alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 427

 443

 417

 347

 316

 315

 279

 273

 284

 301

 344

 361

 406

 509

 629

 865

 559

 556

 590

 424

 386

 362

 405

 435

 464

 539

 572

 659

 608

 636

 248

 249

 252

 252

 247

 247

 242

 242

 239

 243

 219

 243

 240

 245

 242

 255

 255

 268

 241

 258

 248

 261

 254

 240

 253

 250

 253

 255

 254

 253

 288

 295

 287

 274

 268

 267

 254

 253

 252

 255

 257

 264

 276

 297

 334

 384

 338

 339

 345

 307

 292

 287

 291

 292

 303

 322

 345

 357

 361

 349

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 9, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 3,673

 3,706

 3,735

 3,750

 3,764

 3,780

 3,783

 3,781

 3,777

 3,775

 3,774

 3,769

 3,769

 3,787

 3,833

 3,922

 3,973

 4,038

 4,115

 4,155

 4,193

 4,227

 4,266

 4,303

 4,349

 4,407

 4,476

 4,536

 4,563

 4,528

 262

 265

 267

 268

 269

 270

 270

 270

 270

 270

 270

 269

 269

 271

 274

 280

 284

 288

 294

 297

 300

 302

 305

 307

 311

 315

 320

 324

 326

 323

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### **CHAPTER 15—CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY**

Sec.
2701.
Authority to grant duty-free treatment.
2702.
Beneficiary country.
2703.
Eligible articles.
2703a.
Special rules for Haiti.
2704.
International Trade Commission reports on impact of Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Program.
2705.
Impact study by Secretary of Labor.
2706.
Effective date.
2707.
Center for the Study of Western Hemispheric Trade.
### SUBCHAPTER I—ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES IN AREAS AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITY
#### § 31.75 Dealer in beer and dealer in liquors at the same location.

Any person who registers as a wholesale dealer in beer or retail dealer in beer and who thereafter begins to sell distilled spirits or wine must also register as a wholesale dealer in liquors or retail dealer in liquors before commencing the sale, or offering for sale, of distilled spirits or wine.

(26 U.S.C. 5124)
#### The Bank of Commerce in Buffalo, Respondent, v. Amos A. Bissell et al., Appellants.

(Argued February 12, 1878;

decided February 22, 1878.)

This action was brought against defendants as common-carriers upon a bill of lading of a boat load of wheat, stated in the bill of lading to have been shipped at Buffalo by Sears *&*Daw, as agents and forwarders, for transportation *to*New York, on account and order of plaintiff. The bill of lading contained this direction, “notify E. S. Brown, New York.” It was given to plaintiff as security for a time draft drawn by Sears *&*Daw on said Brown, discounted by plaintiff. The wheat was delivered by defendants to Brown. The bill of lading with the draft annexed was forwarded by plaintiff to New York, with an endorsement thereon by its cashier, to the effect that it was subject to payment of the draft, and to be delivered only on payment of draft. A small sight draft drawn at the same time by Sears & Daw was paid by Brown on presentation; the time draft was accepted, but not paid. Before it fell due Brown became insolvent. *Held,*that defendants were not warranted in delivering the wheat to Brown, by the bill of lading, nor did the discount of the drafts, the acceptance of one and the payment of the other justify such delivery. *(Ontario Bank*v. *H. J. S- B. Co.,*59 N. Y., 510.)

The case of *Marine Bank*V. *Wright*(48 N. Y. 1), distinguished.

Also, *held,*that the fact that plaintiff did not indorse over the bill of lading to any one in New York city, authorizing them to receive the wheat, did not relieve defendants from the duty of holding the wheat as plaintiff’s property or sub*616ject to its lien; that defendants could have notified Brown, as they did, and if neither he nor any one else came with authority to take delivery they could, and it was their duty to have put the wheat in store.

Defendant offered to prove a custom in New York to deliver property under similar bills of lading to the person to be notified. The evidence was rejected. *Held,*no error; that if the custom was established it could not subvert a positive unambiguous contract.

Also, *held,*that the indorsement or memorandum put upon the bill by plaintiff’s cashier did not alter or affect it.

A replevin suit was commenced by plaintiff against the 'firm of Slcinker *&*Co., to whom the wheat had been delivered by Brown, and who claimed by purchase from him, by agreement of the parties Skinker & Co., paid to plaintiff three-fourths of its claim, it agreeing to sue defendants and prosecute to final judgment, and if judgment was recovered and collected, to return the sum so paid, the replevin suit in the meantime to be suspended. *Held,*that the suit, stipulation and payment so made, did not affect defendants’ liability.

*W. S. Bissell*for appellants.

*Henry B. Greene*for respondent.

Folger, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
### §107b–3. Audit of nonappropriated fund activities

The Comptroller General is authorized to conduct regular and periodic audits of all nonappropriated fund activities which receive income from vending machines on Federal property, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe. In the conduct of such audits he and his duly authorized representatives shall have access to any relevant books, documents, papers, accounts, and records of such activities as he deems necessary.

(Pub. L. 93–516, title II, §211, Dec. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1630; Pub. L. 93–651, title II, §211, Nov. 21, 1974, 89 Stat. 2–15.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Randolph-Sheppard Act Amendments of 1974, and not as part of the Randolph-Sheppard Act which comprises this chapter.

The content of Pub. L. 93–516, including provisions of section 211 thereof which enacted this section, were originally contained in H.R. 14225, 93rd Congress, Second Session, which was pocket-vetoed during the 31-day intrasession adjournment of the 93rd Congress for the Congressional elections in November, 1974.

Pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Kennedy v. Jones, D.C.D.C. 1976, 412 F.Supp. 353) H.R. 14225 was deemed to have become law without the approval of the President on Nov. 21, 1974, and was given the designation Pub. L. 93–651. Therefore, for purposes of codification, this section should be deemed to have been enacted by Pub. L. 93–651, title II, §211, Nov. 21, 1974, 89 Stat. 2–15, in exactly the same manner as it was enacted by Pub. L. 93–516.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,900.84

 1,901.47

 1,901.94

 1,901.47

 1,901.21

 1,901.36

 1,901.54

 1,901.37

 1,901.04

 1,901.63

 1,901.49

 1,901.50

 1,901.35

 1,901.74

 1,900.77

 1,901.73

 1,901.48

 1,901.59

 1,901.59

 1,901.80

 1,900.91

 1,901.03

 1,900.91

 1,901.47

 1,900.85

 1,900.74

 1,900.92

 1,901.04

 1,901.85

 1,901.13

 1,901.43

 13,793

 14,263

 14,614

 14,263

 14,068

 14,180

 14,315

 14,188

 13,941

 14,382

 14,278

 14,285

 14,173

 14,465

 13,742

 14,457

 14,270

 14,352

 14,352

 14,509

 13,845

 13,933

 13,845

 14,263

 13,801

 13,720

 13,852

 13,941

 14,547

 14,008

 14,233

STORAGE

-52

+470

+351

-351

-195

+112

+135

-127

-247

+441

-104

+7

-112

+292

-723

+715

-187

+82

+0

+157

-664

+88

-88

+418

-462

-81

+132

+89

+606

-539

+225

CHANGE

1,622

1,870

2,127

1,540

1,567

2,095

3,066

2,583

2,621

2,755

2,533

3,880

7,301

7,932

7,509

8,168

7,638

7,733

7,673

7,685

7,286

7,705

7,516

6,366

4,932

4,366

4,036

3,720

3,980

3,375

3,748

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 35

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 79

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 1,361

 1,357

 1,342

 1,362

 1,342

 1,338

 1,852

 2,304

 2,305

 2,309

 2,311

 3,572

 5,445

 5,887

 5,963

 5,917

 5,862

 5,821

 5,800

 5,779

 5,799

 5,793

 5,694

 4,287

 3,296

 2,536

 2,102

 1,812

 1,802

 1,778

 1,764

SPILL

 165

 165

 165

 130

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 84

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

OUTLETS

 0

 3

 3

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 1

 1

 2

 0

 1

C.F.S.

 .02

 .12

 .12

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .04

 .00

 .01

 .06

 .03

 .00

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .03

 .03

 .01

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .03

 .08

 .00

 .05

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2006 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 17, 2006

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +388 146,928 2,194 2,919 105,892 18 .84

ACRE-FEET +388 291,432 4,352 5,790 210,037 36

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,352

TOTAL RIVER 220,179 291,010

 13,845

 70,831

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 122

 108

 440

 190

 158

 536

 981

 178

 275

 59

 109

 138

 1,747

 1,733

 1,745

 1,725

 1,705

 1,706

 1,708

 1,664

 1,657

 1,702

 1,700

 1,703

 1,703

 1,706

 1,701

 1,697

 1,705

 1,704

 1,705

 35,710

 70,831

Table 6
EPA Tribal Consultation- Navajo Generating Station Wild Horse Hotel Chandler,Arizona January 15, 2015



### 6RlC- OGC
January 2024

STORAGE COMPUTED* SPRING SHASTA EVAP

ACRE-FEET INFLOW CR. P. P. RELEASE RELEASE - C.F.S. C. F. S.

DAY ELEV RES. CHANGE C.F.S. RELEASE C. F. S. POWER SPILL FISHTRAP (1)

19,215

1 580.07 19,564 349 5,210 625 4,285 4,949 0 85 0

2 581.28 20,264 700 5,393 503 4,503 4,954 0 85 1

3 581.90 20,627 363 5,245 1,404 3,404 4,977 0 85 0

4 581.84 20,592 -35 5,080 1,527 3,191 5,013 0 85 0

5 582.00 20,686 94 5,105 1,024 3,751 4,972 0 85 1

6 582.59 21,038 352 5,212 1,170 3,981 4,950 0 85 0

7 582.09 20,740 -298 4,901 652 4,270 4,966 0 85 0

8 581.77 20,551 -189 4,951 602 4,380 4,961 0 85 0

9 581.42 20,346 -205 4,952 610 4,409 4,970 0 85 0

10 581.26 20,252 -94 5,018 35 5,039 4,980 0 85 0

11 580.42 19,766 -486 4,817 27 4,842 4,976 0 85 1

12 580.12 19,593 -173 4,973 44 4,988 4,975 0 85 0

13 581.73 20,528 935 5,526 348 5,006 4,970 0 85 0

14 582.37 20,907 379 5,251 473 4,690 4,975 0 85 0

15 581.99 20,680 -227 4,948 654 4,301 4,976 0 85 1

16 581.46 20,370 -310 4,904 262 4,644 4,974 0 85 1

17 581.84 20,592 222 5,176 448 4,679 4,978 0 85 1

18 582.04 20,710 118 5,106 603 4,299 4,959 2 85 1

19 581.97 20,668 -42 5,039 1,266 3,648 4,975 0 85 0

20 582.98 21,271 603 5,347 1,839 2,861 4,958 0 85 0

21 583.62 21,659 388 5,250 1,857 2,057 4,969 0 85 0

22 583.41 21,532 -127 5,038 1,854 1,545 5,017 0 85 0

23 582.85 21,193 -339 4,935 1,768 2,373 5,021 0 85 0

24 582.00 20,686 -507 4,856 1,733 2,304 5,026 0 85 1

25 582.00 20,686 0 5,113 1,733 2,877 5,027 0 85 1

26 579.78 19,400 -1,286 4,463 1,731 2,559 5,026 0 85 0

27 578.99 18,956 -444 4,868 1,724 2,991 5,007 0 85 0

28 578.42 18,642 -314 4,847 1,691 3,016 4,920 0 85 0

29 579.39 19,181 539 5,282 1,720 3,285 4,925 0 85 0

30 580.77 19,968 787 7,387 1,733 5,932 6,466 438 85 1

31 579.65 19,327 -641 13,717 1,731 13,672 8,748 5,206 85 1

TOTALS 112 167,910 33,391 127,782 159,560 5,646 2,635 11

ACRE-FEET 112 333,049 66,231 253,456 316,487 11,199 5,227 22

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND EVAPORATION.

(1) EVAPORATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM SHASTA PAN.

SUMMARY

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Power 316,487

Spill 11,199

Historical Archive and Report Database

Keswick Reservoir Daily Operations

Run Date: 2/10/2024
Fish Trap 5,227

Historical Archive and Report Database

Keswick Reservoir Daily Operations

Run Date: 2/10/2024
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 155)IV-E-2 8 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:56

PM Sheet 155 of 242P. 2

% MA R I UNITE D STATE S ENVIRO N MENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 

## ft-Ql-2-±

OFFIC€O F „ ~ A R AN O RAOtATiOP r MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : FROM : TO : THRU : Conferenc e Cal l Wit h AP I Regarding FME A

Glenn W . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manag e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1 Cheste r J . France , Chie f Standard s Developmen t a n 

### r

# 2>A**^A*~« ^

Branc h Charle s L . Gra

y Emissio n Contr o , Jr. , Directo r / /7/--** 1 / / ^

1 Technolog

yDivieion T / y ^ During thei r January25 , 198 8 meetin g wit h EP Ai n An

n Arbor , Michigan , representative s o f th e America n Petroleu m Institut e (API ) mentione d tha t unde r contrac t theywer e conducting a failur e mode s an d effect s analysi s (FMEA ) fo r onboar d systems . Sinc e EP Awa s a t tha t time preparing a contrac t Scop e o f Wor k regarding a vehicl e fue l system comparativ e ris k assessment , on January28 , 1988 , AP I wa s contacte d t o seek thei r inpu t on th e format , methodolog yan d analytica l technique s being use d i n thei r FME Awork . Subsequently , a conferenc e cal l wa s hel d a t 3 p.m . on February 2 , 198 8 among representative s o f EPA , API , an d API' s contracto r IC F TechnologyIncorporated . Alis t o f thos e individual s participatin g i n the cal l i s attached . A s mentione d above , th e discussion s focuse d o n th e format , methodolog

yan d analytica l technique s use d i n API' s FME Awork . Th e genera l approac h an d preliminaryresult s o f API' s FME Awer e als o discusse d fro ma technica l viewpoint . AP I plan s t o provid e a cop

yo f thei r FME Aa s comment s t o th e docke t whe n complete . Attachmen tP. 3

FME AConferenc e Cal l Participant s

* • February2 , 198 8 EPAAP I IC F Charle s Gra

yE d Crocket t Davi d Moor e Che t Franc e Jac k Freema n Phi l Collie r Joh n Anderso n Georg e Musse r Glenn Passavan t Bil l Koeh l
Exhibit 10.8.2

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

 

TELADOC, INC.

 

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (this “Second Amendment”) is made as of September 10, 2014 (“Effective Date”), to the TELADOC, INC. SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (as amended, the “Plan”).

 

1.                                      All capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.

 

2.                                      On and after the Effective Date, the Plan shall be amended as hereinafter set forth:

 

Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the number “eight million sixty three thousand one hundred twenty six (8,063,126)” in the second and third line thereof and substituting therein in its entirety “eleven million seven hundred seventy thousand three hundred eighty eight (11,770,388)”.

 

3.                                      Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall continue unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TELADOC, INC. ON September 10, 2014.

 

	
TELADOC, INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Jason Gorevic
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Jason Gorevic
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2689

In Re: CHARLES LURIA,

Debtor.

_________________________

CHARLES LURIA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CRESTAR BANK,

Defendant - Appellee,

SCOTT D. FIELD, Chapter 11 Trustee,

Intervenor,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Party-in-interest.

No. 95-2780

In Re: CHARLES LURIA,

Debtor. _________________________
2

CHARLES LURIA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CRESTAR BANK,

Defendant - Appellant,

SCOTT D. FIELD, Chapter 11 Trustee,

Intervenor,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Party-in-interest.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA95-240-PJM, BK-94-12553-DK)

Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Luria, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley R. Duncan, HUNTON &

WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Ward Baldwin Coe, III,

WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Intervenor.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Charles Luria and Crestar Bank appeal from the district

court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's decision that payments Luria received from a consulting agreement were includable in

the bankruptcy estate and that Crestar was barred from asserting an

interest in those payments. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Luria v. Crestar

Bank, Nos. CA-95-240-PJM; BK-94-12553-DK (D. Md. Aug. 16, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50676 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JASON KILE CONAWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CR-16-ALL

--------------------- April 29, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jason Kile Conaway, federal inmate # 29326-077, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal. A timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. United States v. Merrifield , 764 F.2d 436, 437 (5th Cir. 1985). Rule 4(b)(1)(A), Fed. R. App. P., requires that the notice of appeal by the defendant in aNo. 98-50676 - 2 - criminal case be filed within 10 days of entry of the judgment or

order from which appeal is taken. Rule 4(b)(4), Fed. R. App. P., allows the district court to grant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause. Because Conaway requested an extension of time to file a notice of appeal more than one year after the last date for making such a request, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider his motion. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the requested relief. The appeal from the denial of the motion, insofar as it seeks an out-of-time appeal only, is frivolous. The appeal is DISMISSED as to that relief sought. The motion for an out-of-time appeal also alleged that Conaway was denied appellate counsel, that his waiver of appeal was invalid, and that his guilty plea was involuntary. Conaway’s motion challenged the validity of his conviction and was filed after his conviction had become final. Thus, the motion should be construed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the district court did not err procedurally in considering the merits. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)(pro se actions should be liberally construed)(28 U.S.C. § 2254 case); United States v. De Los Reyes , 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988)(“[W]e elect to construe Reyes’ ill-styled Rule 35 pleading as a request for relief under section 2255.”).No. 98-50676 - 3 - However, because Conaway filed the motion after the April 24, 1996, effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to Conaway’s appeal, and he requires a certificate of appealability (COA) to proceed. See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997); United States v.
Carter , 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court must make the initial determination whether a COA should issue. Muniz v. Johnson , 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we remand the case for a COA ruling from the district court.
DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
### **CHAPTER 7—INSTRUCTION AS TO NATURE AND EFFECT OF ALCOHOLIC DRINKS AND NARCOTICS**

Sec.
111.
Study in certain schools of effect of alcoholic drinks and narcotics.
112.
Enforcement of section 111.
113.
Teachers' certificates dependent on passing examination on effect of alcoholic drinks and narcotics.
### SUBCHAPTER IX—ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS
#### William Di Niscia, Respondent, *v.*Alexandrine Olsey, Appellant.

Second Department,

April 24, 1914.

Beal property — improvements made in consideration of promise to marry—breach of contract—when no equitable lien in favor of person making improvements.

Where the plaintiff agreed to improve real estate owned by the defendant in consideration of her promise to marry him and to convey to him a half interest in the premises and, after said improvements were made, the defendant so conducted herself as to render it impossible for the *155plaintiff to marry her a.nd excluded him from the premises and refused to convey as agreed, the court cannot impress an equitable lien upon the lands in favor of the plaintiff in the absence of proof of a clear intention that the premises should “be held, given or transferred as security for the obligation ” of the contract.

Appeal by the defendant, Alexandrine Olsey, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 28th day of March, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.

*Michael J. Tierney [John F. Lambden*with him on the brief], for the appellant.

*Humphrey J. Lynch,*for the respondent.

Jenks, P. J.:

The Special Term found that the plaintiff and defendant agreed that plaintiff would improve the premises of the defendant with the understanding that the parties would then intermarry, and at that time the defendant would convey a one-half interest therein to the plaintiff for use as their home; that the plaintiff made such improvements and expended incidental moneys, and advanced moneys to meet interest charges on an incumbrance, but that thereafter the defendant so conducted herself as to render it impossible for the parties to intermarry, excluded the plaintiff from the premises and failed to convey any part of them to the plaintiff. Thereupon, and upon such findings only, the court impressed a trust on the premises and directed a sale thereof in satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim.

The respondent would maintain this judgment on the theory of equitable lien. The difficulty in the way of affirmance is that proof of a breach of the contract only does not warrant this decree of the equity court. There should also appear proof that clearly established the intention that the premises would *“*be held, given or transferred as security for the obligation ” of the contract. (Pom. Eq. Juris. [3d ed.] § 1235; 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.], 15; *Wright*v. *Ellison,*1 Wall. 16.) In the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent there is such proof, which is lacking in the case at bar.

*156The judgment must be reversed and a new trial must be granted, with costs to abide the final award of costs.

Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs.
#### Albert Matthews, Respondent, v. Fred Hill, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred, except Kellogg and Howard, JJ., dissenting.