alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *J. M. WORTH v. SEABOARD & ROANOKE RAILROAD COMPANY.

*Taxation*— Railroads.

See Syllabus in preceding case.

CiviIj ACTION tried at January Term, 1882, of Wake Superior Court, before *Gilmer, J.*

The plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s answer was sustained by the court, and the defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General*and *John W. Graham,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. David A. Barnes,*for defendant.

*

Cliief-Jus(ice Sumí did not sit on tlie hearing of this case.

Ashe, J.

The facts and the pleadings are so identical with those of *Worth*v. *Petersburg Railroad Co., ante,*301, that we deem it unnecessary to go into an extended view of the case. To do so would only be to reiterate the opinion expressed in that case. We therefore refer to the opinion in that case as our decision in this case. For the reasons there given, the demurrer in this case must bo overruled. Judgment of the court below reversed, and costs awarded to defendant.

Error. Reversed.
#### North 34th Company, a New York Limited Partnership, Petitioner, v Wedgewood Garage, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County,

March 8, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Paul A. Batista*for Superlease Realties, Inc., respondent. *Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan*for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Seymour Schwartz, J.

In this commercial holdover proceeding, petitioner seeks to remove respondents from the garage premises after expiration *1028of the lease. Respondent Wedgewood Garage has defaulted and respondent Super lease Realties, Inc., doing business as Budget Rent-a-Car (Superlease), remains in possession having originally entered under the terms of a now expired lease.

Superlease moves to dismiss the proceeding and asserts two procedural defenses: (1) failure to serve a prior 30-day notice pursuant to Real Property Law § 232-a and (2) failure to properly effect service pursuant to RPAPL 735 (1) '(b).

Superlease’s status pursuant to an expired lease is not as a monthly tenant or tenant from month to month and hence no Real Property Law § 232-a 30-day notice is required. *(Adams v City of Cohoes,*127 NY 175; 2 Rasch, Landlord & Tenant — Summary Proceedings, § 1018, at 463 [2d ed].)

Superlease contends that because petitioner had written information of the principal office or principal place of business within the State at Pier 61 in the Borough of Manhattan, then pursuant to RPAPL 735 (1) (b) service should have been made there and not at the location of the property sought to be recovered. In support of its contention Superlease placed in evidence two of its letters to petitioner’s agent and the business card of its president. The letters, without address letterhead, show two addresses at the bottom. One is a New Jersey address for Superlease which is a New Jersey corporation, and the other the Pier 61 address in the Borough of Manhattan. The business card shows only the Pier 61 address. Neither the letters nor the card identify Pier 61 as the principal office or principal place of business of Superlease. On its case petitioner placed in evidence a full page Yellow Pages ad of Budget Rent-a-Car (Superlease) showing seven separate Manhattan offices, including Pier 61, without identifying any as a principal office or principal place of business.

That part of RPAPL 735 (1) (b) which directs service at the principal office or principal place of business, if the petitioner has written information, is intended to give notice of the proceeding with more certainty. It is not intended as a hide-and-seek device and the section may not be invoked if the notice of the address of the principal office given is merely a hint or a clue. Identification of the principal office must be clear, forthright and unambiguous, and it does not rise to that level here. In these circumstances service at the property sought to be recovered was proper.

The motion to dismiss is denied.
#### THOMAS L. MARTIN *v.*FRANKLIN CUTHBERTSON.

If a horse be hired, or borrowed, to be ridden to a particular place and returned at a particular time, if he be ridden to another place and kept beyond the time, the bailee is responsible for any injury to the horse which results from his departure from the contract; without regard to any question of negligence.

*(Bell*v. *Bowen,*1 Jon. 316, cited and approved.)

Action, tried before *Logcm, J.,*at Eall Term 1869 of Cabarrus Court.

The action was brought for damages, for the loss of a horse, which had been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, to ride to one Cline’s and return the next day — but which was ridden a mile and a half-further than Cline’s, and in a different direction, and which died during its absence, on the third day after leaving home. It was admitted that the death of the animal occurred from no neglect by the defendant.

The Court instructed the jury that the defendant was bound to use'extraordinary care and if he did not, was liable for damages, &c.

Verdict for the plaintiff, &c. Appeal by the defendant.

*Wilson,*for the appellant.

Montgomery, *contra.*

Neade, J.

Where there is a bailment, as in the case of borrowing or hiring 'a horse for a specific purpose, as to go to a certain place, or for a certain time, and there is any material departure from the terms of the bailment, the bail-ee becomes a wrong-doer, and is liable for any injury which results from the departure, without regard to the question of negligence.

In the case under consideration, the horse was borrowed, or hired, to go to a certain place, to be returned at a certain time: he was ridden to another place, and died on the trip. It was admitted that there was no negligence, — that is, as *329we understand it, no miss-treatment, but that makes no difference.

And *own constat*that tbe horse would have died but for the departure from terms of the bailment. His Honor’s instruction, that the defendant was liable unless he took extraordinary care, was more favorable for the' defendant than the law allows, and therefore he cannot complain. He was liable even if he did take extraordinary care: *Bell*v. Bowen, 1 Jon. 316; Redfield on Bailment, Sec. 650.

There is no error.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH C IRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 15744 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:11

- cr - 00008

- WKW

- CSC

- 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ANTHONY DARELL TALLIE, a.k.a. Pokie, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________ (December 5, 2016) Before WILSON , JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15744 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Tilden Haywood, appointed counsel for Anthony Tallie in this appeal from the denial of Tallie’s construed motion for a sentence reduction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) , has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANT ED , and the denial of Tallie ’s motion is AFFIRMED

.

Case: 15-15744 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 2 of 2
#### W. J. WYATT v. LYNCHBURG AND DURHAM RAILROAD COMPANY.

Appeal— *Transcript.*

When the record on appeal does not set forth the pleadings, nor an agreed state of facts in lieu thereof, the cause will be remanded.

Appeal from Fall Term, 1891, of Durham Superior Court.

*307
      *Messrs. J. W. Graham, J. Parker, R. B. Boone*and *J. 8. Manning,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. W. A. Guthrie,*for defendant.

Clark, J.:

The transcript shows process, a reference to arbitration, an award, exception thereto, the action of the Court below thereon and an appeal, but there are no pleadings nor an agreed state of facts in lieu thereof, that we might see the contention of the parties, and that the Court below had jurisdiction of the cause of action.

The Court would permit the pleadings to be filed in this Court *nunc pro tunc*(Rule 26), so as not to delay the hearing, but as both parties are not able to do this, the cause must be remanded. The case is substantially the same as *Daniel*v. *Rogers,*95 N. C., 134; *Rowland*v. *Mitchell,*90 N. C., 649.

Remanded.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

584 CA 13-00044 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

BRIAN HORST, PLAINTIFF, AND GEORGIE HORST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF JENNIFER A. HAM AND VERNON M. HORST, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

GERALD J. GLOGOWSKI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND JOHN T. NOTHNAGLE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS NOTHNAGLE REALTORS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KNAUF SHAW LLP, ROCHESTER (DWIGHT E. KANYUCK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
BENDER & BENDER, LLP, BUFFALO (THOMAS W. BENDER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN, LLP, WILLIAMSVILLE (RICHARD A. LILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (James P. Punch, A.J.), entered March 14, 2012. The order granted the cross motion of defendant Gerald J. Glogowski for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint against defendant Gerald J. Glogowski and denied the motion of defendant John T. Nothnagle, Inc., doing business as Nothnagle Realtors, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<pre>

EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION

Certification of  the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

I, Floyd D. Wilkenson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10K-SB, as amended, of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

                              By: /s/ Floyd D. Wilkenson
                              ------------------------------
                              Floyd D. Wilkenson
    			                    Authorized Agent/Sole Director
			                        Appointed by Board of Directors
			                          on March 19, 2004

Dated: December 1, 2004


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

I, Floyd D. Wilkenson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10 K-SB, as amended, of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

                              By: /s/ Floyd D. Wilkenson
                              ------------------------------
                              Floyd D. Wilkenson
    			                    Authorized Agent/Sole Director
			                        Appointed by Board of Directors
			                          on March 19, 2004

Dated: December 1, 2004
Exhibit 32.2



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 AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Murray Nicol, Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Company.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    MURRAY
NICOL                                      
|Murray Nicol Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)



March 31, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87466-87467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25456]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2024-1650; Airspace Docket No. 24-ANE-6]
RIN 2120-AA66


Amendment of Class E Airspace; Claremont, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A final rule was published in the Federal Register on October 
3, 2024, amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above 
the surface for Claremont Municipal Airport, Claremont, NH, as the 
Claremont Non-directional Beacon (NDB) had been decommissioned, and 
associated instrument approaches canceled. This action corrects the 
Claremont Municipal Airport coordinates within the airspace description 
that contained a typographical error.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 20, 2025. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Scott Stuart, Operations 
Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 
1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-5926.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (89 FR 
80382, October 3, 2024) for Doc. No. FAA-2024-1650, amending Class E 
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-
mile radius of the Claremont Municipal Airport and 2 miles on each side 
of the 093[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.3-mile 
radius to 15.1 miles east of the airport. After publication, the FAA 
found that the coordinates (Lat.

[[Page 87467]]

43[deg]22'14'' N, long. 72[deg]22''6 W) for Claremont Municipal Airport 
contained a typographical error. This action corrects the error by 
correcting the coordinates (lat. 43[deg]22'14'' N, long. 72[deg]22'06'' 
W) for Claremont Municipal Airport.

Correction to the Final Rule

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the amendment of Class E 
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Claremont 
Municipal Airport, Claremont, NH, in Docket No. FAA-2024-1650, as 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2024 (89 FR 80382), is 
corrected as follows:


Sec.  71.1   [Corrected]

0
On page 80383, in the first column, replace the Claremont Municipal 
Airport coordinates (Lat. 43[deg]22'14'' N, long. 72[deg]22''6 W) with 
the corrected coordinates (lat. 43[deg]22'14'' N, long. 72[deg]22'06'' 
W).

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 28, 2024.
Patrick Young,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2024-25456 Filed 11-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 0057 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

-NE

- 04

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspect for DECU S/N and replace, if required 1.0 $ 85.00 $12,550 $12,635.00 

### 2 $25,270.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $25,270 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Anal**ysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant r egulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LANDAIR CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                       370
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,700
<PP&E>                                          98,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,429
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (121)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
##### 



(CABLETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. LETTERHEAD)

Exhibit A-2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Ron Eilath, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
Cabletel Communications Corp. (the Registrant), certifies that to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the Report):

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

/s/ Ron Eilath

Name: Ron Eilath
Date: May 9, 2003


44
#### HENRY BARTLETT *v.*EDMUND SIMMONS.

The acts of going- yearly, for a few weeks at a time, to get rails and other timber off of land, though only valuable for timber, do not amount to such an exercise of ownership as will ripen a defective title, or give an action of trespass *quart, clausum fregit*

This was an action of tresspass *qua/re*clausiomfregit^'tried before Ellis, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Camden Superior Court.

The plaintiff traced his title from one James Bray, who was in the habit, more than forty.years ago, of going yearly, for a few weeks at a time, upon the land, and getting rails *296and other timber; that in some years he would go more than once ; that he also would go upon the land as often as they were cut, and take off timber and rails. This was continued until the year 1828, when he sold by metes and bounds to Ziba Eorbes, who continued the same practice of going yearly and getting timber as above stated, until 1834, when he sold to one William Bartlett, by metes and bounds, who continued the same acts as above stated, until his death, in 1852. The plaintiff is his son and heir-at-law.

The land in question is swamp, and not susceptible of cultivation. It is only valuable for the purposes of getting timber. It is disconnected with any other lands owned by the above named persons.

There was no other evidence of title in the plaintiff.

The Court was of opinion that, upon this state of facts, the plaintiff was not entitled to *re*cover.

The plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.

*Jorda/rh)*for plaintiff.

No counsel appeared in this Court for the defendant.

Pearson, J.

The acts of the plaintiff, and those under Whom he claims, in getting rails off of the land from year to year, were separate and unconnected trespasses, and do not amount to the exercise of such ownership as will ripen a title, or give the right to maintain an action of trespass, q. c. f. The doctrine on this subject is discussed, and all the cases collated in *Loftin*v. *Cobb,*1 Jones’ Rep. 406. There is no error.

Pee Cuexam. Judgment affirmed.