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

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1898].

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### Thompson v. Pruden.

1. Common Words, Meaning Not to be Varied to Meet Technical Constructions.

In “warranted sound and safe property,” given upon the sale of a horse, “sound” is a common word, the meaning of which is plain and ought not to to be varied to meet a customary construction of it upon a horse market.

*8582. Words Which May Have Been Used in Technical Sense — Testimony Admissible,

The words “safe property,” however, may have been used in a technical sense, and testimony is admissible to show whether or not they were so used.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.

Smith, J.

Heard on error to the common pleas, in which the controversy was regarding the warranty of a horse which was sold to Judge Pruden by its owner at plaintiff in error’s stable as a safe, sound and quiet animal, a family horse suitable to be driven by a lady. But he proved to be a hip-shot and a runaway, as Pruden found afterward with disastrous results to his carriage. The receipt for the money paid for the animal was signed by the plaintiff in error, and contained the words, “Warranted sound and safe property.” The trial judge refused to admit testimony tending to show that in the Fifth street horse market this warranty has from long custom come to be understood to refer to the title to the .animal exclusively, and not to his qualities.

The reviewing court sustains the judge below in holding that the word “sound” is a common word, the meaning of which is plain and •ought not to be varied as it was sought to do in this writing. But as to the words “safe property,”is of the opinion that the case was different and testimony might be admissible-to show that these words were used •in this writing in a technical sense; and as the jury may have rendered the verdict they did on the theory that the warranty was that the horse was a safe animal to drive, and for other reasons, the case should be retried.
#### BAILEY v MEHLING

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9580.

Decided May 13, 1929

Messrs. Locher, Green & Woods, Cleveland, for Bailey.

Milton C. Portmann. Esq., Cleveland for Mehling.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Where the owner of property gave a written easement in the form of a deed to a village to lay a sewer across the property, which was done, although the deed was not recorded, and later, the owner *716conveyed the property to an innocent purchaser, without notice,'with full warranty and free from incumbrances, and its purchaser leases the property for a period of 99 years to another person who desires to place a building, thereon, but is unable to do so without the sewer being relocated, the purchaser is entitled to recover the amount expended in re-locating the sewer as against the devisees of the grantor; and in such case, such devisees are liable in proportion to the share received from the grantor. The judgment should not be rendered in solido as against such devisees.

Opinion by

VICKERY, P. J.

SULLiyAN & LEVINE, J. J., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map. BoiseNational Forest. Emmett Ranger District, Idaho**
 
2013:Front | Back
2014:Front | Back
2017:Front | Back
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:B 63/19/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000934073
 
March 13, 2018
#### SANTOS v ZENZ, f/u/b/o FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE CO.

Case No. 89-037-AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

September 6, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Charles G. White, for appellant.

W. Craig Eakin, for appellee.

Before NADLER, ESQUIROZ, BLOOM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the authority of *Thomas v Atlantic Associates, Inc.,*226 SO.2d 100 (Fla. 1969). In *Thomas,*the Supreme Court of Florida ruled tht the issue of whether a daughter was guilty of “a species of conversion or theft” in taking the car keys and driving the car to the grocery store, as well as the issue of whether the father was negligent in leaving the keys on the dresser, arising under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, were issues of fact to be resolved by the jury, thus precluding the entry of summary judgment. Following a non-jury *41trial, the Court below, sitting as the trier of fact, resolved similar issues in Appellee’s favor. The Court’s findings and judgment are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and we are not prepared to disturb them. *Marrone v Miami National Bank,*507 So.2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Randy International Ltd. v American Excess Corp.,*501 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1601.35 Petitions.

Any interested person may petition the Commission, in writing, for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation. Such petition shall be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington DC 20507, and shall state the rule or regulation proposed to be issued, amended, or repealed, together with a statement of grounds in support of such petition.

[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977, as amended at 54 FR 32061, Aug. 4, 1989. Redesignated at 56 FR 9625, Mar. 7, 1991; 74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009]
#### § 435.8 Human space flight.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76726, Sept. 19, 2024.

An applicant for a license to conduct a reentry with flight crew or a space flight participant on board the vehicle must demonstrate compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.

[Doc. No. FAA-2005-23449, 71 FR 75632, Dec. 15, 2006]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection with the Quarterly Report  of  Allstates
WorldCargo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending  June 30, 2007 as  filed  with  the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"),  I,  Craig  D.  Stratton,
Chief Financial  Officer  of  the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2)  The information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
         company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
         operations of the Company for the periods presented.


August 14, 2007

/s/ Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer



This  certification  has been furnished solely  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
CORPORATIONS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1899.]

Smith, Cox and Giffeu, JJ.

#### W. C. Biles & Co. v. Charles S. Looker Co.

Statutory Liability Continues until Transfer op Stock on Books of Company is MADE.

Where a stockholder makes a written contract for the sale of his stock, he remains liable as owner thereof to an assessment under the statute tor debts contracted prior to the entry of the transfer of such stock on the books of the company.

Appear from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

Smith, J.

On the evidence submitted in this case, we are of the opinion that Mrs. Lucille H. Turner should, as a stockholder in the Charles S. Looker Company, be assessed on the ten and one-half shares which were held by her in such corporation, notwithstanding the fact that prior to the incurring of the debts by said insolvent corporation, to pay which it is sought in this proceeding to assess the stockholders, she had by a contract in writing sold, or contracted to sell, a part of her shares to her husband. No record or mention of this attempted sale appeared on any book of this company until after the debts in question had been incurred by said company. Then for the first time a stock book was procured by the company (October 31, 1892), and a certificate for the original ten shares subscribed by her was issued to her, and on November 4, 1892, she appears to have assigned nine of those shares to her husband, and on November 30, 1892, the original certificate was cancelled, and a new certificate for nine of the shares issued to her husband as her assignee and a certificate for the other share was issued to herself.

Under the law as announced by the Supreme Court in Harpold v. Stobart, 46 O. S., 397, and in Herrick v. Wardwell, 58 O. S., 294, we think that Mrs. Turner after the written assignment by her on April 1, 1892, of the nine shares of stock to her husband, remained liable as the owner thereof to an assessment under the statute for debts contracted *686prior to the entry of the transfer of the shares on the books of the company. If she desired to relieve herself from an assessment for the payment of debts thereafter incurred by the company, it was her duty to see that such transfer appeared on the books of the company. The assessment now sought to be made, being for the payment of the debts of the company incurred prior to the entering of the transfer on the books of the company, there must be a decree against her accordingly.

*JL, C. Black,*for Biles & Co.

*C. W. Baker, contra.*
Wednesday 24th 

 July, 1996. 

Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation 

 and Richard-Flagship Services, Inc., Appellants, 

 against Record No. 1416-95-1 

 Claim No. 154-00-19 

Donald Eugene Umphlett, Appellee. 

Upon a Rehearing 

Before Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

It appears to the Court that the decisions of the Supreme 

Court of Virginia in the cases of The Steinrich Group, et al. v. 

Claudia H. Jemmott, Record No. 950829, Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Linda Kay 

Martin, Record No. 951050, and Wampler-Longacre Chicken, Inc., et al., 

Record No. 951072 (March 1, 1996), control the instant case and that, 

thus, the award appealed from is erroneous. 

Accordingly, the opinion previously rendered on February 27, 

1996 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on that date is vacated, and 

the award of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission is 

reversed. 

This order shall be certified to the Virginia Workers' 

Compensation Commission. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Clerk
#### § 100.620 Finality of a compromise.

An offer of compromise must be in writing and signed by the debtor. An offer of compromise which is accepted by the NLRB is final and conclusive on the debtor and on all officials, agencies, and courts of the United States, unless obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, the presentation of a false claim, or mutual mistake of fact.
# L_2015121DE.01002802.xml

| 14.5.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 121/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 121/28

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 515/97 des Rates vom 13. März 1997 über die gegenseitige Amtshilfe zwischen Verwaltungsbehörden der Mitgliedstaaten und die Zusammenarbeit dieser Behörden mit der Kommission im Hinblick auf die ordnungsgemäße Anwendung der Zoll- und der Agrarregelung

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 82 vom 22. März 1997
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 82 vom 22. März 1997

Seite 14, Artikel 45 Absatz 3 Unterabsatz 1:

anstatt:

„(3)   Die Absätze 1 und 2 stehen der Verwendung der gemäß dieser Verordnung eingeholten Auskünfte im Rahmen von Gerichts- oder Ermittlungsverfahren wegen Nichteinhaltung der Zoll- oder der Agrarregelung nicht entgegen.“

muss es heißen:

„(3)   Die Absätze 1 und 2 stehen der Verwendung der gemäß dieser Verordnung eingeholten Auskünfte im Rahmen von später eingeleiteten Gerichts- oder Ermittlungsverfahren wegen Nichteinhaltung der Zoll- oder der Agrarregelung nicht entgegen.“

---
#### § 91.1113 Maintenance recordkeeping.

Each fractional ownership program manager must keep (using the system specified in the manual required in § 91.1025) the records specified in § 91.417(a) for the periods specified in § 91.417(b).
§ 11.12 Content and format of environmental documents. ( a ) An environmental assessment may be prepared in any format considered effective by the agency involved. When such a document is prepared in connection with a proposed action, it must be made readily available to the public either by placement into the public record (with public notice provided in accordance with 40 CFR part 1506) or by publication in the Federal Register. The preamble to the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking may be considered the environmental assessment provided that the document contains the elements required by 40 CFR 1508.9(b).
( b ) A finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.13) may be prepared in any format considered to be effective or necessary by the agency involved in the proposed action.
( c ) The finding of no significant impact, and the environmental assessment on which it was based, as well as any comments received in response to these documents shall be included in the public record of the proposed action.
( d ) Department of Labor agencies shall comply with the format requirements for environmental impact statements as set forth at 40 CFR 1502.10, except when an agency determines that there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, such as more effective communication or reduced duplication of effort and paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4). For example, in OSHA/MSHA informal rulemaking proceedings, environmental documents may be combined with the Federal Register notice of proposed or final rulemaking. Filing and circulation of the combined preamble/environmental document shall be in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1506.9.
( e ) The final environmental impact statement shall contain any changes in information or supplemental information received since the filing and circulation of the draft environmental impact statement, as well as a summary, or copies of the substantive comments received in response to the draft environmental impact statement. If such changes and comments are minor, an agency may circulate only the changes and comments, including responses to the comments, rather than the entire impact statement, to the extent permitted by 40 CFR 1502.19. However, the entire document, with a new cover sheet, shall be filed with EPA and placed in the rulemaking record.
#### Chamberlin and others *vs.*Morey.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1838.

Where a writ of error is sued out upon a judgment rendered in a court of C. P., a transcript of the record must be returned, although the alleged errors fully appear in a bill of exceptions taken at the trial; if it be not returned, the writ of error will be dismissed.

This case was submitted on written briefs at the last term and at this term, the following disposition was made of it.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

This is a writ of error to Monroe, C. P. There is a bill of exceptions, but no judgment record is returned. So far as appears, no judgment was ever entered on the verdict. The common pleas may have granted a new trial. But at all events we cannot review a judgment until it appears that one has been entered.

Writ of error dismissed.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1
of Marshall Holdings International, Inc. for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2007, I, Richard A. Bailey, Chief Executive Officer of Marshall Holdings
International, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1.           Such
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.           The
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Marshall Holdings
International, Inc.
 
 Dated:
      April 24, 2008./s/  Richard A.
      BaileyRichard A. Bailey,
      Chief Executive Officer ofMarshall
      Holdings International, Inc.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1580** 

FRANCIS AKINRO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. BALTIMORE U.S. POST OFFICE POLICEMEN, e t al
. , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 01151

- JFM )

Submitted : July 22, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Francis Akinro, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Francis Akinro appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his civil complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible err or. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Akinro v. Baltimore U.S. Post Office Policemen , No. 1:10

- cv - 01151

- JFM (D. Md. May 14, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### [670] Hendricks *vs.*Bloodgood.

Notice of the'signing of the report by referees must be given to the losing party, to enable him to comply with the general rule as to setting aside reports of referees, or he will be relieved, although he does not, within the time prescribed, prepare papers to set aside the report.

A motion was made in behalf of the defendant to set aside a judgment entered on a report of referees, and for leave to serve affidavits whereon to found a motion to set aside the report. The excuse offered for not complying with the general rule on this subject, was, that the party had not notice of the signing of the report. In answer,, it was objected that it was not the practice to give notice.

*By the*Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

It should be the practice. . In analogy to the making of a case for a new trial, the affidavit upon which it is intended to move to set aside the report should be served within four days after notice of the signing of the report, and unless the losing party has such notice, he is entitled to relief. Motion granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6386

ROBIN M. YOUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

W. F. DALIUS, Warden; BUREAU OF PRISONS;

KATHLEEN HAWKS, Director, Bureau of Prisons;

LSCI-BUTNER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-235-5-BO)

Submitted: September 9, 2003 Decided: October 6, 2003

Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robin M. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robin M. Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00628-CV

Michael Krause, Appellant

v.

Tara Krause, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY 

NO. C210385F, THE HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on December 31, 

2021. On March 15, 2022, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his

failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. 

The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status 

report regarding this appeal by March 25, 2022. Further, the notice advised appellant that his

failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of 

prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this 

Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court 
2

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established 

that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because 

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: April 14, 2022
#### § 375.20 Airworthiness and registration certificates.

Foreign civil aircraft shall carry currently effective certificates of registration and airworthiness issued or rendered valid by the country of registry and shall display the nationality and registration markings of that country. However, a foreign civil aircraft may carry, in lieu of such certificate of airworthiness, an effective special flight authorization issued by the Federal Aviation Administration for the operations being performed.