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

May 5, 1914.

#### William H. Anderson *v.*Merrill Lumber & Forestry Co. Same *v.*Charles H. Merrill *& a.*

Where a grantee of real estate has not made expenditures in defence of a title which has partially failed, the expenses of litigation he is entitled to recover in an action for damages against a warrantor are limited to his taxable costs, in the absence of an express agreement "enlarging the defendant’s liability.

Debt, in the first case for breach of a covenant in a deed, and in the second case for breach of a bond of warranty. Trial by the court and verdicts for the plaintiff, in the first action for his damages, and in the second for his damages and the expenses incurred in conducting the litigation. Transferred from the April term, 1912, of the superior court by *Chamberlin,*J.

In 1908, the defendant corporation agreed to convey a large tract of land to the plaintiff by warranty deed; but when the time to make the conveyance arrived, he ascertained that the company had no *276record title to parts of the property and in consequence took a writing under seal from Charles H. and Myra L. Merrill warranting the title. The plaintiff has not incurred any expense in defending his title to the premises, but there has been a partial failure of title, and these suits are to enforce the liability of the Merrills as warrantors. The court ruled that the plaintiff could recover his expenses from the Merrills, but not from the company, and both he and the Merrills excepted.

*Walter E. Kittredge*and *Wason & Moran {Mr. Kittredge*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Sam K. Paige*(of Massachusetts), by brief and orally, for the defendants.

Young, *J.*

The plaintiff rests his contention as to his right to recover his expenses as a part of his damages on the cases which hold that one who is sued may recover the expense he incurs in defending the suit, if he would not have been sued but for the defendant’s failure to perform either a contractual *(Fairfield*v. *Day,*71 N. H. 63) or an imposed duty *(Hubbard*v. *Gould,*74 N. H. 25), provided defending the suit was the reasonable thing to do. *Winnipiseogee Paper Co.*v. *Eaton,*65 N. H. 13. These cases, however, are not in point. No one has sued the plaintiff, but he has sued the defendants. Notwithstanding they agreed to make his title good, they did not promise to pay the expenses he incurred in enforcing liability on their agreement; and in the absence of such a promise, all he can recover as expenses of litigation is his taxable costs. *State*v. *Kinne,*41 N. H. 238, 240.

*Plaintiff’s exception overruled: Merrills’ exception sustained.*

Plummer, J., was absent: the others concurred.
Hoffman argues that the decision to close the proceedings to a 

supplemental petition is arbitrary and capricious. Hoffman argues that 

the district court should be estopped from enforcing a filing-deadline 

because such a deadline has never been enforced in the past and Hoffman 

argues that there was no notice that the State would seek to close the 

proceedings Hoffman suggests that a more appropriate remedy for postconviction counsel's failure to file a timely supplement may have been to 

remove counsel from the case and appoint new counsel. 

"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of 

an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or 

station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." See 

Int'l Game Tech., Inc. u. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 

179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160. A writ of prohibition may 

issue when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See 

NRS 34.320. 

Based upon our review of the documents before this court, we 

deny Hoffman's petition for a writ of prohibition, but grant Hoffman's 

petition for a writ of mandamus. While we reject Hoffman's equitable 

estoppel and notice arguments and disagree with Hoffman regarding a 

filing-deadline for a supplemental petition, see NRS 34.750(3) (providing 

for 30 days from the date of appointment to file a supplemental petition), 

we agree that the remedy chosen by the district court was unduly harsh to 

Hoffman and was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. The 

failure to file a timely supplemental petition was due to the dereliction of 

post-conviction counsel, Ms. Mary Lou Wilson, to meet the deadline and 

the remedy should have been tailored to that dereliction—chiefly, the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ce> 
removal of Ms. Wilson from the case and the appointment of new postconviction counsel) Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED, in part, AND DIRECT THE 

CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

instructing the district court to rescind its prior order closing the postconviction proceedings, remove Ms. Wilson as counsel in the postconviction proceedings, and appoint new counsel to assist Hoffman in the 

proceedings. 2 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Jerome M. Polaha, District Judge 

Mary Lou Wilson 

Craig Allen Hoffman 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'The district court has already determined that the appointment of 

post-conviction counsel was warranted in this case. See NRS 34.750(I). 

2Ms. Wilson is cautioned that such future dereliction may result in 

other sanctions considered necessary by the district court, including 

referral to the State Bar of Nevada. 

--C24)te‘s"S Parraguirre tr 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A 9e0
[Crim. No. 3075.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

March 15, 1938.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. AUSTIN M. WILSON, Appellant.

Vernon R. Hamilton & Morris Lavine for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John 0. Palstine, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

WOOD, J.

At a trial before the court without a jury the defendant was convicted of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree. He now contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

It is charged that defendant attempted to burglarize the Safeway store on Adams Street in the city of Los Angeles. Adjoining the store there is an apartment house and on October 5, 1937, at about midnight Mr. and Mrs. Burch, the occupants of an apartment on the ground floor of the apartment house, were attracted by an unusual noise at the door of the store. Mr. Burch looked out of his window, saw a figure at the door and heard a “prying noise” at the door of the Safeway store. Mrs. Burch telephoned to the police while Mr. Burch continued to observe the man at the door until he *333went toward an alley. The manager of the apartment house was aroused and he saw defendant walking up the back stairs of the apartment house. Walking toward the rear the manager encountered defendant knocking at one of the doors. Defendant started to leave and the manager told him to wait, that the occupant of the apartment was opening the door. Defendant nevertheless went down the stairs. Police officers arrived at about this time and took from defendant’s pockets a small sledge hammer, a screw driver, a pair of pliers, a small chisel, a jimmy or tire tool and a file. Defendant stated that he did not know what he was doing with the tools or where he got them. The tools found on defendant were examined and measured and were found to correspond with indentations made in and about the door of the store. A chemist testified that he had examined some orange paint which he found upon one of the tools in defendant’s possession and had compared it with paint he took from the store building. He expressed the opinion that the paints were of common origin and had come from the same pot.

Defendant did not testify in his own behalf. His counsel refer to the testimony of a police officer that defendant appeared to be in a stupor and contend that the evidence is insufficient to establish the intent to commit burglary. They argue that defendant’s purpose might have been to find a place to sleep or to use.a lavatory “or for some other innocent purpose”. It was for the trial court to determine whether defendant attempted to enter the store and the purpose for which the attempt was made. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings that defendant attempted to enter with felonious intent.

The judgment is affirmed.

Crail P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.
EX-99.CERT 11(b)

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, and 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, and accompanies the report on Form N-CSR for the
period ended January 31, 2008 of Connecticut Daily Tax Free Income Fund, Inc.
(the "Company").

Each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify that, to the best
of such officer's knowledge:

         (i) the Form N-CSR fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii) the information contained in the Form N-CSR fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
         of the Company.

Date:  April 9, 2008
                                              /s/Michael P. Lydon
                                              Michael P. Lydon
                                              President


Date:  April 9, 2008
                                              /s/Anthony Pace
                                              Anthony Pace
                                              Treasurer
From: Lucy Hutchens

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:25:41 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Lucy Hutchens, Baker branch, OR AAUW
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ IN RE ALTAIR ENGINEE RING, INC., AND SLICKEDIT INC., Petitioners

.

______________________ 2014

- 105

______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No s
. 6:12

- cv - 806 and 6:12

- cv - 814, Judge Leonard Davis.

______________________ ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R Upon consideration of petitioners’ reply stating that their petition for a writ of mandamus is now moot, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is dismissed. F OR THE C OURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court s26 Case: 14-105 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2013
---

EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS

We refer to our report of February 16, 2007, Appraisal Report
on Certain Properties in Yemen and Canada of TransGlobe Energy Corporation (the
Company) as of December 31, 2006 (the Report).

We hereby consent to references to our name in the Companys
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 to be
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We also confirm that we have read
the Companys Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2006 dated March 27, 2007 and that we have no reason to believe that there are
any misrepresentations in the information contained in it that was derived from
the Report or that is within our knowledge as a result of the services we
performed in connection with such Report.

Sincerely,

DeGolyer and MacNaughton Canada Limited

/s/ Colin OuttrimName Colin P. Outtrim
Title: Senior Vice President

Calgary, Alberta, Canada March 27, 2007

---
From: schr007@umn.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rick Schramm

Minneapolis, MN 55442
#### The Knickerbocker Ice Company Appellant, v. George S. Schultz and another, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
From: evan@gospelrescuemissiongp.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Evan Daggett

Grants Pass, OR 97527
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1404 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1404

 Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Country Music Association and 
     its contributions to music, culture, history, and patriotism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2008

 Mr. Poe submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Country Music Association and 
     its contributions to music, culture, history, and patriotism.

Whereas the Country Music Association was founded in 1958;
Whereas the Country Music Association was the first trade organization formed to 
        promote a music genre;
Whereas the objectives of the Country Music Association are to guide and enhance 
        the development of country music throughout the world;
Whereas the Country Music Association has more than 6,000 organizational and 
        individual members in 41 countries;
Whereas the Country Music Association Board of Directors established the Country 
        Music Hall of Fame in 1961 to honor the greatest contributors to country 
        music;
Whereas the Country Music Association created the Country Music Awards in 1967;
Whereas the 1968 Country Music Awards was the first music award show to be 
        nationally televised;
Whereas the Country Music Awards recognize 12 categories of country music;
Whereas the Country Music Association has annually hosted the Country Music 
        Festival since 1972;
Whereas the Country Music Association supports numerous charities;
Whereas country music and its numerous patriotic songs play an integral part in 
        encouraging citizens of the United States to support the Armed Forces 
        and its role in protecting the ideals of the United States;
Whereas the Country Music Association promotes pride and patriotism to members 
        of the Armed Forces stationed abroad through United Service 
        Organizations programs; and
Whereas October 2008 marks the 44th annual observance of Country Music Month: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the 50th 
Anniversary of the Country Music Association and its contributions to 
music, culture, history, and patriotism.
                                 <all>
```
PRESIDENT CONTRACT WITH LANS
HOLDINGS


 


This PRESIDENT contract has been signed today between
Lans Holdings. (The company) and Trevor Allen,(the President).



Employment 

PRESIDENT is hired as the chief executive officer at the company as of 19th November, 2014. The
employment is of indefinite duration.



Working Hours 

PRESIDENT shall work Part time as required



Work location 

PRESIDENT will be based at the company's office in London, UK. 



Tasks 

PRESIDENT shall manage and be responsible for the ongoing operations of the company under
the Companies charter and other PRESIDENT instructions issued by the Board. 



Salary 

Salary is to be $3000 per month and paid on the last day of the month when it is earned. If the last day is a holiday, the
salary will be paid on the working day that precedes the holiday.



Confidentiality 

A special confidentiality agreement has been signed between the company and the PRESIDENT. 



Termination of employment

The Board has the right to terminate the employment for the PRESIDENT with regard to a notice period of one (1) Week. PRESIDENT
has the right to terminate this agreement with regard to a notice period of one (1) Week. A notice of employment termination
shall be in writing. 


Gross breach
of contract 

If any part to this Agreement grossly violates any provision in this PRESIDENT contract,
the other party is entitled to agreed compensation and this PRESIDENT's contract is terminated with immediate effect. 



Disputes 

Any disputes between the company and the PRESIDENT that cannot be resolved by the parties
themselves shall be settled by arbitration with two of both parties approved arbitrators. The
company accounts for the arbitrators' expenses if the dispute goes to arbitration.



Signatures



/s/ Trevor Allen

Trevor Allen
<TABLE> <S> <C>


         <S>  <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form 
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial 
statements.
<LEGEND/>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1996             
<CASH>                                   740,018
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,025,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                               68,289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,295,167
<PP&E>                                   548,601
<DEPRECIATION>                           345,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         6,628,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  6,310,354
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                  887
<COMMON>                              36,118,231
<OTHER-SE>                           (35,924,544)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             194,574
<SALES>                                3,938,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       4,244,268
<CGS>                                  3,440,381
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          3,440,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       4,540,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       522,470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (4,259,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (4,259,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (4,259,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (80)


        

</TABLE>
No. 238.

#### Graham *v.*Pennsylvania.

*Joseph S. Schuchert, Jr.*and *Paul Ginsburg*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.