alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 7,679.

#### KELSEY v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

[14 Blatchf. 89.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 4, 1877.

Practice and Pleading at Law — Corporation— Service upon — Appearance—Averment of Citizenship — Amendment.

1. A corporation which has appeared and answered generally in an action, cannot afterward insist that this court never acquired jurisdiction over it because process was not served upon it in the district of which it was an inhabitant at the time of service.

[Cited in Robinson v. National Stock Yard Co., 12 Fed. 362; Glover v. Shepperd. 15 Fed. 838; Edwards v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 20 Fed. 454; Spies v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co., 32 Fed. 713.]

2. An omission to allege sufficiently, in a complaint, that the defendant is a citizen of a different state from that of the plaintiff, is amendable.

[Cited in Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 679.]

[This was an action at law • by John Kelsey against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.]

Benjamin F. Russell, for plaintiff.

Edmund R. Robinson, for defendant.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatchford. Circuit Judge, -and here reprinted by permission.]

WALLACE. District Judge.

The defendant having appeared and answered generally in the action, cannot now insist that this court never acquired jurisdiction because process was not served upon it in the district whereof it was an inhabitant at the time of service. Jurisdiction of the person of a defendant may be conferred by consent or waiver. Jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action cannot.

The case of Pomeroy v. New York & N. H. R. Co., [Case No. 11,261], is not in point here. In that case the objection was taken by plea. Under the present system of pleading — that existing in the state courts — I think it would be too late, after a general appearance in the action, for the defendant to avail itself of the objection by raising it by answer. However that may be, it is clearly too late after an answer upon the merits.

The defect in the complaint, of omitting to allege sufficiently that the defendant is a citizen of a different state from that of the plaintiff is amendable, and does not constitute a sufficient ground for dismissing the action, upon a motion of this kind. The motion is, accordingly, denied.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 123 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 172
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 123

 Honoring the memory of former Peace Corps Director Loret Miller Ruppe.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1997

   Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the 
    following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Honoring the memory of former Peace Corps Director Loret Miller Ruppe.

Whereas the Members of the Senate were greatly saddened by the death of Loret 
        Miller Ruppe, the longest-serving Director of the Peace Corps; and
Whereas Loret Miller Ruppe's inspirational vision, dedication, and leadership 
        (1) revitalized the Peace Corps as she began or revived programs in Sri 
        Lanka, Haiti, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and the 
        Cape Verde Islands; (2) energized a new generation of Americans to 
        accept the challenge of serving in the Corps; (3) refocused the Corps on 
        its mission of development to achieve world peace; and (4) did a great 
        service to America and to the millions of the world's citizens touched 
        by her efforts: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That (a) the Senate recognizes and acknowledges the 
achievements and contributions of the longest-serving Director of the 
Peace Corps, Loret Miller Ruppe, and the volunteers she inspired, not 
only for their service in other countries but also in their own 
communities.
    (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the President should honor 
the memory of the Peace Corps' great leader Loret Miller Ruppe and 
reaffirm the commitment of the United States to international peace and 
understanding.
                                     





                                                       Calendar No. 172

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              S. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Honoring the memory of former Peace Corps Director Loret Miller Ruppe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 24, 1997

                         Placed on the calendar`
Before the Second Division,

November 2, 1966

No. P66/321.

#### The Electra Spark Co. and Pan Maritime Cargo Service, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 60/18604, etc. (New York).

Eao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of spark plugs, not dedicated to use in automobiles or any other vehicle or machine, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2879), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 8,863.

#### McKINDER et al. v. DUNLAP.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 584.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1809.

Check — Demand of Patee — Insolvency of Drawer — Presumption.

If the drawer and payee of a check upon a bank reside in the town where the bank is, and the drawer be insolvent: the .iury cannot, in law. infer from those farts, that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment, and giving notice to the defendant.

The plaintiffs [McKinder & Guilliat] offered in evidence a check drawn by the defendant [Samuel Dunlap] upon the bank at Norfolk.

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

contended that in order to charge the defendant, the plaintiffs must prove that they demanded payment from the bank; and gave notice to the defendant in reasonable time.

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiffs,

offered to prove that the plaintiffs and defendant lived in Norfolk; that the bank was in Norfolk and solvent; and that the defendant was insolvent; and contended that the jury might infer from these facts that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment from the bank and giving notice to the defendant.

But

THE COURT

was of opinion and so instructed the jury that they could not, in law, make that inference.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 201

To commemorate and acknowledge the dedication and sacrifice made by

the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law

enforcement officers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 30, 1998

Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BINGAMAN,

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL,

Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG,

Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.

ENZI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

GRAMM, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON,

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr.

LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MCCAIN, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN,

Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROCKEFELLER,

Mr. ROTH, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of

Oregon, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. THURMOND, Mr.

TORRICELLI, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KOHL,

Mr. CLELAND, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. BYRD) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

APRIL 2, 1998

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

MAY 12, 1998

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commemorate and acknowledge the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their

lives while serving as law enforcement officers.
2

SRES 201 ATS

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of this country is preserved and enhanced as a direct result of the vigilance

and dedication of law enforcement personnel;

Whereas more than 700,000 men and women, at great risk

to their personal safety, presently serve their fellow citizens in their capacity as guardians of the peace;

Whereas peace officers are the front line in preserving our

childrens’ right to receive an education in a crime-free

environment that is all too often threatened by the insidious fear caused by violence in schools;

Whereas 159 peace officers lost their lives in the performance

of their duty in 1997, and a total of 13,734 men and

women have now made that supreme sacrifice;

Whereas every year 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 is

injured, and 1 in 4,400 is killed in the line of duty; and

Whereas, on May 15, 1998, more than 15,000 peace officers

are expected to gather in our nation’s Capital to join with

the families of their recently fallen comrades to honor

them and all others before them: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That May 15, 1998, is hereby designated

2 as ‘‘National Peace Officers Memorial Day’’ for the pur3 pose of recognizing all peace officers slain in the line of

4 duty. The President is authorized and requested to issue

5 a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

6 States to observe this day with the appropriate ceremonies

7 and respect.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Murphy Robinson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 158]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered April 19, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the court committed reversible error when it repeatedly instructed the jury on his failure to testify, using language that exceeded the words of the statute *(see,*CPL 300.10 [2]; *People v McLucas,*15 NY2d 167; *People v Mannery,*151 AD2d 697). However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant’s failure to object after each of the alleged improprieties deprived the court of an opportunity to respond *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was no reasonable possibility that the alleged error contributed to the defendant’s conviction. Thus, any alleged error was harmless *(see, People v McPherson,*182 AD2d 714; *People v Kimbrough,*134 AD2d 618).

There is no merit to the defendant’s claim that the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we are satisfied that the evidence of "substantial pain” necessary to establish physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) was legally sufficient. The victim testified that the defendant kicked and struck her while trying to steal her purse. As a result of the confrontation, the victim was unable to open her mouth properly for a week and still experienced pain in her back over a year after the incident. Based on these facts, the determination of the jury should not be disturbed *(see, People v Sloan,*202 AD2d 525; *People v Dazi,*195 AD2d 571; *People v Lawson,*184 AD2d 588; *People v Brooks,*155 AD2d 680; *People v Talibon,*138 AD2d 426, 427).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *466
      *(see, People v Green,*216 AD2d 581; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

In Re NAPSTER, INC. COPYRIGHT

LITIGATION. CASE NO. C06-193JLR 

Related to C-MDL-00-1369MHP

 MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

The court has received a Motion to Limit the Discovery of Robert Glaser (Dkt. #

1) filed by RealNetworks, Inc. (“RealNetworks”) and noted for the court’s consideration

on February 10, 2006. The instant motion is related to a consolidated copyright action

pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, In

re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, No. C-MDL-00-1369 MHP. 

In filing its motion, RealNetworks served only Hummer Winblad Venture

Partners, et al. (“Hummer Winblad”), the party seeking to depose Robert Glaser. As a

result, parties to the related copyright action have not received timely notice of

RealNetwork’s pending motion. Accordingly, the court renotes the motion for

consideration on Friday, February 24, 2006. Any opposition to the motion is due no later

than Tuesday, February 21, 2006. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(d). Any party to

the related copyright action seeking to participate in this matter must register with the

Case 2:06-cv-00193-JLR Document 8 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MINUTE ORDER – 2

court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (“CM/ECF”). Parties may

register online at: www.wawd.uscourts.gov. The CM/ECF helpdesk is also available to

assist parties with electronic filing: 1-866-323-9293. Parties need not complete a pro hac

vice application. 

Filed and entered this 8th day of February, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00193-JLR Document 8 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.56


 





 


November
17, 2017


 





John
M. Desmarais, Trustee


Tuxis
Trust


26
Deer Creek Lane


Mt.
Kisco, New York 10549


 


Dear
Mr. Desmarais:


 


Reference
is made to that certain Promissory Note, dated June 30, 2016 (the “Note”), issued by BioRestorative Therapies, Inc.
(the “Company”) to Tuxis Trust (the “Lender”) in the principal amount of $500,000 (the “Principal
Amount”). The Note, as amended, provides that the Principal Amount, together with accrued interest thereon, is payable on
December 1, 2017 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


The
Lender hereby waives any and all defaults by the Company under the Note. The parties agree that the Note is hereby amended such
that the Maturity Date for the payment of the Principal Amount, together with accrued interest thereon, shall be extended to December
1, 2018.


 


Except
as modified herein, the Note shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. In addition, the Security Agreement,
dated as of July 13, 2017, by and among the Company, the Lender, John M. Desmarais and John M. Desmarais, as representative, shall
continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


This
letter may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


This
letter shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, excluding choice of law principles
thereof.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	BIORESTORATIVE THERAPIES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Mark
    Weinreb
	 	 	Chief
    Executive Officer


 


Agreed:



 


TUXIS
TRUST




 


	By:	 	 
		John
    M. Desmarais, Trustee
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 70

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1026)

3 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United

4 States, the Secretary of the Senate shall strike subsection

5 (a) of section 2 and insert the following:

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7 of the Export-Import

7 Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f) is amended by strik8 ing ‘until’ and all that follows through ‘but’ and inserting

9 ‘until the close of business on September 30, 2001, but’.’’.

Passed the Senate November 13, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 70

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To correct a technical error in the enrollment of the

bill S. 1026.
Before the Third Division,

January 7, 1954

No. 57755.

protests 208854-K and 208856-K (New York).

#### L. Barbier (Arabian American Oil Co.) *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it appeared that duty was assessed upon the film for the reason that the regulations were not complied with. The missing documents were admitted in evidence, together with the memoranda of the collector, stating that the regulations were now complied with and had not the period within which the collector may review his liquidations expired, the film would have been admitted free of duty. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TRUSTEES OF THE NORTHWEST

IRONWORKERS RETIREMENT TRUST; et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U-STEEL INCORPORATED; DYNAMIC

INTERNATIONAL AK, INC.; GENE LETTS;

JACKIE LETTS; BERSCHAUER/PHILLIPS

CONSTRUCTION CO.; SFECO

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and

CITY OF VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5698FDB

ORDER FINDING DYNAMIC

INTERNATIONAL’S MOTION TO

COMPEL MOOT

In this case, which asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and

the Labor-Management Relations Act, Plaintiffs seek to recover delinquent fringe benefit

contributions and union dues allegedly owed by Defendant Dynamic International AK, Inc. to six

employee benefit plans and two labor organizations. Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling

Dynamic International to produce all documents within its possession, custody, and control that are

responsive to their First, Second, and Third Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs state

that they have attempted to resolve this matter through telephone conferences with Defendant

Case 3:05-cv-05698-FDB Document 54 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

Dynamic’s attorneys (Jesse Miller and Steven Wraith) prior to filing this motion. 

Meanwhile, Defendants Dynamic International, Gene Letts, and Jackie Letts obtained new

counsel, Jeff Smyth, who substituted into this case by Order of this Court on September 8, 2006. 

Having received client files from former counsel, Mr. Smyth, states in his declaration that he has

identified some responsive documents and are preparing supplemental responses to the requests for

production. Mr. Smyth also avers that responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production

have been completed and were faxed to Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 18, 2006, and that if

additional documents are located, supplemental responses will be provided. Mr. Smyth also notes

that a 39.1 mediator has been retained by the parties, who are hopeful that mediation will resolve the

case. Therefore, Defendants contend that the motion is moot. 

The Court having considered the motion and the response and noting that no reply contesting

any statements of Dynamic International’s counsel Jeff Smyth, now concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Compel is moot and should be stricken from the calendar. 

NOW, THEREFOR, IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Production of

Documents [Dkt. # 43] is found to be MOOT and is STRICKEN from the Court’s calendar.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05698-FDB Document 54 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3117

___________ J. Malcolm Thompson, * * Appellant, *

* v. * * Larry R. Peterson; David B. Danbom; * Yur-Bok Lee; Gerald Anderson; * Thomas Isern; Harriette McCaul; Rick * Appeal from the United States D. Johnson, all of whom are and/or were* District Court for the District persons employed within the teaching * of North Dakota. faculty and/or administration at North * Dakota State University, being named * [UNPUBLISHED] herein as having acted in both their * individual and official capacities; North * Dakota State University, a publicly * supported institution of higher learning * under the control of the North Dakota * State Board of Higher Education, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 1999

Filed: May 21, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________-2-

PER CURIAM. J. Malcolm Thompson, a nontenured state university professor, appeals the district court's ruling dismissing Thompson's claims for violation of his procedural and substantivedue process rights based on the university's decision not to renew his oneyear teaching contract. Having reviewed the record and the materials submitted by the parties, we see no error by the district court. We also conclude that an extended discussion would serveno useful purpose. Believing the district court is correct, we affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHNNIE C. WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH SMITH AND DANIEL MARK

FOZZARD,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5170RBL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed the file, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the

courts order to show cause.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold and to count this dismissal as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

42 U.S.C. § 1915 (g).

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05170-RBL Document 10 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 13 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 13

   Making majority party appointments to the Senate Committee on the 
                   Judiciary for the 105th Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              January 9 (legislative day, January 7), 1997

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Making majority party appointments to the Senate Committee on the 
                   Judiciary for the 105th Congress.

    Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXV, the 
following shall constitute the majority party's membership on the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary for the 105th Congress, or until 
their successors are chosen:
    Judiciary: Mr. Hatch (chair), Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Abraham, 
and Mr. Sessions.
                                 <all>
```