alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JAMES O. MARTIN *against*C. L. COOK AND OTHERS.

A bill, which seeks to rescind a contract in part, without restoring the opposite party to ihe condition he occupied previously to plaintiff’s connection tion with him, is radically defective.

' An injunction, except in cases of waste and irreparable injury, is used as an auxiliary only to some primary equity.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wilkes county.

The plaintiff, in his bill, alleges that the defendant, Obadiah Sprinkle, was indebted to Jenkins & Roberts, in a bond, for $1963, dated 16th March, 1854, and on the *27 th*of March, 1855, they took from said Sprinkle a deed of trust (executed to defendant Cook) to secure the same, conveying to said Cook two tracts of land, (describing them,) also 100 head of hogs, Blacksmith’s tools, two stills and other personal property ; that on the 18th of January, 1858, in order to oblige Sprinkle, who was his neighbor, the plaintiff gave Jenkins & Roberts his own bond for $1500, and took an assignment of the bond from Sprinkle without recourse to them, also an assignment’of the deed of trust, likewise without recourse; that said deed of trust was fraudulent and void, in law, being intended to enable the said Sprinkle to hinder and delay his creditors; that after making the said deed of trust, judgments were taken in the County Court of Mecklenburg and executions issued, under which the said land was sold, and that the personal property conveyed in said deed, he has never been able to find.

The bill further alleges that suit has been brought on the bond which he gave Jenkins *&*Roberts, and judgment taken in the County Court of Davidson, on which execution has issued, and he is threatened with a sale of his property to satisfy the same.

The bill prays for an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding to collect the said execution.

The defendants demurred to the bill. There was a joinder n demurrer, and the cause being set down for argument, was ent to this Court.

*200Boyden, for the plaintiff.

*Bwrb&r,*for the defendants.

MaNly, J.

The plaintiff’s equity for the relief he asks, depends upon his willingness to rescind the contract of which he complains, m *toto,*and restore the parties to the condition they occupied previous to their connection with him. This he does not proffer to do, and in this respect, the frame of. the bill is radically defective.

The injwnetion, (except in cases of waste and irreparable injury,) is used as an auxiliary, only, to some primary equity. This primary equity ought to be set forth and insisted upon as the ground of the Court’s jurisdiction. The error in the bill is one into which it seems the profession, in this State, is prone to fall. Their attention has been called to it recently in several cases; *Eborn*v. Waldo, 6 Jones’ Eq. 111;, *McBae*v. *Railroad Co.,*5 Jones’ Eq. 395; *Scofield*v. *Van*Bokkelin, Ibid. 342; *Patterson*v. Miller, 4 Jones’ Eq. 431.

Per Oueiam, The demurrer should be sustained and the bill dismissed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 HONORING THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ED LOVE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2008

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude for 
my fellow jazz enthusiast and Detroiter, Ed Love. For more than 24 
years, Ed Love has delighted listeners with ``Destination Jazz: The Ed 
Love Program,'' on weekdays from 7 p.m. to midnight on WDET 101.9 FM. 
Ed's passion for jazz and radio extends all the way back to his youth 
in Kansas, when he was an avid listener of his mother's records and 
hosts like Dick Martin of WWL in New Orleans. After graduating from 
broadcasting school, Ed worked for Armed Forces Radio in several states 
and in the Philippines. Starting in 1960, he worked at various stations 
throughout Detroit until joining WDET in 1983. Ed has not only 
entertained Detroit radio listeners throughout his impressive career, 
but also spent six years hosting a nationally syndicated program 
entitled ``The Evolution of Jazz,'' educating and entertaining 
listeners on 125 stations from coast to coast.
  Ed was honored for his contribution to the world of jazz with the 
``Distinguished Achievement Award'' from the Motor City Music 
Foundation. Ed was recognized by the Friends of the Detroit Institute 
of Arts with the ``Dr. Alian Locke Award'' in 1999 for his 
contributions to the arts. He's earned two ``Spirit of Detroit Awards'' 
from Detroit Mayors Coleman A. Young and Dennis W. Archer. The Michigan 
House of Representatives, the Michigan Senate, the Congressional Black 
Caucus and the National Broadcast Awards have all recognized him for 
his profound knowledge and love of jazz. The Southeast Michigan Jazz 
Association (SEMJA) recognized Ed for his outstanding contribution to 
jazz and the arts. In 2005, Ed received the ``Detroit Jazz Guardian'' 
Award from the Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts and the 
Detroit International Jazz Festival. Ed was also honored in 2005 with 
the ``Distinguished Arts Achievement'' award from the Oakland County 
chapter of The Links. He has also served as the senior program 
consultant for the Detroit International Jazz Festival since 2000.
  In the wake of the collapse of the International Association of Jazz 
Educators, Ed Love and other jazz advocates will be even more important 
in the preservation of one of our Nation's treasures and original art 
forms, jazz. I know that as long as jazz has stewards like Ed Love, we 
can be assured that it will be taught and will thrive the future. 
Through his work, Ed Love has and will continue to inspire generations 
of performers, educators, and students for years to come.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 23.1
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  Registration Statements on Form S-3:
 RegistrationNumber
    
    Date Filed333-55864
    
    February 20, 2001333-82642
    
    February 21, 2002333-113218
    
    March 15, 2004
 Registration Statements on Form S-8:
 Name
    
    Registration Number
    
    Date FiledAmended Directors Stock Plan
    
    333-74145
    
    March 9, 19991999 Stock Option Plan
    
    333-74145
    
    March 9, 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan
    
    333-39832
    
    June 22, 20002001 Stock Option Plan
    
    333-67238
    
    August 10, 20012002 Non-Executive Stock Incentive Plan
    
    333-103538
    
    February 28, 20032004 Stock Incentive Plan
    
    333-117774
    
    July 30, 2004Deferred Compensation Plan
    
    333-138685
    
    November 14, 20062004 Stock Incentive Plan
    
    333-150744
    
    May 8, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 779 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 779

   To provide that no Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts 
             received by Holocaust victims or their heirs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 1999

Mr. Abraham (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Shumer) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that no Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts 
             received by Holocaust victims or their heirs.

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

SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY HOLOCAUST 
              VICTIMS OR THEIR HEIRS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
gross income shall not include any amount received by an individual (or 
any heir of the individual)--
            (1) from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the 
        Government of Switzerland or from any similar fund established 
        by any foreign country, or
            (2) as a result of the settlement of the action entitled 
        ``In re Holocaust Victims' Asset Litigation'', (E.D. NY), C.A. 
        No. 96-4849, or as a result of any similar action.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to any amount 
received before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERI, Alan R. Abrams, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Servidyne, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to material affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: July 19, 2007 /s/ Alan R. Abrams   Alan R. Abrams   Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25308]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 24, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 536 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-159, K2025-157.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25308 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Mary S. Hemmer, Appellant, v. Charlotte M. Burger.

New trial: newly discovered evidence. A new trial will not be granted on the ground of ne'wly discovered evidence where such evidence is merely cumulative.

*Appeal from Johnson District Court.*— HoN. O. A. BytNG-toN, Judge.

Monday, June 12, 1905.

This case comes to ns on an appeal from an order denying a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. Tbe issue in tbe original case was tbe boundary line between tbe properties of tbe parties, tbe plaintiff averring and contending that tbe true boundary line was marked by a division' fence, recognized and maintained by the parties and their grantors for more than 10 years, and tbe defendant denying tbe existence of a fence for a period of 10 years, and tbe other allegations of tbe petition. After a full bearing on tbe merits, there was a judgment for tbe defendant, and thereafter within the statutory time a petition for a new trial was filed, and a bearing bad thereon. A new trial was denied, and the plaintiff appeals.-

*Affirmed.*

*Howell S Wilson*and *Baker & Ball,*for appellant.

*O. A.*Ewing, for appellee.

SherwiN, C. J.

Tbe questions tried in tbe original case were whether tbe division fence was built ten- or more years before suit was commenced, and whether it was recognized by tbe owners of tbe land as tbe true boundary between them, the real contest being over tbe time when tbe fence was built. Tbe plaintiff’s evidence located a certain wood-house as being on the boundary line that she claims to have *615been so acquiesced in, and a fence extending west from tbe northwest comer of tbe woodbouse as tbe fence that bad been built more than ten years before. Tbe newly discovered evidence on wbicb a new trial was asked related to tbe location of tbe same woodbouse and fence, and -to tbe time when they were built, and to nothing else; and under tbe well-settled rule it was merely cumulative evidence, for wbicb a new trial will not be granted. *Donnelly v. Burkett,*75 Iowa, 613; *State v. Oeder,*80 Iowa, 72; *Stineman v. Beath,*36 Iowa, 73; *Boggess v. Read,*83 Iowa, 548; *Bank v. Ins. Co.,*40 Iowa, 572; *Morrow v. Ry. Co.,*61 Iowa, 490. It is not always *an*easy matter to determine whether evidence is merely cumulative or otherwise, but a careful examination of tbe plaintiff’s original evidence and tbe newly discovered evidence leaves no doubt in oiir minds as to tbe character of tbe latter.

Tbe appellee also urges that reasonable diligence was not shown, but we do not pass on this point, preferring to place our decision on tbe ground stated. We think there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial, and tbe order is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,315
<SECURITIES>                                   115,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                      247
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                        340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,758
<PP&E>                                          11,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                     455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,789
<BONDS>                                        157,465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         17
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,772)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,726
<SALES>                                            528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   528
<CGS>                                            4,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (36,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (12.18)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



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 AmSouth Bancorporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, C. Dowd Ritter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Beth E.
Mooney, Chief 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 our 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/ C. Dowd Ritter                     |  | /s/ Beth E. Mooney                    
|C. Dowd Ritter Chief Executive Officer |  | Beth E. Mooney Chief Financial
Officer





March 8, 2004
Exhibit 99B

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Garofalo, Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited ("Agnico-Eagle"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Agnico-Eagle for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Agnico-Eagle.

|                                 |  | by | /s/DAVID GAROFALO                                                 
|-------------------------------- |  | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                 |  |    | David Garofalo Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
|Toronto, Canada
January 14, 2005 |  |    |                                                                   

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

---



QuickLinks
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 724

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify that underground injection

does not include certain activities, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify that underground injection does not include certain activities, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION.

4 Section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42

5 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and

6 inserting the following:

7 ‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—
2

•S 724 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘under2 ground injection’ means the subsurface em3 placement of fluids by well injection.

4 ‘‘(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘under5 ground injection’ does not include—

6 ‘‘(i) the underground injection of nat7 ural gas for purposes of storage; or

8 ‘‘(ii) the underground injection of

9 fluids or propping agents pursuant to hy10 draulic fracturing operations for purposes

11 of reservoir stimulation related to oil or

12 gas production activities.

13 ‘‘(C) REGULATION.—The Administrator

14 shall possess the sole authority to determine

15 whether an activity not regulated as under16 ground injection prior to October 11, 1995 shall

17 be regulated under this section.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Dectron Internationale Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mauro Parissi, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Mauro Parissi
-------------------------
Mauro Parissi
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 30, 2003

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.


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