alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Caruthers v. Edmund Hall and Others.

Where apportion of the land covered by *a mortgage is*conveyed subject to the» payment of the entire mortgage by the grantee, the subsequent purchaser of' another parcel has a right *to*insist that the parcel so before conveyed shall be first sold to satisfy the mortgage, before resort is had to the parcel so purchased by himself.

And when a bill in chancery is filed to foreclose the mortgage, it is not necessary for such subsequent purchaser to file a cross bill in order to protect this right, but he may set out tfie facts in his answer, and the Court, where it can be done without prejudice to the rights of complainant, should *make a decree*pro* tecting his priority.

*Heard April 12th.*

*Decided April 22d.*

Appeal in Chancery from Shiawassee Circuit. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*McCurdy*& Raynale, for complainant:

Defendant Hall, in his answer, asks for positive relief which the hill will not afford; and this can only be obtained by filing a cross bill. *Wal. Ch.*170; 9 *Cow,*755; *Story Eq. Pl.*§§ 389, 392; 2 *Barb. Ch. Pr.*126, 127; 3 *Dan. Ch. Pr.*1742, 1743.

*E.*Hall, defendant in person,

as to the doctrine of marshaling securities with reference to the equities of the *41several defendants, referred to *Wel. Ch.*459; Saxton, 413; 2 *Green Ch.*125; 1 *Johns. Ch.*447; 5 *Johns. Ch.*235; 1 *Green Ch.*396; 8 *Barb.*9; 24 *Barb.*135; 3 *Halst. Ch.*509.

Campbell J.:

The bill in this ease was filed to foreclose a mortgage made by Wellington Johnson and wife to complainant. Hall, who is a subsequent purchaser, answered, showing that the mortgagor had conveyed a part of the mortgaged premises to one Lucina Redson *subject to the entire mortgage, which the deed declared she was to pay,*and that his own purchase was made subsequently. He claimed that in decreeing a sale the Court below should require the portion of the land sold to Mrs. Redson to be first offered, and that his portion should only be resorted to in case of deficiency. The evidence shows without contradiction that a sale in this order would not prejudice complainant. The Court below declined to protect his priority, and Hall appealed.

There can be no doubt of the right of the defendant Hall to have this course taken. The case of. *Mason v. Payne, Wal. Ch.*461, fully settles the doctrine, which is a very familiar and reasonable one. The objection that a cross bill was necessary, is not well taken. The defendant does not seek any affirmative relief, neither does he seek to deny or destroy any right of the complainant, to whom, upon the case as presented, the order in which the parcels are sold must be a matter of .indifference.

The decree of the Court below must be so modified as to require the sale of Hall’s premises to be postponed, so that the remainder be first offered and sold. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this Court, but not of the Court below.

The other Justices concurred.
#### Herman Reynolds et al., Plaintiffs, v City of New York, Appellant, and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendants. American Bridge Division et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. Winston Lester, Plaintiff, v William Ladson, Defendant, and City of New York, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. American Bridge Division et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 300]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 31, 1994, bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice entered on or about April 28, 1994, which dismissed the City of New York’s third-party complaint and any cross claims against the third-party defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City’s contention that summary judgment was improperly based on inadmissible evidence is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is without merit. *186Contrary to defendant’s claim, the statement in the offending driver’s MV-104 report constituted an admission which could properly be considered as probative evidence by the motion court. Moreover, even if the complained of reports were wholly disregarded, a prima facie showing was made that the collision was not caused by the absence of lane-divider cones at the accident site. This was established by the van driver’s uncontroverted testimony that the offending vehicle had knocked down divider cones as it swerved on a wet pavement into oncoming traffic *(Smith v Johnson Prods. Co.,*95 AD2d 675, 676). The burden then shifted to the City to show that there was a triable issue of fact regarding that prima facie showing *(supra).*However, the City offered no evidence to indicate that divider cones were absent from the area of the bridge where the accident occurred, or, for that matter, to explain how the absence of cones might have caused the car to swerve or how the presence of cones might have prevented it from entering the oncoming lane. The City merely suggested that an absence of lane dividers might have "confused” the car driver and caused him to enter into the other lane. Such bald conjecture under these circumstances was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment *(supra).*Even assuming that the third-party defendants acted improperly, the City has made no showing that their action or inaction was a substantial cause of the events that produced the injuries *(see, Frank v City of New York,*163 AD2d 254, 255). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
No. 54734.

#### Umberto Razzaboni v. United States,

protest 161741-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13-319.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TAXATION 

Information Exchange 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BRAZIL 

Signed at Brasilia March 20, 2007 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 BRAZIL 

 Taxation: Information Exchange 

 Agreement signed at Brasilia March 20, 2007; 

 Entered into force March 19, 2013.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Sullivan, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 352]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuífner, J.), rendered February 8, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*388Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor impermissibly elicited testimony of an uncharged crime during his redirect examination of a prosecution witness is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250; *People v Perez,*194 AD2d 812; *People v Hayden,*128 AD2d 726). In any event, the defendant’s argument is without merit. It was the defense counsel who opened the door to the prosecutor’s redirect examination by first eliciting testimony relating to the uncharged crime during his cross examination of this witness *(People v Howard,*193 AD2d 620; *People v Bailey,*193 AD2d 689; *cf, People v Respass,*213 AD2d 430; *People v Cuesta, 199*AD2d 101). None of the defendant’s remaining contentions warrant reversal *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242; *People v Reese,*181 AD2d 699; *People v Hightower,*163 AD2d 489). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *http://www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 16, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*Capitol Bancorp, Ltd.*, Lansing, Michigan; to convert Ohio Commerce Bank, Beachwood, Ohio, and Bank of Maumee, Maumee, Ohio, into savings institutions, and thereby engage in operating savings and loan associations, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E7-5425 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 1 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 2 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 3 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 4 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 5 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 6 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 7 of 8

Case 2:05-cr-00018-EJG   Document 42    Filed 06/20/06   Page 8 of 8

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-24T19:48:23-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0001098009
<NAME> SPACE LAUNCHES FINANCING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                107,420
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,420
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       61
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,420
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,892
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,892
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00


</TABLE>
#### William B. Brittingham, *Apppellant, v.*John W. Brittingham, *Respondent.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinions by Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
No. 49714.

#### Protest 69228-K of Vitro Mfg. Co. (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In view of the uneontradicted testimony of the only witness, together with the chemist’s report, and the Government conceding that the claim was well taken, the court held that the tax was not applicable to the •cobalt ore in question.
No. 52332.

protests 57856-K, etc. (New York).

#### I. Freeman & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of The Neptune  Society,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew
Hoogendoorn, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




                                                  /s/ Matthew Hoogendoorn
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Matthew Hoogendoorn
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                  April 30, 2003
No. 53614.

protests 136393-K, etc. (New York).

#### Franam Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
NUMBER 13-22-00553-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF T.N.J., A CHILD

 

On appeal from the 25th District Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Beanvides, Tijerina, and Peña 

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellee the Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a first motion for extension of time 

to file a brief. Appellee’s brief was due on February 8, 2023. Appellee has requested a 

twenty-day extension to file a brief.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited 
2

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that 

these appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of 

appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the 

shortened appellate deadlines, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to 

file a brief in such cases to one ten-day extension of time absent truly extraordinary 

circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

This Court, having fully examined and considered appellee’s motion is of the 

opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellee’s first motion for extension of time to file a 

brief should be granted in part with order. The Court, however, requires strict adherence 

to the briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and 

looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6; see also id. at R. 28.4.

The Court grants in part appellee’s first motion for extension of time insofar as the 

Court will extend appellee’s deadline to file the brief for ten (10) days, and we deny in part

appellee’s motion insofar as appellee requests a twenty-day extension of time to file the 

brief. Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably entertained by this Court, 

absent extraordinary circumstances.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

9th day of February, 2023.
No. 47946.

#### Protests 888868-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47291 the protests were sustained as to certain of the hats in question.
Order entered February 4, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00771-CV

ANDREA M. REYES, Appellant

V.

GUADALUPE TORRES AND ROSALINDA SILVA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-13110

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ January 31, 2020 second motion for extension of time to 

file their responsive brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than 

March 5, 2020. We caution appellees that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL SCOTT FILAROSKI,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 393 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
No. 55326.

#### The Gruen Watch Company *v.*United States,

protest 157051-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 32.9

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Winton/Graham Series.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                    
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                  
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox
Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                    
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                     
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                         
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox FundManagement, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Winton/Graham Series, a Series of TheFrontier Fund                

Date: May 8, 2009
#### Quaker Company *v.*Sibarco Stations, Inc., Appellant.

Argued November 25, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*M. Gorton Dittmann, Jr.,*with him *E. Humes Garber, John M. Demeisah,*and *Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll,*for appellant.

*David Berger,*with him *Herbert B. Newberg, Howard L. S chambelán,*and *Gohen, Shapiro, Berger, Polisher and Gohen,*for appellees.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.