alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 93—2207.

#### William B. White v. Thomas Mackin.

A bill in chancery to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon a certain building. Complainant claimed that there was due him $1,166.67. On the hearing, upon pleadings and proofs, the court found due complainant $672.24 (which was the amount certified to be due by the architect). The work was done under a written contract which incorporated certain plans, specifications and drawings, was signed by both parties, and by it the architect was selected and it was agreed that the performance of the contract on the part of complainant should be to the full and complete satisfaction of said architect, and defendant’s undertaking to pay for the work, etc., was upon the condition that said superintendent should certify in writing that complainant was entitled thereto. The question in dispute was in regard to certain tinning. The architect claimed that it was expressed and included in the specifications. Complainant thought it was not and refused to do it, and defendant employed another mechanic to do it, paying him a reasonable price therefor. The architect deducted the amount paid for the tinning and gave his certificate for the remainder. The court is unable to say that the architect misconstrued the contract, and the decree is affirmed.

Judge below, George Gaedrer.

Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Gary, Cody *&*Gary

; for appellee, Mr. ¡Robert Hervey.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

Opinion Per Curiam.
#### MARY CARNEY *v.*JAMES WHITEHURST.

■One who claims the land under a conveyance made by the deceased, has a right to intervene in proceedings for dower in such land, instituted by the widow against the heirs of the deceased. (Act of 1868-’69, c. 93, s. 41.)

MotioN, by a purchaser of the land, to be allowed to intervene in proceedings for dower, heard by *Jones, J.,*at ^Spring Term 1870, of Pitt Court.

The plaintiff had made the heirs parties, alleging that the deceased had died seized, and in possession. They answered setting up a sale of the lands by the deceased to one Gray, as trustee to pay debts, and that alter his death,- the trustee .had resold them to James Whitehurst. Whitehurst also .moved to be made a party defendant to. the proceedings.

His Honor refused the application, and Whitehurst appealed.

*Hilliard,*for the appellant.

Howard, *anil Phillips & Merrimon, contra.*

Rodman, J.

The only question in this case is, whether the application of Whitehurst to come in and be made a party defendant, should have been allowed. He claimed to own the land in which dower was sought, by a purchase from the deceased during his life time. Questions oí practice merely, in the absence of a positive rule established either by statute or rule or decision of the Court, must be decided on considerations of general convenience. In this case, how•ever, there existed a positive law which settles the question without argument. Section 41 of ch. 93, acts 1888-69, p. 215, enacts that, in proceedings to recover dower, “ the .heirs, devisees, and other persons in possession of, *or claim*
      *427
      *ing estates in the*land, shall bo parties.” This act was ratified oil March 27th, 1869, and was therefore in force at the time of the application bjr Whitehurst, at Spring Term 1869 although, as the act had not been then published, it is not surprising that it had not come to the knowledge, either of the Court or of the counsel in the cause. This practice is in harmony with that established in civil actions by O. C. P. § 61.

There ivas error in the j udgment below, and this case will be remanded to the Superior Court of Pitt, in order that Janies Whitehurst may be allowed to make himself a party, and to make defence according to the course of the Court. The appellant will recover costs in this Court.

Per Curiam. Error.
Exhibit 10.15



AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT





THIS AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 28th day of January 2002, by and between ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY, LLC (the "Company") and Thomas J. Shafer (the "Consultant").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Consultant entered into the original Consulting Agreement ("Original Agreement) on the 1st day of January 1998.

WHEREAS, Section II entitled "Compensation" of said Original Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows:

The Consultant will be paid $4,000 per month for these services, payable semi-monthly, effective January 1, 2002.

WHEREAS, all other terms and conditions shall remain as stated in the Original Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above.



|WITNESS                |  | ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY, LLC
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                       |  |                           
|/s/ Cynthia L. Hedrick |  | /s/ Edwin L. Kelly        
|                       |  | Its:  Chairman            
|                       |  | Date:  February 5, 2002   
|                       |  |                           
|                       |  |                           
|/s/ Cynthia L. Hedrick |  | /s/ Thomas J. Shafer      
|                       |  | Thomas J. Shafer          
|                       |  | Date:  February 5, 2002
#### LENNIE WATSON v. JAMES S. MITCHELL.

*Process*— Return— Officer— *Venue*— Jurisdiction.

1. An action against a Sheriff of a county other than that from which the process issued, for mating a false return, is properly brought in the Courts of the county to which that process was returnable.

2. The term ,l return ” means that the process must be brought back and produced in the Court whence it issued with such endorsements as the law requires.

This is an appeal from the judgment of *Womack, J.,*at September Term, 1890, of Northampton Superior Court, refusing a motion to remove the action for trial to Hertford County.

*Mr. R. B. Peebles,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. B. B. Winborne,*for defendant.

Shepherd, J.:

The defendant, the'Sheriff of Hertford County, is sued in Northampton County for a false return of a summons issued by the Superior Court of the latter county and returnable to the same. He contends that the cause of action arose in Hertford County, and that there was error on the part of the Court in declining his motion to remove.

The argument is, that as the official acts of a county officer are confined to his county, the “ return ” must necessarily have been made in Ihe same, and therefore the cause of action could'only arise therein. It is true, asa general proposition, that the acts of county officers are confined to their counties *(Steele*v. *Commissioners,*70 N. C., 137), but this has no application to a case like the present. *The Code,*§200, expressly requires a Sheriff to whom a summons is directed to execute the same and return it to the Superior Court of the county from which it is issued. “The term return, implies *365that the process is taken back to the place from which it was issued.” Re. Crittenden 2 Flip., 215. “It is the bringing of a process into Court with such endorsements as the law requires, whether they in fact be true or false.” *Herman*v. *Childress,*3 Yerg., 329.

As the statute requires the officer to make his return to the Superior Court of Northampton County, and as the return could not be made elsewhere, it must follow that the cause of action arose in the said county, and that the refusal of his Honor to remove must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


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


                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


             SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            In connection with the Annual Report of Capital Environmental
Resource Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2002, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David Sutherland-Yoest, Chief Executive Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (i)   the report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ David Sutherland-Yoest
------------------------------
Name:  David Sutherland-Yoest
Title: Chief Executive Officer

July 15, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### STATE v. WILLIAM H. DEAVER and another.

Where the Conrt below upon motion of a defendant (a U. S. officer) in an indictment for conspiracy, ordered the removal of the cause to a Federal Court in pursuance of § 643 of the Revised Statutes of the United-States ; *Held,*not to be error.

*(State*v. Hoskins, *ante,*530, cited and approved.)

Motion for tbe Removal of a Cause upon petition of defendants, made in pursuance of the United States Revised Statutes, § 643, heard at Spring Term, 1877, of Rutherford-Superior Court, before *Cloud, J.*

The defendant, Deaver, a. United States Deputy Collector, and the defendant, J. W. Green, a. United States Commissioner, were indicted at Fall Term, 1876, of said Court, for a-conspiracy to extort money from one Henry Summit, who' was arrested at the instance of these defendants and carried before said Commissioner, to answer an alleged charge of’ defrauding the revenue of the United States in having in his possession manufactured tobacco, without the same being, stamped as required by law. When the case was called, the defendants, moved the Court to order its Clerk to send to the United States Circuit Court for the Western District of North Carolina, a transcript of the record in obedience to a Writ of' Certiorari issued therefrom. This motion was resisted on the ground that the Act of Congress authorizing the removal ©f a cause of this character was unconstitutional. His Honor being of a contrary opinion allowed the motion, and *Montr ffomery,*Solicitor for the State, appealed.

Same counsel as in *State*v. Hoskins, ante, 530.

Rrade, J.

The principles involved in this case are the same as those in *State*v. *Hoskins, ante,*530, and the decision *556is the same, and the opinion in that. case will be certified as the opinion in this case.

There is no error.

Pee Cubxam. Judgment affirmed.

Bynum, J.

having been of counsel in the Court below, did not sit on the hearing of *Moore*v. *Valentine,*ante, 188.

In paragraph “ 2 ” of syllabus in *Long*v. *Long, ante,*301"' read * * * “ was procured by the fraud of the defendant in *not*disclosing the fact of her then pregnancy, &c.”

In paragraph “2” of syllabus in *Churchill*v. *Lee, ante,*341, read, “Although the affirmative *of*the issues, &c.”
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 587 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 587

    To provide for the mandatory suspension of Federal benefits to 
          convicted drug traffickers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 1999

 Mr. Ashcroft introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the mandatory suspension of Federal benefits to 
          convicted drug traffickers, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Federal Benefits for Drug 
Traffickers Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF FEDERAL BENEFITS.

    (a) Mandatory Suspension for Drug Traffickers.--Section 421 of the 
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
                    (A) by striking ``at the discretion of the court,'' 
                each place that term appears;
                    (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``not less 
                than 1 year and, at the discretion of the court,'' 
                before ``up''; and
                    (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``not less 
                than 3 years and, at the discretion of the court,'' 
                before ``up'';
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections (a) and'' 
        and inserting ``subsection''; and
            (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``The penalties 
        provided'' and inserting ``With the exception of benefits 
        denied pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(C), the suspension of 
        benefits authorized''.
    (b) Suspension for Individuals Convicted of Other Drug Offenses.--
Section 421(b)(1)(B) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
862(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``not less than 1 year and, at the 
        discretion of the court,'' before ``up''; and
            (2) by striking ``the court.'' and all that follows before 
        the period at the end of the subparagraph and inserting ``the 
        court, and the court may impose the requirements described in 
        clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A)''.
                                 <all>
```
04/22/2010 12:49 FAX 814 536 7024 ST FRANCIS CHURCH 121002 

Airline for Johnstown, PA - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1 

"VXHOOf ^ MAIL Oo-r-osT- ^oo-^ - u^S\ 

Airline for Johnstown, PA Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:39 PM 

From: "AnLhoiiy Spilka" <podusn®yaf»oo.rom> 

To: EAS(g)dot,pov 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

"Financial decision" for whom? Certainly not John Q. Public who will still have to drive to PIT or BWI or SCE 

instead of using JST because of the much higher fares out of JST with Golgan Air/United Express 

I have sent letters to the editor in regard to the higher fares, the inconvenient schedules (I once tried to fly to 

Wilmington, NC from JST only to find that whatever flight I selected (of the 3 at that time) I had to sleep over at 

some hub and would arrive the following day. Now, why would i want to do that? I have found the schedules 

to be atrocious. The fares are usually $200 - 600 different than from PIT or BWI. 

I agree that the convenience of security, parking and a modern facility (although there is no longer a restaurant 

available) is enticing but not to pay the ridiculous fare differences. 

If the decision is made to Keep Colgan Air I would hope that their arms could be twisted to reduce fares (as 

their arms were twisted to add a few extra flights to accomodate business travelers) which is not improving the 

situation of a loss of leisure travelers, As a matter of fact, the article indicated that the added flights did not see 

a significant increase of business travelers. So.,.am I the only leisure traveler that is annoyed? 

The financial decision that the 2 airport authorities made is certainly not for the traveler who would like to travel 

out of JST but won't pay the exorbitant fares. 

Anthony F. Spilka 

Johnstown, PA (who should probably have stocks in the PIT airport). 

C 3 

http://us.inc577.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMtd=0&fid=Sent&filterBy=*&,rand"l... 4/22/2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               22557
<SECURITIES>                                          2220
<RECEIVABLES>                                        42366
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          22167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    118103
<PP&E>                                              364857
<DEPRECIATION>                                      185089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    32675083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             12258064
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             23930
<OTHER-SE>                                        20379420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      32675083
<SALES>                                              42200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     42200
<CGS>                                                 1678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1835932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   19741045
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      19741045
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.77



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND AS OF DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925666
<NAME> WOODLAKE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,016
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,837)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  45
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (45)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (45)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (45)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION  The
undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the Company)
hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Companys annual report on Form 10-K
to which this certification is attached (the Report), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This
certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (Item 601(b)(32)) promulgated under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and the Exchange
Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this
certification (A) shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and
(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
Company specifically incorporates it by reference.  Date: March 17, 2008/s/ MARK T. FROSTName:
  Mark T. FrostTitle:
  Chief Financial Officer
  and Treasurer
#### Juergens, Respondent, vs. Ritter, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Patrick J. McCaffrey*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Friedrich & Hackbarth,*attorneys, and *Walter Schinz, Jr.,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed’;
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.27    
  


 
 

AMENDMENT TO
  GAMING DEVICE LICENSE AGREEMENT    
  


    THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE GAMING DEVICE LICENSE AGREEMENT is executed on this ___ day of May, 2001, in Clark County, State of Nevada,
by and between E-T-T, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (Hereinafter "E-T-T") and Terrible
Herbst, Inc. (Hereinafter "TERRIBLE HERBST"). 


    WHEREAS, E-T-T and TERRIBLE
HERBST entered into that certain "Gaming Device License Agreement" (the "Agreement") on December 20, 1999. 


    WHEREAS,  E-T-T and  TERRIBLE HERBST desire to amend said Agreement; 



    NOW THEREFORE, E-T-T and TERRIBLE
HERBST hereby agree as follows: 


    The
following paragraph shall be added to Article 3.4 of the Agreement: 



"TERRIBLE HERBST hereby agrees to provide supervision for the gaming devices by providing adult supervision at all times at which the gaming devices are
exposed for play with such adults possessing valid gaming work cards." 




    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day, month and year first
hereinabove written. 



	 	 	 
	E-T-T, INC.	 	TERRIBLE HERBST, INC.
	

 	
 	

 
	/s/ Timothy P. Herbst	 	/s/ Troy D. Herbst
	
 TIMOTHY P. HERBST	 	
 TROY D. HERBST
	Vice President	 	Vice President











QuickLinks


EXHIBIT 10.27

AMENDMENT TO GAMING DEVICE LICENSE AGREEMENT