alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### ORIGINAL (Y\A~0£- TflM^s (+>^/H--h O K flcPP^l(£<£ 

# 110 -/5
REGS ... "< li. • ll EALS JAN 2 6 2015

, Clerk FILED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS JAN 3 0 2315 Abel Acosta, Clerk 

### l4&0ofl-Ar4>le. ^u<^e f-^-Oh "TdoiyUS/L^ <^c>rJ>&H- file3thirty W-J-'s r^^-rltotO teP- &tsef*strh>A>A/lu &L<J>ieuJ vbluAS-b. AftST&4~^m^H^r C3P !t.£~ <3A5£r 

### ~TL^ ^utA&Kit^ pne^nMro etas ^fAd^ i^tsu^f^terser ^O Pflocj& ybe. Ae. <L<255A<Li^ P^CUl/1i/L/Z<-f /d>55 'ek/K^uT ^S fceguie&o £y 37Wu£v 75 oj<¥\* T~£<^ F+2/z. jHAe-ZeT' 0A-luce. Of=? 7&&. ^^p<snA^f A+ ylaz "TTpos.And A^c^. 

### 72,W^x. ^4/ &Je AMA/, §<£S.O&64)t

TOkJ"^ aF ftfJlofe-lo^O 

### Th Pduoe."TlM-TZue- /?AM*f /uAm^) }^7t^ Irf&cUtHJT ZfuU&ttiBAyt op lit: TrfcTEsAxScd 3&dT /Jo. 078*7//^ 

### Jog %stcHj/hA)iU Srivu&i &*>* 3=cr 

### "T^W (HollaW fofL App^/MnJ^h

Qcq P^3A/0 *>Y~ 

### P^5l£cp7iyAS 73£o2Lliable OF ^u^lH-oTUr rzr^3 

### KJmp/i&jl uc 57>/s, 7i£ 5.c*j.'3d 73^ £t£. <*eiM.<A-p/> JLow)ilt U,i<L( G&/f?i4$ 0< ST&tej 7Ho 5. w>.^J ^3y^/x. 74/5/?./b&AcjLiKmcfI<?&7,./uafar)

### '-^^pc^lu^3k o:~$i*±€-i1S~I ^oo^d &£7 Aj^4 App, Gsfrpu-S i^\o'} &Ui*>±l /*?«&, flsL< &*F<3) 

### GQ T^Supp £<$ $&5~(/Lff}(2/>&& 43V a3c£ 4S) 

## Aa/0/t7 (&>£

3/,o3

### oF App&*/$$. r^-f/fiotO Foil L^}^>£He.f-'(o/OA-fl^ /&s<j>;t5uJ pufc.5,uAHJ~t To TAG



### ^>/^/f/ ^^//'c^ ^cdo 7S i/ooy&oa, A ~F&<e-J 

### F-ifi^T c)&pfl^ fer^/uy JAk&n-f &r^fUc)&l S-^/hAi5/ £ UltCTuJE. &F Tu?e> Pflto/L Hz-fcriY <3z>jOcticf(OAD }^<lLJ&J A3 pUi^S^/Jrz'D'^u? Ajufly o/J Fhs. }s5u*?5 <=>F fci)(p A/vD 

### Vlte^ fujKisttiH.vKJ' fllu&£ or^TZ^ App&///h<f~/Pk/kJ&Q CO ctC

5

&*' A- t-lne' op' ^ "F^cx^ Awe) rcr^iW'/o/u '*s TZ.-*^ A*yiou.i>^t~ XS5oc£r5 Pf2£r5eMJ-Azrp p
ltoi OF €/LfLo^ ozai& 7^tX^^<if p^^Se^tiJ^D 6^/45 /ez^4/l<f }yt5u_re=ict^uX ~~F^> Pccfiz^AfiF 7S "T^x. P*A). C^e Aio/O. §Jgt&6(A)< i^CuiWt CfF= ^PJOjo/2. / cJ o lhj^€-Oi^^<L.e-p!bes<s^cF>^ u±AS (e^AH* /rCSu.FFiCtcZi^f 7& /y/fcse. /ess 7Xs?ic $ loc>fe£x*j A* A/l-&s&t> ie^Tk&- //ticJ/c^^

1i3*W*c^e&?-f oF 7#eT F^Fs> &A-3& f>^wwmAi^f 5s^>t-/z^-/ fl~){ZrG&vd;ii:GOfi<c} cl*&3 <*/<- 7X-* &°oF c>F 7^e 

### ILa<lF>2- Si^ppL, %12>as/ /o<z*4ezD >* ~/Zie Cfy &F6it)<^(<<?5/<^5<~ £A/2-{y pto/iAJmp /iou.?23 gaj o/e- A-6=>cct ApfalJ-C, iL&SJl. IZU- ^/L^ ,2^,4-/ iSju&AZ^ot&O dy 7X&p/HL-P^S ATTLajt ST^je. £*>A6 U>k*-'tL*J2- llu^ (L;Z.tu_t*i~-5+A*~/-?Al AJ>A-(uJlF <7f=- ~fec Z-£>^<?/OcszoFf^&tera ^ay ytvs ^7rf~As u*A-s ScaFFScScr^T- 7© /°£otj*i 4**fb*£>d A fe~&50/OA£/£r <Jou_4FjiuiJ- App^//mt U>As 7£<° /e£/*z7&F7<>ri. 3tJJOIF}c7A^ t??US^S d^XJCEt^jO'/rtf ~JXe- /^*( *>&FFf^&OcLy 

### M*U y^/go^Sfe-/O/HZ-Af A^^;^t$Tc*Jb?s*t 7£^ ^J/fw/^^5- 

### Pt±Tc^A-i(y oW Occa/2.

e
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00136-CR

Joe Torres

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-CR-4051-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 27, 2014
#### ADAMS v. STATE.

No. 16455.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1934.

Jim Baker of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Under a complaint and information properly charging appellant with being a delinquent child, the appellant was adjudged to be such and committed to the State Juvenile Training School for a term of not less than two nor more than four years.

The record is beffee this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Zemex Corporation (the Corporation)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R.
Peter Gillin, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
Corporation.

| |  |     |  |                                                                     
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/ R. PETER GILLIN                                                 
| |  |     |  |                                                                     
| |  |     |  | R. Peter Gillin
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 27, 2003
# C_2022069EN.01000301.xml

| 10.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10411 – ABM / YKA / HEBEI MAURI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 69/03)

On 18 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10411. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10411. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND JUNE 30, 1997 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1996 AND 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001013240
<NAME> ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         382,220
<SECURITIES>                                    12,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,086
<INVENTORY>                                      3,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               455,515
<PP&E>                                         593,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,060,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,796
<BONDS>                                        904,614
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    271,652
<COMMON>                                           555
<OTHER-SE>                                   (209,194)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,060,727
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (144,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (144,351)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (144,351)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### CORNELL et ux. v. AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO.

No. 10402.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 4, 1939.

Charles W. Anderson and Frank Vaughan, both of San Antonio, for plaintiffs in error.

*706Claud J. Carter, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

In this, cause plaintiff in error has filed no briefs, but defendant in error has filed briefs asking for affirmance. In such case it is our duty to affirm, if it appears that the judgment is one that can properly be affirmed under the view presented by defendant in error. Court of Civil Appeals Rule 39; Smoot’s Tex.Ct.Rules, p. 254, and authorities there cited. Upon inspection of defendant in error’s brief, we find such to be the case here, and, accordingly, the judgment must.be affirmed.
*OPINION ISSUED NOVEMBER 15, 2007*

#### MELVIN R. KESSLER VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-210)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 2005 Toyota Seneca van struck a hole while he was traveling on Route 31 between Meadow Bridge and Danese in Fayette County. Route 31 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more fully set forth below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. on July 2, 2007, a clear day. Route 31 is a paved two-lane road with a speed limit of approximately fifty-five miles per hour. While the claimant was proceeding up Pity Me Mountain on Route 31 from Meadow Bridge to Danese at a speed of approximately forty-five miles an hour, he came to a sharp turn in the road and noticed a coal truck traveling towards him that was on the centerline in the road. As the claimant cautiously drove his vehicle closer to the edge of the road to avoid the oncoming truck, his vehicle struck a hole that was approximately one foot and a half wide and three or four inches deep. Since the shoulder of the road was worn and had eroded in certain parts, the claimant stated that he could not have avoided the hole by traveling on the shoulder of the road. *64The claimant testified that he traveled on this road approximately four or five times a year. As a result of this incident, the claimant sustained damage to a rim totaling $490.43. The claimant’s insurance deductible is $500.00.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have notice of the hole in question on Route 31. The respondent did not call any witnesses.

It is a well-established principle that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of motorists upon its highways. *Adkins v. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). To hold respondent liable, claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the road defect at issue and a reasonable amount of time to take corrective action. *Chapman v. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986); *Pritt v. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 8 (1985).

In the instant case, the evidence established that respondent, at the least, had constructive notice of the hole that claimant’s vehicle struck, and that the hole presented a hazard to the traveling public on Route 31 in Fayette County. The size of the hole and the time of the year in which claimant’s incident occurred leads the Court to conclude that respondent had notice of this hazardous condition, and respondent had an adequate amount of time to take corrective action. Thus, the Court finds respondent negligent, and claimant may make a recovery for the damage to his vehicle.

In accordance with the findings of-fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $490.43

Award of $490.43.
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### JAIME NAVARRETE ORTIZ VS. REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY

(CC-09-0020)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant, an inmate at the Tygart Valley Regional Jail, seeks $1,200.00 for a necklace that was entrusted to respondent but has been misplaced.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim and that the amount is fair and reasonable. The Court is aware that respondent does not have a fiscal method for paying claims of this nature; therefore, the claim has been submitted to this Court for determination.

This Court has taken the position in prior claims that if a bailment situation has been created, respondent is responsible for property of an inmate which is taken from that inmate, remains in its custody, and is not produced for return to the inmate.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to the claimant herein in the amount of $1,200.00.

Award of $1,200.00.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANICAL STATEMENTS OF ICG COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AS RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMBINED
OPERATIONS  OF ICG AND NETCOM AS THOUGH THE MERGER  OCCURRED AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE PERIOD  PRESENTED  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                              433,342
<SECURITIES>                         33,450
<RECEIVABLES>                        53,319
<ALLOWANCES>                          3,411
<INVENTORY>                           3,309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    527,712
<PP&E>                              567,697
<DEPRECIATION>                       79,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,113,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               112,465
<BONDS>                             761,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               159,120
<PREFERRED>                            0<F1>
<COMMON>                              8,189
<OTHER-SE>                           70,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,113,767
<SALES>                                0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    289,634
<CGS>                                  0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       208,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    219,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      3,436
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   85,714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (202,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (5,108)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (224,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0<F1>
<CHANGES>                            (3,453)
<NET-INCOME>                       (228,372)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (6.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THIS VALUE IS NOT APPLICABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Dept of Transportation/ FAA

800 Independence Av SW

Washington DC 20591

1/30/2015

Erik Justen

Enso Filmworks

434 Bethlehem Rd

Statesville, NC 28677

336-941-0121

eajusten@gmail.com

To Whom It May Concern,

Regarding my petition, Docket No. FAA-2015-4788, Exemption

Request Section 333, you have asked for the following information:

Describe the aircraft make, model and weight.

DJI Phantom 3 Professional, rotorcraft

Weight (including battery and propellers)- 1280 g

If you need any other information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Erik Justen

●
##### 



Company
    
    State of OrganizationOtter Tail Energy Services Company, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaOverland Mechanical Services, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaOtter Tail Assurance Limited
    
    Cayman IslandsVaristar Corporation
    
    MinnesotaNorthern Pipe Products, Inc.
    
    North DakotaVinyltech Corporation
    
    ArizonaT.O. Plastics, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaSt. George Steel Fabrication, Inc.
    
    UtahDMI Industries, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMI Canada, Inc.
    
    Ontario, CanadaBTD Manufacturing, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaShoreMaster, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaGalva Foam Marine Industries, Inc.
    
    MissouriShoreline Industries, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaAVIVA Sports, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaDMS Health Technologies, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMS Imaging, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMS Imaging Partners, LLC
    
    DelawareDMS Leasing Corporation*
    
    North DakotaMidwest Construction Services, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaAerial Contractors, Inc.
    
    North DakotaMoorhead Electric, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaLynk3 Technologies, Inc
    
    MinnesotaAC Equipment, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaVentus Energy Systems, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaFoley Company
    
    MissouriChassis Liner Corporation
    
    MinnesotaE. W. Wylie Corporation
    
    North DakotaIdaho Pacific Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareIdaho-Pacific Corporation
    
    IdahoIdaho-Pacific Colorado Corporation
    
    DelawareAWI Acquisition Company Limited
    
    Prince Edward Island, CanadaAgraWest Investments Limited
    
    Prince Edward Island, Canada
 
 *
    
    Inactive
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          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 Quarterly Report of Valcom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities  and
Exchange Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Vellardita,
Chief Executive Officer of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section  906  has  been
provided to Valcom, Inc. and will be retained by Valcom, Inc. and  furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


May 22, 2006

/s/ Vincent Vellardita
---------------------------
Vincent Vellardita
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              JURISDICTION OF
                                                               INCORPORATION
                     NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                       OR ORGANIZATION
                     ------------------                       ----------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Outdoor Systems Painting, Inc...............................    Arizona
OS Baseline, Inc............................................    Arizona
OS Advertising of Texas Painting, Inc.......................     Texas
Decade Communications Group, Inc............................    Colorado
Bench Advertising Company of Colorado, Inc..................    Colorado
New York Subways Advertising Co., Inc.......................    Arizona
Mediacom Inc................................................     Canada
Salm Enterprises, Inc. .....................................   California
OS Bus, Inc. ...............................................    Georgia
Outdoor Systems (New York), Inc. ...........................    New York
National Advertising Company................................    Delaware
Pacific Connection, Inc. ...................................    Delaware
Atlanta Bus Shelters........................................    Georgia
</TABLE>
#### TRAMMEL v. FATHEREE.

No. 10419.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 15, 1939.

On Rehearing March 8, 1939.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1939.

Gordon Gibson and Mitchell Schwartz-man, both of Laredo, for appellant.

Johnson & Long, of Carrizo Springs, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This is a suit for a temporary mandatory injunction instituted by J. C. Fatheree against Robert H. Trammel, seeking to require Trammel to remove a number of his cattle from what is called the Bermuda Colony Pasture, and to restrain him in the future from placing in said pasture more than a certain number of cattle.

The injunctive relief prayed for was granted by the trial judge and Trammel has appealed.

Appellee, Fatheree, has filed two affidavits in this Court, showing that Trammel has transferred all of his rights in the Bermuda Colony Pasture to one Arthur Ivy and has removed all of his cattle from the pasture. It is further shown that Trammel is not now threatening to place any cattle in this pasture. Under such circumstances this cause has become moot. Appellee asks that we dismiss the appeal. This we cannot do as under the circumstances such action would amount to passing upon the merits of the cause. However, in view of the showing made, it becomes our duty to reverse the judgment granting the injunction and dismiss the petition and it is accordingly so ordered.

Order reversed and cause dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

We have concluded that we were in error in reversing the judgment granting the injunction. The cause being moot, we should simply have dismissed the petition. City, etc. v. Martin, Tex.Sup., 123 S.W.2d 638.

Accordingly, the judgment heretofore entered reversing the judgment and dismissing the cause will be set aside and judgment entered dismissing the cause at the cost of appellant.