alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Gerstemeier

*James N. Peck,*for plaintiff.

*H. Lyle Houpt,*for defendants.

November 10, 1955.

Forrest, J.,

On June 7,1955, plaintiff herein caused a levy to be made by the sheriff of Montgomery County upon certain household goods *624as the property of defendants. Three days later hills were posted advertising a sheriff’s sale scheduled for 10 a.m., June 22, 1955. On June 21, 1955, separate and independent claims of debtor’s exemption from execution in the sum of $300 each were filed by both defendants. The sheriff continued the sale for the purpose of making an appraisal of the goods. Plaintiff filed a petition for rule to show cause why the claims of the exemption should not be set aside because of laches. However, plaintiff does not contend that a •continuance of the sale will be prejudicial to it except of course, that additional costs will accrue therefrom. The matter is before us on the petition and answer thereto and depositions in support of the petition.

Decisions construing the Act of April 9, 1849, P. L. 533, sec. 1, 12 PS §2161, which provides for a debtor’s exemption of $300 indicate that the criterion for the allowance of the exemption is whether it can be done without prejudice to the rights of creditors: Williamson v. Krumbhaar, 132 Pa. 455, 461 (1890). The claim for exemption must in all cases be made seasonably and before advertisement and sale: Maschke v. O’Brien, 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 559, 564 (1940). Where the judgment creditors have incurred costs which otherwise might have been readily avoided but for the debtor’s delay in filing their claims, exemptions have been disallowed: Diehl v. Holben, 39 Pa. 213 (1861). The facts in the Diehl case, supra, were extreme, the debtor not claiming the exemption until the very day set for the sheriff’s sale. We are cognizant of some decisions wherein it was said that a claim for exemption is too late if filed after the sheriff has advertised the sale. However, the unbending application of such a rule might appear to be unduly harsh in a case such as this where the sheriff posted bills only three days after the levy. The act was designed to prevent a *625creditor from taking “the last pound of flesh” and the court should be liberal in allowing claims of exemption. On the other hand, costs incurred by a plaintiff after the earliest time when defendants reasonably might- have given notice of their claim should be paid by defendants in relief of plaintiff.

And now, November 10, 1955, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that upon payment by defendants on or before November 25, 1955, of the sheriff’s costs accruing after levy and before the filing of the claims of exemption from execution, the rule to set aside said claims will be dismissed. Otherwise, the rule will be made absolute and the claims of exemption will be disallowed and set aside.
#### Joseph Fleischman et al., Appellants, *v.*Max Glaser, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Rew York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the defendant.

Louis Levy, for appellants.

Ferdinand E. M. Bullowa and A. H. Holbrook, for respondent.

*Per Ouriam.*

There was ample evidence in the case to support the decision in favor of the defendant, which was rendered by the court below. The case was fairly tried, and we find nothing in the rulings of the trial justice which was prejudicial to the plaintiffs. The judgment should be affirmed.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegeeioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Filed 1/14/04 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2004 ND 3

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Andrew Heckelsmiller, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20030179

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Donavin L. Grenz, 101 North Broadway, P.O. Box 637, Linton, N.D. 58552- 0637, for defendant and appellant.

Tyrone Jay Turner, Assistant State’s Attorney, Burleigh County Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for plaintiff and appellee.

State v. Heckelsmiller

No. 20030179

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Andrew Heckelsmiller appeals from a judgment convicting him of Criminal Trespass in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-03.  Heckelsmiller argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  In addition, Heckelsmiller argues the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded two of his witnesses who violated a sequestration order.  He claims a trial court has an affirmative duty at least to inquire what testimony a witness heard before barring their testimony.  After reviewing the entire record, we cannot conclude that assistance of counsel was plainly defective, and we affirm the judgment of conviction under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). 

[¶2]We summarily affirm, however, without prejudice to Heckelsmiller’s right to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings.  See State v. Palmer, 2002 ND 5, ¶ 13, 638 N.W.2d 18. 

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
1

Ogulei, David

From: Damico, Genevieve

Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:47 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: Meeting/IEPA CPT approval

Attachments: IEPA CPT Approval.pdf

From: Czerniak, George 

Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:44 AM 

To: Marshall, Sarah; Damico, Genevieve 

Subject: FW: Meeting/IEPA CPT approval 

From: Doug Harris [mailto:doug.harris@veoliaes.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:29 AM 

To: Czerniak, George 

Subject: Meeting/IEPA CPT approval 

George, 

Just wanted to let you know that we appreciate Sarah and Chris meeting with Dave, Dennis and Mike Tuesday. They 

believe a tremendous amount of progress was made and they have a follow-up call Monday with David Ogulei when he 

gets back. 

I received a letter from the IEPA suggesting that they also need to approve the CPT plan. Hopefully this will not delay 

the overall timing of our public notice. I have attached a copy for your review. I will copy you on our response to the 

IEPA. 

Finally I would like to invite you to visit our facility. I recognize with your schedule this might be a lot to ask so I wanted 

to extend an open invitation to you. At your convenience, or if you happen to be in the southern part of Illinois on other 

business and had some time, you could just drop in.

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC 

7 Mobile Ave. 

Sauget, IL 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Fax: 618-271-2128 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com

www.veoliaes.com

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp. is for the sole use of the intended recipient 

and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is 

prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message and delete same from all computers. 
2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 12, 2016

No. 04-16-00017-CR

James MOODY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 413867

The Honorable Robert Behrens, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Pat Montgomery, counsel for appellant, has filed a third request for an extension of time 

to file the appellant’s brief. This court granted appellants’ prior two requests for an extension of 

time to file the appellant’s brief. We grant appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file 

the appellant’s brief. We order Pat Montgomery to file the appellant’s brief by August 30, 2016. 

Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that 

(1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the 

efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable 

assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The 

court generally does not consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance. 

Counsel is further advised that if the appellant’s brief or a motion strictly complying with 

this order is not timely filed, the appeal will be abated and the case remanded to the trial court for 

an abandonment hearing.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 76.2 Assistance allowance. ( a ) VA will pay an allowance to a veteran with a disability who is: ( 1 ) Invited by the United States Paralympics (USP) to compete for a slot on, or selected for, the USP Team for any month or part of any month in which the veteran is training or competing in any event sponsored by the USP or the IPC; or
( 2 ) Residing at a USP training center in connection with any paralympic training or competition for the period certified under § 76.3.
( b ) In providing this allowance, VA will periodically assess funding for the allowance. If a periodic assessment reveals that funding is insufficient to pay all applicants, VA will first pay in full veterans with service-connected disabilities, and then pay others in full in the order in which their completed applications are received.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 322(d))
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23466]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 9 a.m.-12 noon.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered: 1. GAO Presentation on Their Report, Better 
Information and Planning Would Strengthen CPSC 's Oversight of Imported 
Products.
    2. CPSC Staff Presentation on Actions Being Taken to Implement the 
Recommendations in the GAO Report.
    3. CPSA 15j--Status of Substantial Hazard Listing on Drawstrings 
and Hair Dryers.
    4. Status Product Registration Cards.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person For More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23466 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of McRae Industries, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.    Date: June 14, 2005 /s/ Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.              Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.
#### The Hampton & Branchville Railroad & Lumber Co., Appellant, *v.*Robert R. Sizer et al., Respondents.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

May, 1900.)

Attachment — Consignee’s commissions on a sale gives him no attachable interest in the thing for sale, as against the owner.

The fact that consignees of lumber were to receive commissions if they sold it does not give them an attachable interest therein, and the true owners of it are entitled to recover it, in replevin, from the attaching creditors of the consignees.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint at a Trial Term.

Willis B. Dowd, for appellant.

Conway *&*Westbrook, for-respondent Sizer. - .

Henry C. Willeox, for The American Surety Co. ’

*500Conlan, J.

The action is to recover certain chattels, to-wit, about '79,000 feet of lumber, also for damages for detention. It is alleged that the plaintiff was and still is the sole owner and entitled to the sole possession of said lumber and to each and every part thereof, and that the defendant Sizer wrongfully and unlawfully caused the same to be seized under an attachment against the firm of Campbell *&*Scherer and sold by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment obtained against that firm by the defendant Sizer. The American Surety Company was substituted as a defendant in the place of the sheriff, having indemnified the latter. There is no dispute — certainly no proof — but that the plaintiff was the original owner of the lumber in question; it was cut, dressed and shipped by the plaintiff to New York; Scherer was acting as agent of the plaintiff in the transaction, as clearly appears from the evidence in the case, nor is there anywhere in the record any evidence that Campbell *&*Scherer, the judgment debtors, ever acquired any title to this precise property, and it does not appear upon what pretense of title, in them, the same was ever taken by the sheriff under the attachment. It is claimed by the defendants that because Scherer was entitled to a commission in the transaction, there was a leviable interest as against him in the property. This, we think, is untenable, and it does appear that Scherer had been paid his commission by the plaintiff. With no better evidence of title in the judgment debtors than is disclosed by the record, we are of the opinion that there was no such a right of property or possession in these parties as to render the same subject to a levy by the defendant Sizer; and the taking of the property of a third person in satisfaction of a debt, whether in' judgment or otherwise, was an unauthorized interference with the property and rights of such third person. There was not, in our opinion, any reason for withholding from the jury the consideration of the case upon all the evidence adduced, and the refusal of the trial court to permit the plaintiff to go to the jury on the question of the title to the property and of its rights to recover possession thereof was error, which calls for a reversal of the judgment.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and O’Dwyeb, J., concur.

.Judgment reversed and new trial ordered; with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### THE UNITED STATES v. JAMES REED

[50 C. Cls. 500; 265 U. S. 570]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the Supreme Court decided:

Decided May 5, 1924.

*Per curiam:*

*Affirmed*upon the authority of *United States*v. Andrews, 240 U. S. 90, 94.
# Official Journal L 25/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 25 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5830 January 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 25

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5830 January 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2015/119 of 29 July 2014 on the State aid SA.36874 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which Poland is planning to implement for LOT Polish Airlines SA and on the measure SA.36752 (2014/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Poland for LOT Polish Airlines SA
  (notified under document C(2014) 5429)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2015/120 of 29 October 2014 on the aid scheme SA.27317 (C 25/09) (ex N 673/08) which Italy is planning to implement for digital projection equipment
  (notified under document C(2014) 7888)

   (
  1
  ) | 37 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/119 of 29 July 2014 on the State aid SA.36874 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which Poland is planning to implement for LOT Polish Airlines SA and on the measure SA.36752 (2014/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Poland for LOT Polish Airlines SA
  (notified under document C(2014) 5429)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2014) 5429)

1

1

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/120 of 29 October 2014 on the aid scheme SA.27317 (C 25/09) (ex N 673/08) which Italy is planning to implement for digital projection equipment
  (notified under document C(2014) 7888)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2014) 7888)

1

37

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Jacob A. Mitnacht, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff, *v.*Charles Hawthorne et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,

May, 1900.)

Pleading — In ejectment — “ Defence *”*— Beply.

In ejectment neither the complaint nor the answer should set out the chain of title as this is a matter of proof.

An admission of certain allegations of the complaint cannot constitute a “ defence ”, as that can consist only of new matter — things which the defendant must prove affirmatively.

Where no new matter is alleged in the answer a reply is improper.

Motion to strike out a reply.

W. G. Bussey for plaintiff.

P. L. Block for defendants.

Gaynob, J.:

The pleadings here are a fine sample of the way of pleading which has become the vogue in ¡New York county, and which is such an annoyance to trial judges. It is quite impossible to make out what issue they present without a laborious scrutiny of them. The action is in ejectment. Instead of a complaint in scientific form that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of the property, we have a long paper called a complaint which purports to set out the history and chain of the plaintiff’s title, which is a matter of evidence and not of pleading. Then comes the answer, more extraordinary still, if that be possible. It starts out by alleging “ For a first defence ” that the *“*Defendants admit all the allegations in paragraph first of said complaint ”. What kind of a “ defence ” is an *“*admission ” ? A defence must consist of new matter, *i. e.*matter outside of what can be proved under a denial, such as a general release, payment, and so on. In other words, a defence can only consist of matter which the defendant has to affirmatively prove (Code Civ. Pro. § 500; Flack v. O’Brien, 19 Misc. Rep. 399; McManus v. Ins. Co., 22 Misc. Rep. 269; Green v. Brown, 22 Misc. Rep. 279; Von Hagen v. Water*379bury Mfg. *Go.,*22 Misc. Rep. 580; Hicks v. New Jersey Car Spring Co., 22 Misc. Rep. 585; Kelly v. Sammis, 25 Misc. Rep. 6; Meurer v. Brinkman, 25 Misc. Rep. 12; Laurie v. Duer, 30 Misc. Rep. 154). After this fashion this answer goes on to dispose of the complaint; and then it sets out at much length the history and chain of the defendants’ title; whereas it should be nothing but a denial of each and every allegation of the complaint, “ excepting ” &c., or else consist of specific denials of things alleged; and everything not so denied would stand as admitted. Then comes the so-called reply. Of course it was not a case calling for a reply. But the so-called reply is even longer than the complaint or the answer, being nine pages of typewriting. It is another jumble of admissions, denials and statements of evidence. In view of the fact that the plaintiff is- the first offender in these loose.and unscientific pleadings, I strike out the reply only for the sake of the trial judge; and I think that for his sake the complaint and answer should also be superceded by scientific pleadings. Then he will know at a glance what the action is for and what the issue is, and will find out the facts by listening to the evidence.

•The motion is granted.