OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Reports/Volume 84

17 Wall.[ace], ( 21 L.Ed. )
* 84 U.S. 1 Cordova v. Hood
* 84 U.S. 9 United States v. Hickey
* 84 U.S. 14 Marin v. Lalley
* 84 U.S. 19 Bank v. Kennedy
* 84 U.S. 29 The Nuestra Senora De Regla
* 84 U.S. 32 Branson v. Wirth
* 84 U.S. 44 Olcott v. Bynum
* 84 U.S. 64 Ex parte Warmouth
* 84 U.S. 67 Mason v. United States
* 84 U.S. 75 Sweeny v. United States
* 84 U.S. 78 Harwood v. Cincinnati and Chicago Railroad Company
* 84 U.S. 82 Averill v. Smith
* 84 U.S. 96 Bailey v. Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company
* 84 U.S. 109 Oulton v. Savings Institution
* 84 U.S. 123 Goddard v. Foster
* 84 U.S. 144 Williams v. Baker Cedar Rapids Railroad Company
* 84 U.S. 153 Homestead Company v. Valley Railroad
* 84 U.S. 167 Crilley v. Burrows
* 84 U.S. 168 United States v. Cook
* 84 U.S. 182 The Collector v. Beggs
* 84 U.S. 191 Lapeyre v. United States
* 84 U.S. 207 Allen v. United States
* 84 U.S. 253 Tyler v. Magwire
* 84 U.S. 294 Barnes v. The Railroads
* 84 U.S. 322 United States v. Railroad Company
* 84 U.S. 336 Hume v. Beale's Executrix
* 84 U.S. 351 Allen v. Massey
* 84 U.S. 354 Rodd v. Heartt
* 84 U.S. 357 New York Central Railroad Company v. Lockwood
* 84 U.S. 384 Stitt v. Huidekopers
* 84 U.S. 398 Conway v. Stannard
* 84 U.S. 405 United States v. Henry
* 84 U.S. 409 Reed v. Gardner
* 84 U.S. 411 Ray v. Smith
* 84 U.S. 417 Moore v. Huntington
* 84 U.S. 425 State v. Stoll
* 84 U.S. 437 Lasere v. Rochereau
* 84 U.S. 439 Ex parte Atocha
* 84 U.S. 445 Alexandria and Washington Railroad Company v. Brown
* 84 U.S. 453 Adams v. Burke
* 84 U.S. 460 Philp v. Nock
* 84 U.S. 463 Carlton v. Bokee
* 84 U.S. 473 Wilson v. City Bank
* 84 U.S. 489 Carpenter v. United States
* 84 U.S. 496 United States v. Isham
* 84 U.S. 508 Packet Company v. McCue
* 84 U.S. 515 Goodwin v. United States
* 84 U.S. 517 Cutner v. United States
* 84 U.S. 521 Board of Public Works v. Columbia College
* 84 U.S. 532 Rea v. Missouri
* 84 U.S. 545 Eldred v. Bank
* 84 U.S. 553 Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Fort
* 84 U.S. 560 Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company v. Fuller
* 84 U.S. 570 Horn v. Lockhart
* 84 U.S. 582 The Merritt
* 84 U.S. 586 Knode v. Williamson
* 84 U.S. 590 Harrell v. Beall
* 84 U.S. 592 Amoskeag Manufacturing Company v. United States
* 84 U.S. 596 Sohn v. Waterson
* 84 U.S. 601 United States v. Lap Ene
* 84 U.S. 604 United States v. Boutwell
* 84 U.S. 610 Sawyer v. Hoag
* 84 U.S. 624 Kibbe v. Benson
* 84 U.S. 630 Smiths v. Shoemaker
* 84 U.S. 639 Daniel v. Whartenby
* 84 U.S. 648 Walker v. State Harbor Commissioners
* 84 U.S. 651 The Star of Hope
* 84 U.S. 655 Miller v. Joseph
* 84 U.S. 657 Sioux City and Pacific Railroad Company v. Stout
* 84 U.S. 666 The Emily Souder
* 84 U.S. 672 Life Insurance Company v. Francisco
# United States Reports/Volume 79

12 Wall.[ace], ( 20 L.Ed. )
* 79 U.S. 1 The Collector v. Hubbard
* 79 U.S. 19 Sturges v. The Collector
* 79 U.S. 31 The Maria Martin
* 79 U.S. 47 (1862) Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Dubois
* 79 U.S. 65 Railroad Company v. Harris
* 79 U.S. 86 French v. Shoemaker
* 79 U.S. 102 Fowler v. Rathbones
* 79 U.S. 121 Noonan v. Bradley, Administrator
* 79 U.S. 130 Mail Company v. Flanders
* 79 U.S. 136 The Eutaw
* 79 U.S. 142 Bigler v. Waller
* 79 U.S. 150 Baker v. Morton
* 79 U.S. 159 Miller v. The State
* 79 U.S. 163 Ward v. Maryland
* 79 U.S. 164 Merchants' Insurance Company v. Huchbergers
* 79 U.S. 167 The Steamer Syracuse
* 79 U.S. 173 Handlin v. Wickliffe
* 79 U.S. 175 (1868) United States v. Crusell
* 79 U.S. 177 United States v. Alexander
* 79 U.S. 181 Hoffman Company v. Bank of Milwaukee
* 79 U.S. 194 Howard Fire Insurance Company v. Transportation Company
* 79 U.S. 201 Western Massachusetts Inusrance Company v. Same
* 79 U.S. 204 State Tonnage Tax Cases Cox v. Collector Trade Company
* 79 U.S. 226 Junction Railroad Company v. Bank of Ashland
* 79 U.S. 232 United States v. Child Company
* 79 U.S. 246 United States v. Burns
* 79 U.S. 254 Holladay v. Kennard
* 79 U.S. 259 Germain v. Mason
* 79 U.S. 262 Hannibal Railroad v. Swift
* 79 U.S. 275 Kearney v. Case
* 79 U.S. 285 Miller v. Brooklyn Life Insurance Company
* 79 U.S. 304 Avery v. United States
* 79 U.S. 307 Wadsworth v. Warren
* 79 U.S. 315 Perrin v. United States
* 79 U.S. 317 Rogers v. Ritter
* 79 U.S. 323 Villa v. Rodriguez
* 79 U.S. 342 Hanauer v. Doane
* 79 U.S. 349 Thomas v. City of Richmond
* 79 U.S. 358 Smith v. Sheeley
* 79 U.S. 362 United States v. New Orleans Railroad
* 79 U.S. 366 The Spray
* 79 U.S. 369 Shoemaker v. Kingsbury
* 79 U.S. 379 Knox v. Exchange Bank
* 79 U.S. 384 (1857) Northern Railroad v. The People
* 79 U.S. 389 The Western Metropolis
* 79 U.S. 390 Parker v. Latey
* 79 U.S. 391 Cooley v. O'Connor
* 79 U.S. 400 Barth v. Clise
* 79 U.S. 404 Insurance Company v. Slaughter
* 79 U.S. 408 (1851) Thorp v. Hammond
* 79 U.S. 418 Ward v. Maryland
* 79 U.S. 433 Phoenix Insurance Companies v. Boykin
* 79 U.S. 440 Hennessy v. Sheldon
* 79 U.S. 440 Walker v. Dreville
* 79 U.S. 443 Scott v. United States
* 79 U.S. 446 (1866) Edwards v. Tanneret
* 79 U.S. 451 The Patapsco
* 79 U.S. 452 Hall v. Allen Assignee
* 79 U.S. 455 People v. Central Railroad
* 79 U.S. 457 (1792) Legal Tender Cases
* 79 U.S. 681 Bronson's Executor v. Chappell
* 79 U.S. 687 Trebilcock v. Wilson
* 79 U.S. 700 The Protector
# Vril: The Power of the Coming Race; The New Utopia/Chapter III

Slowly and cautiously I went my solitary way down the lamplit road and towards the large building I have described. The road itself seemed like a great Alpine pass, skirting rocky mountains of which the one through whose chasm I had descended formed a link. Deep below to the left lay a vast valley, which presented to my astonished eye the unmistakeable evidences of art and culture. There were fields covered with a strange vegetation, similar to none I have seen above the earth; the colour of it not green, but rather of a dull and leaden hue or of a golden red.
There were lakes and rivulets which seemed to have been curved into artificial banks; some of pure water, others that shone like pools of naphtha. At my right hand, ravines and defiles opened amidst the rocks, with passes between, evidently constructed by art, and bordered by trees resembling, for the most part, gigantic ferns, with exquisite varieties of feathery foliage, and stems like those of the palm-tree. Others were more like the cane-plant, but taller, bearing large clusters of flowers. Others, again, had the form of enormous fungi, with short thick stems supporting a wide dome-like roof, from which either rose or drooped long slender branches. The whole scene behind, before, and beside me far as the eye could reach, was brilliant with innumerable lamps. The world without a sun was bright and warm as an Italian landscape at noon, but the air less oppressive, the heat softer. Nor was the scene before me void of signs of habitation. I could distinguish at a distance, whether on the banks of the lake or rivulet, or half-way upon eminences, embedded amidst the vegetation, buildings that must surely be the homes of men. I could even discover, though far off, forms that appeared to me human moving amidst the landscape. As I paused to gaze, I saw to the right, gliding quickly through the air, what appeared a small boat, impelled by sails shaped like wings. It soon passed out of sight, descending amidst the shades of a forest. Right above me there was no sky, but only a cavernous roof. This roof grew higher and higher at the distance of the landscapes beyond, till it became imperceptible, as an atmosphere of haze formed itself beneath.
Continuing my walk, I started,—from a bush that resembled a great tangle of sea-weeds, interspersed with fern-like shrubs and plants of large leafage shaped like that of the aloe or prickly-pear,—a curious animal about the size and shape of a deer. But as, after bounding away a few paces, it turned round and gazed at me inquisitively, I perceived that it was not like any species of deer now extant above the earth, but it brought instantly to my recollection a plaster cast I had seen in some museum of a variety of the elk stag, said to have existed before the Deluge. The creature seemed tame enough, and, after inspecting me a moment or two, began to graze on the singular herbiage around undismayed and careless.
# Vril: The Power of the Coming Race; The New Utopia
### Contents

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Chapter XXVI
* Chapter XXVII
* Chapter XXVIII
* Chapter XXIX
# Vril: The Power of the Coming Race; The New Utopia/Chapter IV

I now came in full sight of the building. Yes, it had been made by hands, and hollowed partly out of a great rock. I should have supposed it at the first glance to have been of the earliest form of Egyptian architecture. It was fronted by huge columns, tapering upward from massive plinths, and with capitals that, as I came nearer, I perceived to be more ornamental and more fantastically graceful that Egyptian architecture allows. As the Corinthian capital mimics the leaf of the acanthus, so the capitals of these columns imitated the foliage of the vegetation neighbouring them, some aloe-like, some fern-like. And now there came out of this building a form—human;—was it human? It stood on the broad way and looked around, beheld me and approached. It came within a few yards of me, and at the sight and presence of it an indescribable awe and tremor seized me, rooting my feet to the ground. It reminded me of symbolical images of Genius or Demon that are seen on Etruscan vases or limned on the walls of Eastern sepulchres—images that borrow the outlines of man, and are yet of another race. It was tall, not gigantic, but tall as the tallest man below the height of giants.
Its chief covering seemed to me to be composed of large wings folded over its breast and reaching to its knees; the rest of its attire was composed of an under tunic and leggings of some thin fibrous material. It wore on its head a kind of tiara that shone with jewels, and carried in its right hand a slender staff of bright metal like polished steel. But the face! it was that which inspired my awe and my terror. It was the face of man, but yet of a type of man distinct from our known extant races. The nearest approach to it in outline and expression is the face of the sculptured sphinx—so regular in its calm, intellectual, mysterious beauty. Its colour was peculiar, more like that of the red man than any other variety of our species, and yet different from it—a richer and a softer hue, with large black eyes, deep and brilliant, and brows arched as a semicircle. The face was beardless; but a nameless something in the aspect, tranquil though the expression, and beauteous though the features, roused that instinct of danger which the sight of a tiger or serpent arouses. I felt that this manlike image was endowed with forces inimical to man. As it drew near, a cold shudder came over me. I fell on my knees and covered my face with my hands.
# United States v. Boyd (46 U.S. 29)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
46 U.S. 29
United States v. Boyd
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. It was formerly before the court, and reported in 15 Pet., 187.
The following statement of the case was made out by Mr. Justice Nelson, and prefixed to 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
# United States v. Boyd (378 U.S. 39)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 39
United States v. Boyd (378 U.S. 39)
Argued: April 20, 21, 1964. --- Decided: June 15, 1964
Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox and R. R. Kramer, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellants.
Milton P. Rice, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.
Mr. 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
# United States v. Boyd (378 U.S. 39)/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 39
United States v. Boyd (378 U.S. 39)
Argued: April 20, 21, 1964. --- Decided: June 15, 1964
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.
But for the legislative history set out in the Court's opinion, ante, pp. 49-50, notes 8-10, I would have thought this case an appropriate one for a thorough reconsideration of the principles governing federal immunity from state taxation, a subject which has long troubled this Court. See my opinion in the 'Michigan cases,' 355 U.S., at 505, 78 S.Ct. at 492. In view of the legislative history, I concur in the judgment and 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
# United States v. Bowman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 94
United States v. Bowman
Argued: Oct. 17, 1922. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1922
Mr. Solicitor General James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
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
# United States v. Boyd (40 U.S. 187)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
40 U.S. 187
United States v. Boyd

## 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
# United States v. Boyd

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Boyd."
* 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.
* United States v. Boyd (40 U.S. 187)
* United States v. Boyd (46 U.S. 29)
* United States v. Boyd (378 U.S. 39)
See also Boyd v. United States.
# United States v. Thompson

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Thompson."
* 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.
* United States v. Thompson (93 U.S. 586)
* United States v. Thompson (98 U.S. 486)
* United States v. Thompson (251 U.S. 407)
See also Thompson v. United States.
# United States v. Thompson (93 U.S. 586)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 586
United States v. Thompson
Judgments in the State courts against the United States cannot be brought here for re-examination upon a writ of error, except in cases where the same relief would be afforded to private parties. It was conceded upon the argument in behalf of the United States, that the question of priority of payment, under the laws of the United States, was not decided in the court below, because it was found that there was no debt due. With this concession, which could not be avoided, it is difficult to see what Federal question there is in the record.
It appears affirmatively that the Circuit Court rejected the claim, because it had been paid; and the presumption, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, is, that the Court of Appeals based its decision upon the same ground. But, in addition to this, on looking into the opinion which has been sent here as part of the record in that court, we find that all questions as to the original liability of McFreely & Hopper to the United States were expressly waived, and the decision placed solely upon the ground that 'any claim the United States may have ever had against the firm, growing out of these dealings with Thompson, has been paid and extinguished.'
It is not contended that this decision is repugnant to the Constitution, or any law or treaty of the United tates; but the argument is, that, as the check of McFreely & Hopper was not paid, it did not pay their debt. Whether this is so or not, does not depend upon any statute of the United States, but upon the principles of general law alone. We have many times held that we have no power to review the decisions of the State courts upon such questions. Bethel v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 id. 666; Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 287; Rockhold v. Rockhold, id. 130.
Writ 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
# United States v. Thompson (251 U.S. 407)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 407
United States v. Thompson (251 U.S. 407)
Argued: Jan. 27 and 28, 1920. --- Decided: March 1, 1920
Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. J. E. B. Cunningham, of Harrisburg Pa., for defendant 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
# United States v. Kingsley

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Kingsley."
* 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.
* United States v. Kingsley (37 U.S. 476)
* United States v. Kingsley (138 U.S. 87)
# United States v. Kirby Lumber Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 1
United States v. Kirby Lumber Company
Argued: Oct. 21, 1931. --- Decided: Nov 2, 1931
In July, 1923, the plaintiff, the Kirby Lumber Company, issued its own bonds for $12,126,800 for which it received their par value. Later in the same year it purchased in the open market some of the same bonds at less than par, the difference of price being $137,521.30. The question is whether this difference is a taxable gain or income of the plaintiff for the year 1923. By the Revenue Act of (November 23) 1921, c. 136, § 213(a), 42 Stat. 238, gross income includes 'gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever,' and by the Treasury Regulations authorized by § 1303 (26 USCA § 1245), that have been in force through repeated re-enactments, 'If the corporation purchases and retires any of such bonds at a price less than the issuing price or face value, the excess of the issuing price or face value over the purchase price is gain or income for the taxable year.' Article 545(1)(c) of Regulations 62, under Revenue Act of 1921. See Article 544(1)(c) of Regulations 45, under Revenue Act of 1918; Article 545(1)(c) of Regulations 65, under Revenue Act of 1924; Article 545(1)(c) of Regulations 69, under Revenue Act of 1926; Article 68(1) (c) of Regulations 74, under Revenue Act of 1928. We see no reason why the Regulations should not be accepted as a correct statement of the law.
In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 46 S.C.t. 449, 70 L. Ed. 886, the defendant in error owned the stock of another company that had borrowed money repayable in marks or their equivalent for an enterprise that failed. At the time of payment the marks had fallen in value, which so far as it went was a gain for the defendant in error, and it was contended by the plaintiff in error that the gain was taxable income. But the transaction as a whole was a loss, and the contention was denied. Here there was no shrinkage of assets and the taxpayer made a clear gain. As a result of its dealings it made available $137,521.30 assets previously offset by the obligation of bonds now extinct. We see nothing to be gained by the discussion of judicial definitions. The defendant in error has realized within the year an accession to income, if we take words in their plain popular meaning, as they should be taken here. Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359, 364, 51 S.C.t. 150, 75 L. Ed. 383.
Judgment reversed.

## 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
# United States v. Kirby Lumber Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when a corporation settles its debts for less than the face amount, a taxable gain has occurred. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 1
United States v. Kirby Lumber Company
Argued: Oct. 21, 1931. --- Decided: Nov 2, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Robert Ash, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 36

Chap. XXXVI.—An Act to repeal the act laying Duties on mills and implements employed in the manufacture of Snuff.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the act, intituledVol. i. 426. “An act to alter and amend the act, intituled ‘An act laying certain duties upon snuff and refined sugar,’” passed on the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, as imposes a duty upon mills and implements employed in the manufacture of snuff, or allows a drawback upon the exportation of snuff manufactured within the United States, shall be, and the same hereby is repealed.
Approved, April 24, 1800.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 43

Chap. XLIII.—An Act to continue in force “An act laying an additional duty on Salt imported into the United States, and for other purposes.”
The Act of July 8, 1797, ch. 15, continued for ten years. Repealed March 3, 1807.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an act passed on the eighth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, intituled “An act laying an additional duty on salt imported into the United States, and for other purposes,” shall be, and the same is hereby continued in force for and during the term of ten years from the third ​day of March, one thousand eight hundred, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter and no longer.
Approved, May 7, 1800.