OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Merchants' Manufacturers' National Bank of Pittsburg v. Pennsylvania

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
167 U.S. 461
Merchants' Manufacturers' National Bank of Pittsburg v. Pennsylvania
This case comes on a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania, and involves the validity of the statute of that state of date June 8, 1891 (Laws Pa. 1891, p. 240), in respect to the taxation of national banks. The decision of that court was in favor of its validity. 168 Pa. St. 309, 31 Atl. 1065. Sections 6 and 7 of the statute contain these provisions:
'Sec. 6. In case any bank or savings institution incorporated by the state or the United States shall elect to collect annually from the shareholders thereof a tax of eight mills on the dollar upon the par value of all shares of said bank or savings institution that have been subscribed for or issued, and pay the same into the state treasury on or before the first day of March in each year, the shares and so much of the capital and profits of such bank as shall not be invested in real estate shall be exempt from local taxation under the laws of this commonwealth.
'Sec. 7. That from and after the passage of this act, every national bank located within this commonwealth, which shall fail to elect to collect annually from the shareholders thereof a tax of eight mills on the dollar upon the par value of all the shares of said bank that have been subscribed or issued, shall, on or before the twentieth day of June in each and every year, make to the auditor-general a report in writing, verified by the oath or affirmation of the president or cashier, setting forth the full number of shares of the capital stock issued by such national bank, and the actual value thereof, whereupon it shall be the duty of the auditor-general to assess the same for taxation at the same rate as that imposed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of this state, that is to say, at the rate of four mills upon each dollar of the actual value thereof.'
J. M. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
J. P. Elkin, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis v. Missouri ex rel Barker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 365
Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis v. Missouri ex rel Barker
Argued: Dec. 19, 1918. --- Decided: Jan 7, 1919
Messrs. Percy Werner, of St. Louis, Mo., and Frank Hagerman, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John T. Gose, of Shelbina, Mo., and Frank McAllister, of Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Merchants' Manufacturers' National Bank of Pittsburgh v. Slagle

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 558
Merchants' Manufacturers' National Bank of Pittsburgh v. Slagle
Jno. Dalzell and J. F. Slagle, for appellants.
Geo. Shiras, Jr., for appellees.
MILLER, 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
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, James Wills

​Robinson, James Wills, a student of the Inner Temple 23 Nov., 1874 (then aged 33), called to the bar 13 June, 1877 (eldest son of William Robinson, of Cambridge, dec.); born , 1841; married 14 Oct., 1880, Frances Kate, youngest dau, of Rev. F. B. Ashley, vicar of Wooburn.
    Hazlewood, Pinner; 3, Harcourt Buildings, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Charles Edmund

​Robinson, Charles Edmund, M.A. Trin. Coll., Camb., 1879, from Westminster (Queen's scholar and exhibitioner), author of The Cruise of the Widgeon, Picturesque Rambles in Purbeck, The Golden Hind, etc., a student of the Inner Temple 12 April, 1876 (then aged 22), called to the bar 7 May, 1879 (eldest son of John Charles Robinson, Esq., of Newton Manor, Dorset); born 14 Oct., 1853; married 15 Jan., 1885, Jane Anna, 2nd dau. of Robert Stirke, Esq., of Grazing Nook, Bedale, Yorks.
    2, Chester Place, Regent's Park, N.W.; 1, New Square, Lincoln's inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Charles Richard

​Robinson, Charles Richard, M.A. Durham Univ. 1844, J.P. Yorkshire North Riding, a student of the Middle Temple 5 Nov., 1840, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1844 (only son of Richard Robinson, Esq., of Demerara); born , 1818; married 24 Sept., 1846, Elizabeth Lawrence, dau. of Thomas Thompson, Esq., of Bishopwearmouth, co. Durham, and has issue.
    Bretaneby Manor, Darlington; Low Mill, Cornsay, Durham.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Julian

​Robinson, Julian, M.A, Balliol Coll., Oxon, a member of the South-eastern circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 12 Jan., 1871 (then aged 22), called to the bar 30 April, 1874 (3rd surviving son of Augustus Robinson, of West Lavant, Sussex, bar.-at-law); born , 1849.
    6, Crown Office Row, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Benjamin Coulson

​Robinson, Benjamin Coulson, F.R.G.S., serjeant-at-law, went the South-eastern circuit, author of Law of Warrants of Attorney, etc., a student of the Middle Temple 26 April, 1833, called to the bar 24 April, 1840, serjeant-at-law 19 April, 1865, patent of precedence , 1874 (only son of Thomas Robinson, Esq., of London, dec.); born , .
    43, Mecklenburgh Square, W.C. 5, Elm Court, Temple, E.C.; Junior Carlton Club.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Edward

​Robinson, Edward, practises before the supreme court at Hong Kong, a student of Gray's Inn 26 Jan., 1878, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1881 (eldest son of Alfred Murray Robinson, of Shanghai, China, solicitor); born , .
    Shanghai.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robin, Charles Janvrin

​Robin, Charles Janvrin, M.A. Univ. Coll., Oxon, B.A. 1872, a student of the Inner Temple 8 Nov., 1872 (then aged 24), called to the bar 7 June, 1875 (eldest son of Charles William Robin, of Steephill, Jersey); born , 1848; married 24 April, 1884, Henrietta Magdalen, only dau. of Thomas Smith Robin, late capt. 54th foot.
    Steephill, Jersey; 8, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Augustin

​Robinson, Augustin, B.A., Balliol Coll., Oxon, 1838, J.P., D.L. Middlesex and Westminster, J.P. Sussex, a student of Lincoln's Inn 19 Jan., 1838 (then aged 21), called to the bar 29 Jan., 1845 (only son of Matthew Robinson, Esq., late of Dulwich, Surrey, dec.); born , 1817; married , 1842, Mary, dau. of James Fisher, Esq., of Dulwich, Surrey, and has issue.
    78, Onslow Gardens, S.W.; Union and Reform Clubs.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robinson, Joseph Havercroft

​Robinson, Joseph Havercroft, a student of the Middle Temple 25 Jan., 1865, called to the bar 18 Nov., 1867 (eldest son of Daniel Bird Robinson, of Havercroft, Lamplugh, Cumberland); born , .
    The Thorn, Penrith, Cockermouth.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Robins, Julian

​Robins, Julian, a student of the Inner Temple 16 May, 1857 (then aged 21), called to the bar 6 June, 1860 (3rd son of late George Robins, Esq., of London); born , 1836; married and has issue.
    17, Alexandra Road, N.W.; 6, King's Bench Walk, Temple, E.C.
# Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible/Volume 5

* Preface to Volume 5
* Matthew
* Mark
* Luke
* John
# Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible/Volume 5/John
## Table of contents

* Chapter 1-10
* Chapter 11-21
# Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible/Volume 5/Matthew
## Table of contents

* Chapter 1-15
* Chapter 15-28
# Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (402 U.S. 47)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 47
Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Argued: Oct. 13, 1970. --- Decided: April 20, 1971
Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 91 S.Ct. 1284, 28 L.Ed.2d 586. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U.S. 803, 91 S.Ct. 11, 27 L.Ed.2d 34 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti- busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U.S.C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from 'any civil action, suit or proceeding required * * * to be heard * * * by a district court of three judges,' 28 U.S.C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.
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
# Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (400 U.S. 803)/Order of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 803
Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

## 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
# Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company."
* 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.
* Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company (291 U.S. 205)
* Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company (340 U.S. 573)
# Moore v. Brown

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Taney
    Catron
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 414
Moore v. Brown

## 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
# Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (400 U.S. 803)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 803
Moore et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
No. 444. Argued: N/A --- Decided: October 6, 1970
Further consideration of question of jurisdiction in this case postponed to hearing of case on the merits. Case consolidated with No. 498 [infra] for oral argument. One hour allotted for oral argument for appellees in No. 498 and a similar amount of time allotted to all other parties in both cases. Cases set for oral argument immediately following No. 349 [certiorari granted, infra]. Motion of appellants as to scheduling oral argument and apportionment of time denied.
Reported below: 312 F. Supp. 503.

## 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
# Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education."
* 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.
* Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (400 U.S. 803)
* Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (402 U.S. 47)
# Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (402 U.S. 47)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 47
Moore et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
No. 444. Argued: October 13, 1970 --- Decided: April 20, 1971
Since both parties in this action challenging a school desegregation plan seek the same result, viz., a holding that North Carolina's Anti-Busing Law is constitutional, there is no Art. III case or controversy. Additionally, on the facts of this case, no direct appeal to this Court lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
312 F. Supp. 503, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whiteford S. Blakeney argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was William H. Booe.
William J. Waggoner argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Benjamin S. Horack.
Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Leonard filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
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
# Men-at-the-Bar/Warden, William

​Warden, William, M.A. Exeter Coll., Oxon, B.A. 1868, a member of the Western circuit, a student of the Middle Temple 20 April, 1865, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1870 (eldest son of William Warden, of Edinburgh, N.B.); born , .
    Late of 1, Mitre Court Buildings, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ware, Martin

​Ware, Martin, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1859, B.A. 1842, law reporter for Incorporated Council in chancery appeals since 1865, a student of Lincoln's Inn 8 July, 1840 (then aged 21), called to the bar 20 Nov., 1845 (2nd son of Martin Ware, of London, surgeon); born Dec, 1818; married 23 July, 1867, Mary Violetta, 2nd dau. of late Benjamin Williams, Esq., of Hillingdon and Limpsfield.
    10, Astwood Road, S.W.; 25, Old Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ward, Richard (b.1838)

​Ward, Richard, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1862, a student of Lincoln's Inn 26 Aug., 1861 (then aged 23), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1864 (eldest son of Rev. Richard Ward, of London); born , 1838.
    7, Fig Tree Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Warden, Arthur Henry

​Warden, Arthur Henry, a student of Lincoln's Inn 31 Jan., 1880 (then aged 19), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1883 (eldest son of Henry Warden, of Tunbridge Wells); born 7 Aug., 1860.
    5, King's Bench Walk, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ward, Newman

​Ward, Newman, a member of the South-eastern circuit, a student of Gray's Inn 17 April, 1849, called to the bar 21 April, 1852 (only son of Thomas Newman Ward, Esq., of Ore, near Hastings); born , .
    Late of 18, Randolph Road, Maida Hill, W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ward, Rev. John Martyr

​Ward, Rev. John Martyr, M.A. (late fellow), King's Coll., Camb., 1861, rector of Gressenhall since 1873, curate of Kempsey, co. Worc., 1869-73, a student of the Inner Temple 20 April, 1860 (then aged 26), called to the bar 30 April, 1863 (only son of Rev. Edward John Ward, late rector of East Clandon, Surrey, dec.); born , 1834.
    Gressenhall Rectory, East Dereham.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ward, Richard (b.1848)

​Ward, Richard, B.A., Trin. Coll., Oxon, 1870, a student of Lincoln's Inn 27 June, 1870 (then aged 22), called to the bar 7 June, 1873 (only son of Francis Ridout Ward, of London, gent.); born , 1848; married 1 Aug., 1871, Maria Catherine, eldest dau. of Marston Buzzard, M.D., of Lutterworth.
    26, Hyde Park Street, W.; 4, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Warden, John Lodwick

​Warden, John Lodwick, judge of small court Bombay, undergrad. Worcester Coll., Oxon, a student of Lincoln's Inn 24 April, 1861 (then aged 28), called to the bar 9 June, 1865 (eldest son of John Warden, Esq., of Nice); born , 1833.
    Bombay.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Wardrop, Robert

​Wardrop, Robert, B.A. Univ. Coll., Toronto, matric. Edinburgh Univ., a student of Lincoln's Inn 26 Nov., 1867 (then aged 23), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1871 (eldest son of John Wardrop, of Brockville, co. Leeds, Canada, contractor); born , 1844.
    Brockville, co. Leeds, Canada.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ware, Titus Hibbert

​Ware, Titus Hibbert, a student of the Middle Temple 12 June, 1841, called to the bar 11 June, 1844 (eldest son of Samuel Hibbert Ware, of London, M.D.); born , .
    Late of Southport.
# Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen (121 U.S. 67)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
121 U.S. 67
Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen
Jos. P. Hornor and C. W. Hornor, for Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. J. R. Beckwith, for Allen.
[ C. B. Singleton and R. H. Browne, for Weeks.
WAITE, C. 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
# Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen (122 U.S. 376)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 376
Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen
The ground of this application is that the court committed an error on the former hearing in finding as a fact that the other insurance shown by the new testimony was on the cargo, and not on the freight to be earned by the voyage. There were six policies proven,-one in the Portland Lloyds for $2,000, another in the Crescent City Company of New Orleans for $3,000, another in the Merchants' Marine of Bangor, Maine, for $4,000, another in the Union of Bangor for $2,000, and two others in Lloyds of London, England, each for 1,100. Those in the Crescent City and London Lloyds describe a risk on cargo, and nothing else. Baring Bros. & Co. effected the insurance in London, as they say, by 'two policies of insurance upon part of the freight of the ship Orient.' Charles E. Rice, the secretary of the Crescent City Company, says he issued that policy 'on the interest of John Baker, on the freight-list of the ship Orient.' Construing the language of the other three policies as meaning the same thing as those which were clearly on the cargo, we did not consider it necessary at the former hearing to do more than decide, as we did, that an insurance on cargo was not a breach of the warranty in the policies sued on. But if it be otherwise, and the policies in the other three companies were on the freight to be earned by the voyage, and not on the cargo simply, we see no occasion for a reargument of the case, as we are all of opinion that such an insurance would not be a breach of the covenant of the insured not to insure their respective interests in the vessel, 'or any other insurable interest in said interest, during the continuance of this policy,' beyond the specified amounts. Rehearing 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
# Merchants' National Bank of Richmond v. City of Richmond

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 635
Merchants' National Bank of Richmond v. City of Richmond
Argued: and Submitted March 21, 1921. --- Decided: June 6, 1921
Messrs. Legh R. Page and E. Warren Wall, both of Richmond, Va., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Henry R. Pollard and George Wayne Anderson, both of Richmond, Va., for defendant 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
# Merchants' Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance Company v. Smart

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 126
Merchants' Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance Company v. Smart
Argued: Jan. 22, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Mr. Anthony J. Ernest, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. P. Bramhall, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen."
* 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.
* Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen (121 U.S. 67)
* Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen (122 U.S. 376)
# Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen (122 U.S. 376)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 376
Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company v. Allen
Thos. J. Semmes, a for petition.
[Petition for Rehearing from pages 376-381 intentionally omitted]
WAITE, C. 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
# Metropolitan Railway Company v. Church Brightwood Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 46
Metropolitan Railway Company v. Church Brightwood Railway Company
D. W. Baker, for Metropolitan Ry. Co. H. P. Blair, for Brightwood Ry. Co. E. L. Schmidt, for Church.
Raymond A. Heiskell and M. J. Colbert, for O'Neal.
Mr. Justice GRAY.

## 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
# Metropolitan Railway Company v. Church Brightwood Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 46
Metropolitan Railway Company v. Church Brightwood Railway Company
This case, argued at the same time with Traction Co. v. Hof, 19 Sup. Ct. 580, the judgments of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, quashing writs of certiorari to set aside proceedings of a justice of the peace under similar circumstances, are likewise 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