alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Investiture Ceremony for the Hon. Leonard P. Stark - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kiKsC9cTx7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/investiture-ceremony-for-the-hon-leonard-p-stark\/\">Investiture Ceremony for the Hon. Leonard P. Stark<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/investiture-ceremony-for-the-hon-leonard-p-stark\/embed\/#?secret=kiKsC9cTx7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Investiture Ceremony for the Hon. Leonard P. Stark” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"kiKsC9cTx7\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is holding a formal investiture ceremony for the Honorable Judge Leonard P. Stark on Thursday, October 13, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern). Due to space limitations in the courthouse, the investiture is by invitation only.\u00a0Live-streamed audio of the ceremony will be provided on the court\u2019s YouTube […]"}
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2   Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
October 29, 1999

                         For further information contact:
                         David M. Bradley
                         Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                         North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                         825 Central Avenue
                         Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                         515-576-7531

                   NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES
                           STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

Fort Dodge, Iowa, October 29, 1999 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Iowa, announced that it will commence a stock repurchase program beginning on or
about November 4, 1999.  The program authorizes the Company to repurchase up to
6.36% or 150,000 shares of its 2,357,242 outstanding shares of common stock
during the next twelve months.  The repurchases will be made from time to time,
in open market transactions, at the discretion of management.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $367 million in assets, is the holding
company for First Federal Savings Bank of Iowa, a federally chartered stock
savings bank.  First Federal is a community-oriented institution serving Iowa
through 8 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington, Mt.
Pleasant, and Perry, Iowa.  First Federal's deposits are insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________________________________) ENERGY RECOVERY COUNCIL ) ) Peti tioner, )

) No. 09 - 1326 v. ) (consolidated under 09 - 1325,

) together with 09 - 1328, 09 - 1329, U NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ) 09 - 1331, 09 - 1332, 09 - 1333, PROTECTION AGENCY, ) 09 - 1334) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)

NON - BINDING STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE RAISED Pursuant to thi s Court’s January 2 7 , 20 10 , Order, Petit io ner Energy Recovery Council (“ERC”), hereby files its preliminary and non- binding statement of issues to be raised in the above - capt io ned case. ERC seeks review of th e final rule prom ulgated by the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regarding “Mandato ry Reporti ng o f Greenhouse Gases, ” as published in the Federal Register at 74 Fed. Reg. 56,260 on October 30, 2009 , a copy of which is Exhibit A to the Petition for Review . ERC intends to raise the fo llo wing issues in this case: 1. Whether EPA vio lat ed Sec tion 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b), and the Ad ministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 704 and 706, when it designat ed mu nicipal solid waste (“MSW”) and tires as “fossil fuel- derived fuels (solid),” at 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart C, Table C - 1 , changed the definit io n of “fossil fuel” in t he final rule at 40 C.F.R. § 98.6, and added the definit io n o f “fo ssil fuel - fired” at 40 C.F.R. § 98.6, wit hout providing notice or the opportunit y fo r public comment . Case: 09-1326 Document: 1229639 Filed: 02/08/2010 Page: 12

2. Whether the designat io ns of MSW and ti res as “fo ssil fuel - derived fuels (so lid),” at 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart C, Table C - 1, and the definit io n s of “fossil fuel” and “fossil fuel fi red” at 40 C.F.R. § 98.6 are arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unlawful . 3. Whether EPA acted arbitrarily, ca priciously, or otherwi se unlawfully when it requi r ed th e use of Tier 4 emissio ns est imat io n met hodology fo r MSW combustion units with an input capacit y greater than 250 tons of MSW per day, at 40 C.F.R. § 98.33(b)(4 )(ii) . ERC reserves the righ

t to amend a nd supplement this Statement of I ssues as necessary.

Respect fu lly submitted, /s/ David M. Friedland David M. Friedland df ri edland@bdlaw.com Beveridge & Diamo nd, P . C . 1350 I Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington , DC 20005 - 3311 (202) 789 - 6047 Counsel for the Petitioner Energy Recovery Council Dated: February 8 , 20 10 Case: 09-1326 Document: 1229639 Filed: 02/08/2010 Page: 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             507
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,271
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        121
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,703
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,733
<LOANS>                                         32,588
<ALLOWANCE>                                        201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,144
<DEPOSITS>                                      31,300
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                181
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  38,144
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,602
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  205
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   149
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,956
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,496
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,557
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,399
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       22
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  71
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    578
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         386
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       386
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.76
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   187
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  201
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            201
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.55 Public notice of petitions for forbearance. ( a ) Filing a petition for forbearance initiates the statutory time limit for consideration of the petition.
( b ) The Commission will issue a public notice when it receives a properly filed petition for forbearance. The notice will include: ( 1 ) A statement of the nature of the petition for forbearance.
( 2 ) The scope of the forbearance sought and a description of the subjects and issues involved.
( 3 ) The docket number assigned to the proceeding.
( 4 ) A statement of the time for filing oppositions or comments and replies thereto.
[74 FR 39227, Aug. 6, 2009]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/LOUIS

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Roberto Martínez of the law firm Colson Hicks Eidson, 

P.A. appears as counsel for Defendants Thomas Brady and Gisele Bündchen, and requests that all 

papers served in this case also be delivered to and served at the address set forth below. 

Dated: January 25, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 476-7400

Facsimile: (305) 476-7444

By: Roberto Martínez

Roberto Martínez

Florida Bar No. 305596

Email: bob@colson.com

 Attorney for Defendants Thomas Brady

 and Gisele Bündchen 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 60-1.29 Preaward notices. ( a ) *Preaward compliance reviews.* Upon the request of the Director, agencies shall not enter into contracts or approve the entry into contracts or subcontracts with any bidder, prospective prime contractor, or proposed subcontractor named by the Director until a preaward compliance review has been conducted and the Director or his designee has approved a determination that the bidder, prospective prime contractor or proposed subcontractor will be able to comply with the provisions of the equal opportunity clause.
( b ) *Other special preaward procedures.* Upon the request of the Director, agencies shall not enter into contracts or approve the entry into subcontracts with any bidder; prospective prime contractor or proposed subcontractor specified by the Director until the agency has complied with the directions contained in the request.
[43 FR 49240, Oct. 20, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 66971, Dec. 22, 1997]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1013: In Re SOLAS OLED LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GPKP2pdMF2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-17-2022-22-1013-in-re-solas-oled-ltd-order-22-1013-order-3-17-2022_1922731\/\">22-1013: In Re SOLAS OLED LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-17-2022-22-1013-in-re-solas-oled-ltd-order-22-1013-order-3-17-2022_1922731\/embed\/#?secret=GPKP2pdMF2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1013: In Re SOLAS OLED LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"GPKP2pdMF2\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: In Re SOLAS OLED LTD. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1013 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"knAcgbniJy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/updated-federal-circuit-rules-of-practice-3\/\">Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/updated-federal-circuit-rules-of-practice-3\/embed\/#?secret=knAcgbniJy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"knAcgbniJy\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"An updated version of the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice is now available on the court\u2019s website (pdf).\u00a0 The update incorporates the December 1, 2022 amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 25 and 42, which do not impact the Federal Circuit\u2019s local rules or procedures."}
No. 11-9822.

#### Khoury *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4551

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 301 West Lexington Street in Independence, Missouri,

as the ‘‘William J. Randall Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office building located at 301

5 West Lexington Street in Independence, Missouri, shall be

6 known and designated as the ‘‘William J. Randall Post

7 Office’’.
2

•HR 4551 EH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the William J. Randall Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives September 19,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4551

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building

Post Office’’.pendence, Missouri, as the ‘‘William J. Randalllocated at 301 West Lexington Street in Inde-
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-136: In Re ARUNACHALAM          [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dW7ttA1Zal\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-20-136-in-re-arunachalam-order-20-136-order-10-19-2020_1671301\/\">20-136: In Re ARUNACHALAM                    [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-20-136-in-re-arunachalam-order-20-136-order-10-19-2020_1671301\/embed\/#?secret=dW7ttA1Zal\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-136: In Re ARUNACHALAM                    [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"dW7ttA1Zal\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: In Re ARUNACHALAM [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-136 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Comments on: Filer Guidance Concerning 2019 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
#### THOMAS COMINS *v.*R. J. JONES and JOHN MUNSON.

*Service of Writ. Motion to Quash.*

1. The writ showed that the co-defendants had been late partners in business ; that one resided in this State, and the other out, .at the time of the service of the writ; and that it was served only on one. *Held,*on motion, that the writ should not be quashed; but that the plaintiff was entitled to an order of court, to enable him to make service upon, or give notice to, the non-resident defendant.

2. R. L., s. 1405 — notice to absent defendants, construed.

Heard on motion to quash the writ, December Term, 1881, Royce, J., presiding. Motion, *pro forma,*overruled. The de*561fendant, Jones, on whom the writ had been served, moved that “ the cause be quashed and abated, because, he says, that no service of said writ has been made upon the defendant, Munson, as appears by the said writ and return thereon; and said return shows no excuse or reason for the said omission of service upon said Munson.”

*A. P. Tapper,*for the plaintiff.

*E. P. Hard,*for the defendant, Jones.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Royce, J.

The motion to quash was made by the defendant Jones, upon whom service of the writ had been made. The defendants are alleged to have been late partners in business ; and the residence of defendant Jones is described as being in Cornwall, in this State, and that of Munson as being in Salt Lake City. The statute, sec. 1405, R. L., prescribes the manner of giving notice to a party against whom a suit is brought before the Supreme or County Court, who is absent from the State at the time of the service of the writ. The defendant upon whom legal service had been made had no right to have the writ quashed upon motion at the term of court to which it was made returnable, for the want of service upon his co-defendant, or because no excuse is rendered by the officer making the return upon the writ, for not serving it.

It is the right of the plaintiff upon the return of the writ, to procure such orders as the court are authorized by law to make, to enable him to make service upon, or give notice to, the nonresident defendant.

The motion was properly overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.