. Everett Rowell and others.
Messrs. Solicitor General Berk and W. W. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. George Trice, of Coalgate, Okl., for D. D. Brunson and others.
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for State of Oklahoma.
Mr. W. A. Ledbetter, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for A. E. Pearson and others.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Oliver Twist (1909 film)

* related portals: Drama film, Films based on books, Films with historical settings, Silent film.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Cast and Crew :
| Cast ||
| Role | Actor |
| | Edith Storey |
| | Elita Proctor Otis |
| | William Humphrey |
| Crew ||
| Production company | Vitagraph Studios |
| Director | J. Stuart Blackton (d. 1941) |
| Producer | J. Stuart Blackton |
| Screenwriter | Eugene Mullin (d. 1967) |
| Based on available information, the latest crew member that is relevant to international copyright laws died in 1967, meaning that this film may be in the public domain in countries and jurisdictions with 56 years p.m.a. or less, as well as in the United States. ||
OLIVER TWIST.
Oliver Twist becomes an orphan.
Mrs. Corney and Mr. Bumble.
Oliver asks for more.
The "Artful Dodger" meets Oliver.
Oliver's Introduction into Fagin's den.
Bill Sykes and Nancy. (Miss Elita Proctor Otis as "Nancy Sykes")
The book-stall keeper exonerates Oliver.
Oliver is adopted by Mr. Brownlow.
Oliver is recaptured.
[...] misses [...] to sel Beer by Retail
Fagin suspects Nancy of treachery.
Fagin spies on Nancy.
Oliver visits Fagin in Prison.
Conscience and Retribution. "Ah! Those eyes!"
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1941, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 82 years or less. 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
# Oliver v. Piatt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 333
Oliver v. Piatt

## 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
# Oliver v. Alexander

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 143
Oliver v. Alexander
[144]
APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland.
Mr Hoffman, for the appellees, moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction; the sum in controversy between the appellants and the individual appellees not being sufficient to sustain the appeal.
The motion was argued by Mr Wirt and Mr Taney for the appellants; and by Mr Hoffman for the appellees.
Mr Justice STORY 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