OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bardley v. Rhines' Administrators/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
75 U.S. 393
Bardley v. Rhines' Administrators
The first proposition made by the counsel for the defendant in error, and by which the ruling of the court is maintained, depends for its soundness on the construction to be given to certain statutes of Pennsylvania, and will not be examined by us if the ruling of the court is well founded as to the second proposition.
There can be no doubt that the lease sued on here is a chose in action, and the assignors are described in the instrument as residing in the same State with defendants.
Two propositions are relied on as taking this case out of the prohibition of the statute: 1. That the plaintiff having purchased the lands which were the subject of the lease, became entitled thereby to the benefit of the lease, and the assignment was not necessary to enable him to maintain the action.
If he had shown, or offered to show that he had become the owner of the land, the court would probably have permitted him to do so. But as he only offered the lease and the assignment, the court could not admit them on the ground of a purchase of which there was no evidence.
2. Then it is argued that although Breeden & Co. might have been, as the lease shows, citizens of Pennsylvania when the lease was made, this may not have been so when suit was brought; and that, as the plaintiff was a citizen of Kentucky, and the defendants, of Pennsylvania, this makes a prim a facie case of jurisdiction in the court, which can only be defeated by evidence that the assignors were citizens of the same State with defendants when the suit was brought.
This court has decided the proposition otherwise. In Turner v. Bank of North America, the plaintiff recovered judgment in the Circuit Court as assignee of Biddle & Co. The only error assigned was, that it did not appear in the record that Biddle & Co. were citizens of a State other than North Carolina, in which district the defendant resided, and where he was sued; and for this cause, the judgment was reversed. The soundness of this decision is recognized in the cases of Mollan v. Torrance, and Bank of United States v. Moss, and we take the doctrine to be settled, that when a party claims in the Federal courts through an assignment of a chose in action, he must show affirmatively that the action might have been sustained by the assignor if no assignment had been made.
The case of De Sobry v. Nicholson, relied on by plaintiff's counsel, is not in point. There plaintiff had become possessed of all his partner's interest in the contract sued on without assignment, and none was relied on. The partner not being a necessary party, his citizenship in the same State with defendant did not defeat the jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

## Notes

* ↑ 4 Dallas, 8.
* ↑ 9 Wheaton, 537.
* ↑ 6 Howard, 31.
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
# Bardley v. United States/Dissent Miller

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Miller
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 104
Bardley v. United States
MR. JUSTICE MILLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE FIELD, MR. JUSTICE STRONG, and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
I am of opinion that the two annual appropriations expressly for the sum due for each year's rent, according to the terms of the lease, were recognitions of the validity of that contract which bind the United States, and that the claimant was entitled to recover the same amount for the third year.

## 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
# Bardes v. First National Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
175 U.S. 526
Bardes v. First National Bank
Argued: December 20, 1899. --- Decided: December 22, 1899
Messrs. C. A. Brandenburg, William F. Lohr, Henry C. Gardiner, Frederick W. Lohr, Deloss C. Shull, and William H. Farnsworth for complainant.
Messrs. William Milchrist and John Hutchinson for defendants.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller 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
# Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 524
Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa
Argued: January 31, 1900. --- Decided: May 28, 1900
Messrs. C. A. Brandenburg, Wm. F. Lohr, Henry C. Gardiner, Frederick W. Lohr, Deloss C. Shull, and Wm. H. Farnsworth for appellant.
Messrs. William Milchrist and John Hutchinson for appellees.
Mr. Justice Gray 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
# Boseman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 196
Boseman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
Argued: March 4, 5, 1937. --- Decided: April 26, 1937
Messrs. Leon P. Howell and Sterling D. Bennett, both of Beaumont, Tex., for petitioner.
Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., and Major T. Bell, of Beaumont, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Bosley v. McLaughlin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 385
Bosley v. McLaughlin
Argued: January 12, 1915. --- Decided: February 23, 1915
Messrs. John F. Bowie and Charles S. Wheeler for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 386 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Louis D. Brandeis, William Denman, G. S. Arnold, and Mr. U.S. Webb, Attorney General of California, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 387 intentionally omitted]
Mr. 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
# Borum v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 596
Borum v. United States
Argued: Jan. 25, 1932. ---
Question answered 'Yes.' Dunn v. United States (No. 393) 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.C.t. 189, 76 L. Ed. 356, October term, 1931, decided January 11, 1932. Mandate to issue forthwith.

## 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
# Boske v. Comingore

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 459
Boske v. Comingore
Argued: January 8, 1900. --- Decided: April 9, 1900
Messrs. John G. Carlisle, H. M. Winslow, W. S. Taylor, Russell & Winslow, and Clifton J. Pratt for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Boyd for appellee.
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
# Bosnia China Communique Establishing Diplomatic Relations

* related portals: China, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina have decided, in keeping with the interests and desire of their peoples, to establish diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level as of 3 April 1995.
Both Governments agree to develop friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non aggression and non interference in each others internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence.
The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the Government of the People?s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and Taiwan an inalienable part of Chinese territory. The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina undertakes not to establish or develop official relations of any form with Taiwan and will not engage in any official contacts with Taiwan.
The Government of the People's Republic of China undertakes to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Both Government agree to provide each other with all the necessary assistance for the performance of the functions of diplomatic missions in their respective territory on the basis of reciprocity and in accordance with the international practice.
Done in Zagreb on 3 April 1995.
for the Government of the People?s for the Government of the Republic
Republic of China of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mr. Xiqin Ambassador Prof.dr Kasim Trnka Ambassador
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Constitutions of the Holy Apostles/Book VII/Sec. IV

Sec. IV.—Enumeration Ordained by Apostles.
Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later.—R.]
* ↑ 2 Tim. iv. 21.
* ↑ [Noteworthy, and to be recalled hereafter. See vol. iii. p. 258.]
* ↑ 2 Tim. i. 5.
* ↑ [Comp. Col. iv. 16, 17., whence this is probably derived.—R.]
* ↑ Philem. 1.
* ↑ [Philem. 10.—R.]
* ↑ [Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.—R.]
* ↑ Matt. xxviii. 20.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Constitutions of the Holy Apostles/Book VIII

constitutions of the holy apostles.
Book VIII.
Concerning Gifts, and Ordinations, and the Ecclesiastical Canons.

## Contents

* Sec. I
* Sec. II
* Sec. III
* Sec. IV
* Sec. V
* The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles
* Elucidations
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Constitutions of the Holy Apostles/Book VII/Sec. V

Sec. V.—Daily Prayers.
A Morning Prayer.
XLVII. “Glory be to God in the highest, and upon earth peace, good-will among men.” We praise Thee, we sing hymns to Thee, we bless Thee; we glorify Thee, we worship Thee by Thy great High Priest; Thee who art the true God, who art the One Unbegotten, the only inaccessible Being. For Thy great glory, O Lord and heavenly King, O God the Father Almighty, O Lord God, the Father of Christ the immaculate Lamb, who taketh away the sin of the world, receive our prayer, Thou that sittest upon the cherubim. For Thou only art holy, Thou only art the Lord Jesus, the Christ of the God of all created nature, and our King, by whom glory, honour, and worship be to Thee.
An Evening Prayer.
XLVIII. “Ye children, praise the Lord: praise the name of the Lord.” We praise Thee, we sing hymns to Thee, we bless Thee for Thy great glory, O Lord our King, the Father of Christ the immaculate Lamb, who taketh away the sin of the world. Praise becomes Thee, hymns become Thee, glory becomes Thee, the God and Father, through the Son, in the most holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen. “Now, O Lord, lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light for the revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.”
A Prayer at Dinner.
XLIX. Thou art blessed, O Lord, who nourishest me from my youth, who givest food to all flesh. Fill our hearts with joy and gladness, that having always what is sufficient for us, we may abound to every good work, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom glory, honour, and power be to Thee for ever. Amen.
General notice
Comparing the Teaching with chapters xxv. and xxvi. of these Constitutions, it seems to me that the nature of the eucharistic (thanksgiving) prayers becomes apparent. They presuppose the formulas to be found in the eighth book of the Constitutions, and are such instructions as were imparted only to catechumens; the part peculiar to presbyters being withheld, of course, as esoteric mysteries, until further knowledge was canonically appropriate. See Elucidation IV. vol. vi. p. 236; and in this volume, Elucidation I. p. 382. The Bryennios ms. is cleared from nearly all difficulties by Dr. Riddle’s lucid notes, when compared with corresponding passages in the Constitutions, or illustrated by such as are supplementary.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Luke ii. 14.
* ↑ One V. ms. gives a more orthodox form to this prayer: “O Lord, only begotten Son, and Holy Spirit, Lord God, the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, who takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou who sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy upon us, for Thou only art holy; Thou only art Christ, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.”
* ↑ Ps. cxiii. 1.
* ↑ One V. ms. omits “the God and;” then reads, “to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
* ↑ Luke ii. 29., etc.
* ↑ One V. ms. reads, “with whom.”
* ↑ Beginning p. 479, infra.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Constitutions of the Holy Apostles/Book VII

constitutions of the holy apostles
Book VII.
Concerning the Christian Life, and the Eucharist, and the Initiation into Christ.

## Contents

* Sec. I
* Sec. II
* Sec. III
* Sec. IV
* Sec. V
# Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter

## Dissenting Opinions

    Warren
    Douglas
    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 399
Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia
Argued: March 4, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
See 79 S.Ct. 10.
Mr. John Rogers Carroll, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. C. Brewster Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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
# Bein v. Heath (47 U.S. 228)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
47 U.S. 228
Bein v. Heath

## 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
# Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia/Dissent Warren

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinions Warren Douglas Brennan
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 399
Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia
Argued: March 4, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting.
I believe the facts of record in No. 63 compel the conclusion that Beilan's plea of the Fifth Amendment before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities was so inextricably involved in the Board's decision to discharge him that the validity of the Board's action cannot be sustained without consideration of this ground. The clearest indication of this is the fact that for 13 months following petitioner's refusal to answer the Superintendent's questions, he was retained as a school teacher and continually rated 'satisfactory,' yet five days after his appearance before the House subcommittee petitioner was suspended. Since a plea of the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee is an invalid basis for discharge from public employment, Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692, I would reverse the judgment approving petitioner's dismissal.
I cannot agree that the invalidity of the Board's action is cured by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's conclusion that the dismissal was 'justified' if any charge against petitioner was sustained. Whether the first refusal alone would 'justify' the discharge we need not decide. This Court has previously held that where a conclusion of guilt may rest on a constitutionally impermissible basis, the adjudication must be set aside, notwithstanding a state court's conclusion that permissible bases existed on which the decision might have rested. Stromberg v. People of State of California, 283 U.S. 359, 368, 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 75 L.Ed. 1117; see also Williams v. State of North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 292, 63 S.Ct. 207, 210, 87 L.Ed. 279. There may be exceptions to the application of this principle to the full range of state administrative action. Nevertheless, on the particular facts of this case, the invalid basis of the State's action is too critical to be ignored.
For these reasons Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and I dissent in No. 63. I also dissent in No. 165 for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

## 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
# Bein v. Heath (53 U.S. 168)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 168
Bein v. Heath

## 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
# Bein v. Heath

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Bein v. Heath."
* 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.
* Bein v. Heath (47 U.S. 228)
* Bein v. Heath (53 U.S. 168)
# Ascent of Mount Carmel/Book 2/Chapter XXVIII

CHAPTER XXVIII
Which treats of interior locutions that may come to the spirit supernaturally. Says of what kinds they are.
The discreet reader has ever need to bear in mind the intent and end which I have in this book, which is the direction of the soul, through all its apprehensions, natural and supernatural, without deception or hindrance, in purity of faith, to Divine union with God. If he does this, he will understand that, although with respect to apprehensions of the soul and the doctrine that I am expounding I give not such copious instruction neither do I particularize so much or make so many divisions as the understanding perchance requires, I am not being over-brief in this matter. For with respect to all this I believe that sufficient cautions, explanations and instructions are given for the soul to be enabled to behave prudently in every contingency, outward or inward, so as to make progress. And this is the reason why I have so briefly dismissed the subject of prophetic apprehensions and the other subjects allied to it; for there is so much more to be said of each of them, according to the differences and the ways and manners that are wont to be observed in each, that I believe one could never know it all perfectly. I am content that, as I believe, the substance and the doctrine thereof have been given, and the soul has been warned of the caution which it behoves it to exercise in this respect, and also concerning all other things of the same kind that may come to pass within it.
2. I will now follow the same course with regard to the third kind of apprehension, which, we said, was that of supernatural locutions, which are apt to come to the spirits of spiritual persons without the intervention of any bodily sense. These, although they are of many kinds, may, I believe, all be reduced to three, namely: successive, formal and substantial. I describe as successive certain words and arguments which the spirit is wont to form and fashion when it is inwardly recollected. Formal words are certain clear and distinct words which the spirit receives, not from itself, but from a third person, sometimes when it is recollected and sometimes when it is not. Substantial words are others which also come to the spirit formally, sometimes when it is recollected and sometimes when it is not; these cause in the substance of the soul that substance and virtue which they signify. All these we shall here proceed to treat in their order.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Lit., ‘certain distinct and formal words.’]