alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 24 / 07-0414 

Filed February 1, 2008 

CHRISTOPHER TEGGATZ and TANYA TEGGATZ, 

 Appellants, 

vs. 

SATTLER HOMES, INC., 

 Appellee. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. 

Grady, Judge. 

 Third-party purchasers of home appeal from summary judgment 

for builder in suit for breach of implied warranty of workmanlike 

construction. DECISION OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED AND CASE 

REMANDED. 

 Webb L. Wassmer of Simmons, Perrine PLC, Cedar Rapids, for 

appellants. 

 James P. Craig and Mark J. Parmenter of Lederer, Weston, Craig, 

PLC, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. 
2

PER CURIAM.

 Plaintiffs, Christopher and Tanya Teggatz, appeal a district court 

order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Sattler 

Homes, Inc., on the plaintiffs’ third-party-purchaser action for breach of 

implied warranty of workmanlike construction against the homebuilder. 

The district court granted Sattler Homes’ motion for summary judgment, 

finding Iowa law does not extend the implied warranty of workmanlike 

construction to a subsequent home purchaser. Today, we vacated a 

court of appeals decision and reversed the judgment of the district court 

in an action based upon an identical claim. See Speight v. Walters Dev. 

Co., ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2008) (filed today). We held in Speight that 

“subsequent purchasers may recover for breach of implied warranty of 

workmanlike construction against a builder-vendor as recognized in Kirk

[v. Ridgway, 373 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1985)] for first-party purchasers.” Id.

at ___. Our ruling in Speight controls here. We therefore reverse the 

district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant 

homebuilder and remand for further proceedings. 

DECISION OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED AND CASE 

REMANDED. 

 This opinion shall not be published.
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.06 Appeals. ( a ) Any person directly affected by an action taken under this part may request reconsideration by the Coast Guard official who is responsible for that action.
( b ) Any person not satisfied with a ruling made under the procedure contained in paragraph (a) of this section may appeal that ruling in writing, except as allowed under paragraph (e) of this section, to the Coast Guard District Commander of the district in which the action was taken. The appeal may contain supporting documentation and evidence that the appellant wishes to have considered. If requested, the District Commander may stay the effect of the action being appealed while the ruling is being reviewed. The District Commander issues a ruling after reviewing the appeal submitted under this paragraph.
( c ) Any person not satisfied with a ruling made under the procedure contained in paragraph (b) of this section may appeal that ruling in writing, except as allowed under paragraph (e) of this section, to the Commandant (CG-5P), Attn: Assistant Commandant for Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501. The appeal may contain supporting documentation and evidence that the appellant wishes to have considered. If requested, the Deputy for Operations Policy and Capabilities (CG-DCO-D) may stay the effect of the action being appealed while the ruling is being reviewed. The Chief, Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection issues a ruling after reviewing the appeal submitted under this paragraph.
( d ) Any decision made by the Assistant Commandant for Prevention (CG-5P) under the procedure contained in paragraph (c) of this section is final agency action.
( e ) If the delay in presenting a written appeal would have a significant adverse impact on the appellant, the appeal under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section may initially be presented orally. If an initial presentation of the appeal is made orally, the appellant must submit the appeal in writing within five days of the oral presentation to the Coast Guard official to whom the oral presentation was made. The written appeal must contain, at a minimum the basis for the appeal and a summary of the material presented orally.
[CGD 77-058b, 45 FR 43706, June 30, 1980, as amended by CGD 88-052, 53 FR 25122, July 1, 1988; CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33667, 33668, June 28, 1996; CGD 97-023, 62 FR 33364, June 19, 1997; USCG-2002-12471, 67 FR 41333, June 18, 2002; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36286, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38438, July 7, 2014]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:22-cv-81101-SMITH

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLORAL PROMOTIONS, INC.,

a Florida for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ, by and through his undersigned Counsel, and Defendant

FLORAL PROMOTIONS, INC., by and through its undersigned Counsel, hereby provides notice 

that the parties have reached a settlement and will be executing necessary paperwork resolving all

claims and matters in the case. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court provide 

the parties fifteen (15) days from the date of filing this Notice to allow the parties to finalize the 

settlement agreement and file a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice.

DATED: September 2, 2022.

Respectfully submitted, 

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 N. Hiatus Road Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Sunrise, FL 33351 4640 N.W. 7th Street

T. 954/362-3800 Miami, FL 33126-2309

954/362-3779 (Facsimile) T. 305/266-9780 

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com 305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

Email: pduran@pelayoduran.com

By____s/ Roderick V. Hannah __ By ___s/ Pelayo M. Duran ______

RODERICK V. HANNAH PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 435384 Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Case 9:22-cv-81101-RS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN, LLC

Counsel for Defendant

17 Flagler Street, Suite 223

Miami, FL 33131

(305) 358-6800

sunny@kuvinlaw.com

By /s/ Sundeep K. Mullick

SUNDEEP K. MULLICK

Fla. Bar No.18175

Case 9:22-cv-81101-RS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LANCE EVERETT CHECCHIA

PETITION OF: RACHEL I. SILVER, 

ESQUIRE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 170 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2017, the Application for Leave to 

Withdraw as Counsel is REMANDED for consideration by the Court of Common Pleas 

of Berks County. The court is instructed that, if current counsel is permitted to withdraw, 

the court shall also determine whether Petitioner is entitled to appointment of counsel or 

resolve any request to proceed pro se. See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 

(Pa. 1998). The common pleas court is DIRECTED to make this determination within 

45 days and to promptly notify this Court of its decision. 

The Motion for Appointment of New Counsel and Reinstatement of Direct Appeal 

Rights is DISMISSED, and the Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to 

counsel of record.
mgln_Ex10_1


		
			Exhibit 10.1
		

		
			 
		

		
			
		

		
			 
		

		
			August 23, 2019
		

		
			 
		

		
			Barry M. Smith
		

		
			6508 N. Desert Fairway Drive
		

		
			Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear Barry:
		

		
			 
		

		
			As an acknowledgement of your contributions to Magellan and willingness to facilitate the successful transition of your role, this letter is to extend to you the opportunity to participate in the Magellan Health, Inc. (the “Company”) 2019 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “ICP”) if your employment terminates prior to the payment of bonuses pursuant to the ICP to other employees of the Company. To be eligible for an award under the ICP, you must remain employed with the Company until a new Chief Executive Officer is appointed by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Termination Date”) and subject to the terms and conditions outlined below.
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Good Standing – You must remain in good standing with the Company through the Termination Date, as determined at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Company.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Award Calculation – Your ICP award will be calculated based on the terms of the 2019 ICP Plan, including performance against the Plan’s predefined metrics. If your Termination Date is prior to January 1, 2020, your award will be pro-rated for the days you were employed during 2019.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Payment and Withholding – If you are eligible to receive an award, you will receive payment in a lump sum less withholdings for applicable federal and state taxes and any appropriate payroll deductions at the same time as all participants in the ICP regardless of your Termination Date.




		
			 
		

		
			If you are in agreement with these terms and conditions, please sign below.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Sincerely,
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						/s/ G. Scott MacKenzie

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						G. Scott MacKenzie

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Chairman, Compensation Committee

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						/s/ Barry M. Smith

					
					
						    

					
					
						   August 23, 2019

				
	
					
						Barry M. Smith

					
					
						 

					
					
						Date
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERNESTAS BUTRIMAS and ANATANAS BUTRIMAS,

Appellants,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB d/b/a CHRISTIANA 

TRUST, etc. and INCREMENTUM PROPERTIES, LLC,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-182

[February 9, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrea Gundersen, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 

20-14420 (11).

Natalie F. Guerra-Valdes of Valdes Law Firm, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellants.

Ashley M. Elmore Drew of McMichael, Taylor & Gray, LLC, Deerfield 

Beach, for appellee Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a 

Christiana Trust, etc. 

Cynthia M. Ramos of Shapiro Ramos, P.A., Miami, for appellee 

Incrementum Properties, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
COURTM INUTES/ORDER

United StatesM agistrateludgeAlicia0.Valle

Courtroom 310 Date:8/10/2022 Time:11:00a.m.

Defendant: W ilsonTirado-silvatl) J#: case#:22-Cr-6O078-RAR .

AUSA:Brianfobbins Atornry:

Violation: M urderFirstDegreeinaid ofRacketeering

Proceeding.'InitialAppearance . G A Appt: -G-. ; Ia

Bond/PTDHeld:C Yes C,No RecommendedBond:Detention

BondSetat: Cb-signed by:

î-' Surrenderand/ordonotobtainpassports/traveldocs

x

' . Language: ' 2n k

T ReporttoPTSasdirected/or x'saweek/monthby Disposition:

hone: x'saweek/month'inperson ).

P - qw ay. n

'

RandomurinetestingbyPretrialServices k q. r .

Treatmentasdeemednecessary x

. ,

r- Refrainfrom excessiveuseofalcohol

.

cï

'C Participateinmentalhealthassessment&treatmeni

> p *

17 Maintainorseekfull-timeemployment/education ' .

- .-

l/f.o ha c N

l'- Nocontact'withvictims/witnesses . -

'f- Nofirearms ?

1- Nottoencumberproperty

C Maynotvisittransportationestablishments

HomeConfinement/ElectronicMonitoringand/or

curfew pm to am,paidby

E Allowances:Medicalneeds,courtappearances,attorneyvisits, '

. religious,em ploym ent

1- Travelextendedto:

17- Other:

NEXTCOURTAPPEARANCE Date: Time: Judge: Place:

ReporyRECounsel: @-13.n* ï xw- G u k

P> pBondHearing: î-.lS-ao >y e. a.- -''y

Prelim/AgrinorRemoval: -1 -K c. - Uvu (% .

' StatusConferenceRE:

D.A.'R. ï1'..2: (--u .l!'stn-..s Timeincourt: tsfwa..a.

CHECKIFAPPLICABLE: Forthereasorisstatedbycounselforthe.DefendantandfindingthattheendsofjusticeservêdbyLj

grantingtheoretenusmotionforcontinuancetohirecounseloutweighthebestinterestsofthepublic& theDefendantina

speedyTrial,theCourtfindsthattheperiodoftimefrom today,throughandincluding ' ' ,shalbedeemed

excludableinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheSpeedyTrialAct,18USC3161etseq..

Case 0:22-cr-60078-RAR Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 1 of 1
#### Antonius ONG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74378.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2004.

Decided June 4, 2004.

Eugene C. Wong, Esq., Robert G. Ryan, Esq., Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael T. Dougherty, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., Margot L. Nadel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*148MEMORANDUM *

Antonius Ong petitions for review of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge’s opinion, summarily affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, found that Ong was not credible and that he failed to meet the standard for past or future persecution.

We need not decide whether the credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. Accepting all of the petitioner’s testimony as true, the events recited do not amount to a showing of past persecution or reflect a well-founded fear of future persecution.

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### JOHN W. BURR, Respondent, *v.*AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

*Principal and agent.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon a verdict rendered at the Tompkins county Circuit. The action was brought to recover loss sustained by plaintiff, and covered by a parol contract of insurance, alleged to have been made with plaintiff by defendant’s agent. The court, after a review of the case, concluded that the jury must have inferred from the instructions in the charge of the court, that a principal must be held to have conferred and to be bound by whatever power an agent may assume to have or to exercise, and that, though there may be cases when such instructions would be proper, this was not such a case.

*Starbuck & Sawyer,*for the appellant.

*M. Goodrich,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Potter, J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Potter, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

65) VI-B-16 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:38 PM Sheet 65 of 107 
P.2 

A-90-37 

VI-B-16 

This document has been moved to IV-D-330 at the request of the project 

officer. It was incorrectly categorize originally. 

——i
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

SC

 v.

BUREAU OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION FEE REVIEW

HEARING OFFICE (THE PHYSICAL

THERAPY INSTITUTE)

PETITION OF: THE PHYSICAL

THERAPY INSTITUTE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 140 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
§ 169.100 What mandatory ship reporting systems are established by this subpart? This subpart prescribes requirements for the establishment and maintenance of two mandatory ship reporting systems for the protection of the endangered northern right whale (also known as the North Atlantic right whale). These two systems are designated for certain areas of the East Coast of the United States. One system is located in the northeast and is identified as WHALESNORTH. The other system is located in the southeast and is identified as WHALESSOUTH. Note to § 169.100 :
50 CFR 224.103(c) contains requirements and procedures concerning northern right whale approach limitations and avoidance procedures.
[USCG-1999-5525, 64 FR 29234, June 1, 1999, as amended by 66 FR 58070, Nov. 20, 2001]
§ 334.742 Eglin Camp Pinchot, Fla., at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The restricted area shall encompass all navigable waters of the United States, as defined at 33 CFR part 329, within the area bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from the shoreline at latitude 30°28′18.68′′ N, longitude 086°35′38.66′′ W; thence to latitude 30°28′20.80′′ N, longitude 086°35′36.25′′ W; then the line meanders irregularly, following the shoreline at a distance of 300 feet seaward from the mean high water line to a point at latitude 30°28′06.02′′ N, longitude 086°35′39.18′′ W, thence proceeding directly to a point on the shoreline at latitude 30°28′07.47′′ N, longitude 086°35′42.17′′ W.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) All persons, vessels and other craft are permitted access to the restricted area described in paragraph (a) of this section. Any person or vessel within the restricted area will be subject to identification checks by U.S. Air Force patrol boats. During times of high security threats against Eglin AFB, all entry, transit, anchoring or drifting within the restricted area described in paragraph (a) of this section for any reason is not allowed without the permission of the Commander, Eglin AFB, Florida, or his/her authorized representative.
( 2 ) The area identified in paragraph (a) of this section and the associated restrictions described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
( c ) *Enforcement.* ( 1 ) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commander, 96 Air Base Wing, Eglin AFB, Florida and such agencies as he/she may designate.
( 2 ) Enforcement of the regulations in this section will be accomplished in accordance with the active security level as defined by the Department of Defense Force Protection Condition (FPCON) System.
[76 FR 75457, Dec. 2, 2011]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number: 22-22375-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA

AMIN LAKHANI,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNTINGTON 18 LLC and

INVESTMENTS 41, LLC,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice. (ECF No. 14). Accordingly, it is hereby 

ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and this case is CLOSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 14th day of March, 2023.

__________________________________

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

Magistrate Judge Becerra

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22375-JEM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### CORRAN P. STANTON, Respondent, *v.*ALBERT N. PRITCHARD, Appellant.

*Cutting timber*— *measure of damages.*

In an action for cutting and removing standing timber, the measure of damages is the value of the timber at the place where it stood when the trespass was committed, unless the action is brought and a recovery had under the statute (2 R. S., 388, § 1), when the damages may be trebled.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.

*Isaac S. Newton,*for the appellant.

*E. H. Prindle,*for the respondent.

*

 Whitbeck v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 36 Barb., 644.

Opinion by

James, J.

Present—Learned, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Eight Dragons Company
File No. 0-28453

          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 amended  Annual  Report of Eight  Dragons  Company (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn A.
Little,  Chief  Executive and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 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) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: September 15, 2008                        By: /s/ Glenn A. Little
      ------------------                           -----------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Eight Dragons  Company and will be retained by Eight Dragons Company
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
§ 334.783 Arlington Channel, U.S. Coast Guard Base Mobile, Mobile, Alabama, Coast Guard restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters of Arlington Channel west of a line from latitude 30°-39′—09′′ N, longitude 088°-03′-24′′ W to latitude 30°-38′-54′′ N., longitude 088′-03°-17′′ W.
( b ) *The regulations.* The restricted area is open to U.S. Government vessels and transiting vessels only. U.S. Government vessels include U.S. Coast Guard vessels, Department of Defense vessels, state and local law enforcement and emergency services vessels and vessels under contract with the U.S. Government. Vessels transiting the restricted area shall proceed across the area by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay. Fishing, trawling, net-fishing and other aquatic activities are prohibited in the restricted area without prior approval from the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Group Mobile or his designated representative.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Group Mobile or his designated representative.
[69 FR 45259, July 29, 2004]
#### WILLIAM H. JENKS and another, Appellants, *v.*CATHARINE BROWN, Impleaded, Respondent.

*Mechanics' lien*— *cancellation of contract by owner*— *effect of, on rights of subconti'aator.*

The plaintiffs furnished certain materials used by one Phillips, in erecting a building upon land belonging to the defendant, Brown, and received an order upon her, which she accepted, to be paid out of the third payment to become due to the contractor, Phillips. Subsequently, and before the third payment became due, Phillips and defendant, Brown, canceled the contract. After- • ward plaintiffs, in ignorance of such cancellation, filed a mechanics’ lien under the act of 1863 (p. 947), for the enforcement of which this action was "brought. Upon the trial, the plaintiffs were nonsuited. *Meld,*that this was error; it should have been left to the jury to decide whether the contract was canceled in good faith, and, if not, how much was due upon it.

*Qucere,*whether plaintiffs’ lien would be affected by such cancellation.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

*John R.*Kuhn, for the appellants.

--, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Tappen, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.