alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Defendant did not file objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLEVELAND BRUNSON, : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 04-2166

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE BARNHART, :

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, :

:

Defendant. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12th day of July, 2005, upon

consideration of the cross-motions for summary judgment and after

review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and 

ADOPTED;

1

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no.

12) is GRANTED.

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no.

13) is DENIED.

4. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social

Case 2:04-cv-02166-ER Document 17 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Security Act is REVERSED;

5. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for a

calculation of benefits. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:04-cv-02166-ER Document 17 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

       The undersigned,  Christopher  Martin,  is the Chief Executive Officer of
First Sentinel Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

       This  statement is being  furnished in connection  with the filing by the
Company of the  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended
March 31, 2004 (the "Report").

       By execution of this statement, I certify that:

              A)     the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section
                     13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                     U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

              B)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                     all material respects,  the financial condition and results
                     of  operations  of the  Company as of the dates and for the
                     periods covered by the Report.

MAY 10, 2004                               /s/ CHRISTOPHER MARTIN
------------                               ----------------------
Dated                                      Christopher Martin,
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 51574.

#### Protests 843501-G, etc., of Saks & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-04009-MAM Document 40 Filed 09/22/03 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 687 Filed 04/30/09 Page 18 of 18
No. P68/166.

protests 66/1617, etc. (New York).

#### American Rieter Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance witb stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of drawtwisters and parts thereof, which are dedicated to use on or with such machines, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Allied Chemical Corp., National Aniline Division, and Alltransport, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 233, Abstract 68680, and 57 Cust. Ct. 880, Abstract 69811), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58807.

protest 94630-K.

#### Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Abstract 58636. (This abstract was a rehearing of C. D. 1467.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
# C_2011325EN.01000501.xml

| 10.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 November 2011

2011/C 325/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3633 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 105,96 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4446 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85385 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0753 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2322 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7645 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,452 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7025 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3970 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3550 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4428 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3330 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3908 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5956 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7341 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7512 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 528,70 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,8870 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6323 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4920 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 145,70 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2620 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,797 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,5620 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,881 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3863 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,4516 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,3900 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3633

JPY

Japanese yen

105,96

DKK

Danish krone

7,4446

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85385

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0753

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2322

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7645

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,452

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7025

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3970

RON

Romanian leu

4,3550

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4428

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3330

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3908

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5956

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7341

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7512

KRW

South Korean won

1 528,70

ZAR

South African rand

10,8870

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6323

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4920

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 145,70

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2620

PHP

Philippine peso

58,797

RUB

Russian rouble

41,5620

THB

Thai baht

41,881

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3863

MXN

Mexican peso

18,4516

INR

Indian rupee

68,3900

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Six Months Ended June 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      14,210,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,584,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (97,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    246,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,706,000
<PP&E>                                     339,953,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (134,416,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             249,595,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,749,000
<BONDS>                                    336,605,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       11,343,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 122,759,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               249,595,000
<SALES>                                     13,054,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,513,000
<CGS>                                        5,631,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,732,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,460,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          21,063,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,059,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,059,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,593,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,059,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (14.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (14.00)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

IN RE: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT :

CASES WITH DOE DEFENDANTS : CIVIL ACTION

RELATED TO CIVIL ACTION : NO. 

NUMBER 04-1239 :

:

STANDING ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2005, for the purposes of consistency and in congruence

with the Court’s October 13, 2004 Order granting Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Immediate

Discovery in Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1-6, No. Civ.A.04-1241, [Doc. #14], as

amended by Order dated October 25, 2004 [Doc. #15], the Court issues the following Standing Order

to apply to all current and future copyright infringement actions having “Doe” defendants filed in the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania that are related to Civil Action Numbers 04-1239 and 04-1241 and

that have been or will be assigned for pre-trial administrative purposes to the undersigned. It is

hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs may take immediate discovery on each respective Doe Defendant’s

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) to obtain the identity of the Doe Defendant by

serving a Rule 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe

Defendant, including name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media

Access Control addresses for each Defendant.

2. Plaintiffs may use the information obtained by this Rule 45 subpoena solely for the

purpose of protecting Plaintiffs’ rights under the Copyright Act.

3. Plaintiffs shall attach the Court Directed Notice Regarding Issuance of Subpoena, a

copy of which is attached to this Order, to the aforementioned Rule 45 subpoena. 

Case 2:04-cv-00650-CN Document 17 Filed 01/21/05 Page 1 of 2
The Rule 45 subpoena shall instruct the ISP to distribute a copy of said notice to

each Doe Defendant within seven days of service of the subpoena.

4. With respect to cable ISPs, this ruling further authorizes disclosure of information

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).

5. Any future notices to any Defendant in these cases must be pre-approved by the

Court.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall place this Standing Order on the

dockets of all current and future copyright infringement actions having “Doe” defendants filed in

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that have been or will be assigned for pre-trial administrative

purposes to the undersigned. 

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

_______________________________

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Case 2:04-cv-00650-CN Document 17 Filed 01/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dais Analytic Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Judith C. Norstrud, Principal 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, to my
knowledge:

(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: March 30, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Judith C. Norstrud               
|                     |  |  |  | Judith C. Norstrud                   
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
# C_2016027EN.01006301.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/63

---

Action brought on 23 October 2015 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission

(Case T-605/15)

(2016/C 027/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl (Düsseldorf, Germany), Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn, Germany), BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany), BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH (Lippendorf, Germany), BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (Siegen, Germany), Buderus Edelstahl GmbH (Wetzlar, Germany), ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH (Riesa, Germany), Friedr. Lohmann GmbH Werk für Spezial- & Edelstähle (Witten, Germany), Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH (Krefeld, Germany), Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany), Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH (Dillingen), Drahtwerk St. Ingbert GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany), Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH (Ilsenburg, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Federn und Stabilisatoren GmbH (Hagen, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Gerlach GmbH (Homburg, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Rasselstein GmbH (Andernach, Germany) und Emscher Aufbereitung GmbH (Mühlheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 (notified under document C(2014) 8786) on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users. (1)

1

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas relied on in Case T-319/15 Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission. (2)

Deutsche Edelstahlwerke

Commission

2

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.

1

(2)  OJ 2015 C 302, p. 60.

2

---
Before the First Division,

November 14, 1958

No. 62443.

#### Armand Schwab & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

protest 214137-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 1 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 2 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 3 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 4 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 5 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 6 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 7 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 8 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 9 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 10 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 11 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 12 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 13 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 14 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 15 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 16 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 17 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 18 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 19 of 20
Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEKP Document 1 Filed 02/20/04 Page 20 of 20
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350 as adopted by ss 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2002 (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.

Dated: November 19, 2002

                                         /s/ Scott D. Dorfman
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Scott D. Dorfman
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer
                                         Chairman of the Board
# C_2015096EN.01002301.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

---

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T-45/15)

(2015/C 096/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40  721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40  721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment;

| — | order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2006, the grant contract LIFE06 ENV/B/000362, entitled ‘Demonstration of a 100 % non-toxic durable hull protection and anti-fouling system contributing to zero emission to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels’, was signed by the European Commission and the applicant. The recovery by the Commission at issue is based on an ex-post audit which allegedly showed that the eligible costs of the project had to be reduced.

ex-post

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the obligation to state reasons has been infringed. It submits that the Commission took no account of an audit that was carried out when all the documents were still available. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission took no account of its observation on the ex-post audit report, which justified an additional amount.

ex-post

---
#### Yearsley Company, Appellant, *v.*Lindsay.

. *Contracts*— Conversion—Case *for jury.*

In an action of trespass for conversion of money belonging to the plaintiff, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the defendant will be sustained, where the issue was one of fact as to the existence of an oral contract, and the jury found in favor of the defendant on sufficient evidence.

Argued December 11, 1923.

Appeal, No. 320, Oct. T., 1923, by plaintiffs, from judgment of Municipal Court of *30Philadelphia, Jan. T., 1923, No. 623, on verdict in favor of defendant, in the case of Thomas Yearsley and William A. Wollerton, copartners, trading as Thomas Yearsley Company, v. Andrew Lindsay.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover money wrongfully embezzled and converted by defendant. Before Crane, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant and judgment was entered thereon. Plaintiff appealed

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence and refusal of plaintiff’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

*James Yearsley,*and with him *Illoway & Felix,*for appellants.

*James A.*Walker, for appellee.

February 29, 1924:

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

Appellants sued appellee in trespass to recover $150, alleging that he had “wrongfully and illegally embezzled and converted” that sum to his use. The basis of the claim, as the statement alleges it, was this: One Connell was the owner of and had for sale, at $200, two tanks. Of this, appellants had knowledge. Later appellee inquired of appellants as to their information about the tanks and stated to them that he had a purchaser who would pay $500 for them, if they were satisfactory. Appellee then agreed with appellants that he would induce the prospective buyer to take the tanks at $500 and if he did so, the profit — $300—would be divided equally between appellants and appellee. Connell sold the tanks, received his asking price — $200—and appellee *31received the profit — $300—and retained it. The total money consideration was furnished by the purchaser.

No affidavit of defense was filed and the case was tried on its merits. A single question was submitted for the jury’s determination: Had the contract stated by appellants been made? The jury found in the negative. We are bound by that finding as well as appellants. There is no other question in the case.

The judgment is affirmed.