alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. W. KEENER v. J. W. DEN.

Tlie right, to enforce tlie specific performance of a contract is vested exclusively in the Superior Court, sitting in term.

The Special Proceedings prescribed in chap. 84, Bat. Rev. for obtaining partition of land between tenants in cominon, or tlie sale thereof, when actual partition is impracticable, do not apply to a case where tenants in common have by contract agreed upon terms as to the manner and extent of the partition sought to be made.

Special Pkoceedikg, begun in the Probate Court, and heard upon appeal before Logan., *J.,*at Spring Term 1874, Lincolk Superior Court.

The plaintiff alleged that in October 1872, he purchased a tract of land sold under a decree of Court, and a deed was executed to him and the defendant as tenants in common.

On the 12th day of November, 1872, the plaintiff’ and defendant executed an agreement under seal, that the purchase should be a joint one, for the benefit of both parties and that each should pay one half the purchase money, which has been done. In the agreement it was stipulated that a division of said land was to be made according to certain specifications therein set forth. The defendant refuses to make partition according, to the provisions of the agreement, which was filed as a part of the complaint but is not necessary here to be stated.

Upon this allegation of facts the plaintiff demanded that commissioners be appointed to partition said land in accordance with the agreement.

The defendant demurred to the complaint, and as ground for demurer alleged, that the Court bad no jurisdiction. The Probate Court overruled the demurer and gave judgment for tlie plaintiff according to his complaint, and thereupon the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. At Spring Term 1874, tlie Superior Court overruled this decision, and thereupon the plaintiff appealed.

*133The case was brought up to this Court by certiorari, and decided at this term.

*Smith db Strong*and *Oobb,*for appellants.

*J. F. FLolie*and *Shaw,*contra.

Settle, J.

No Court has the right to violate a contract, nor has the Clerk or Probate Judge the right to enforce the specific performance of a contract; that power is vested exclusively in the Superior Court, setting in term.

The special proceedings prescribed in Battle’s Revisal, chap. SI, for obtaining the actual partition of land, between tenants in common, or the sale thereof when actual partition is impracticable, do not apply to a case where tenants in common have, by contract, agreed upon terms, as to the manner and extent of the partition, both for agricultural or mining interests, the location .of the dividing fence, the establishment of the lines, •the quantity of bottom and high land that each is to receive, and the mode of ascertaining and adjusting any inequality of value of the separate tracts.

In order to enforce such a contract resort must be had to an action for specific performance of which, as we have said, the -Clerk has no jurisdiction.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Pee Cueiam.

Judgment affirmed.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
# Official Journal L 3/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 627 January 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 3

English edition

Legislation

Volume 627 January 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/13 of 4 January 2019 correcting the Dutch language version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/14 of 3 January 2019 amending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces
  (notified under document C(2018) 8847)

   (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/13 of 4 January 2019 correcting the Dutch language version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

1

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/14 of 3 January 2019 amending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces
  (notified under document C(2018) 8847)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2018) 8847)

1

3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Registrant's Specimen Certificate for ordinary shares



  
 Exhibit 4.2

  

					
	Name of Company:	 		  	
	MECOX LANE LIMITED	 		  	
		
		 	MECOX LANE LIMITED
	Number:	 	Number	  	Ordinary Share(s)
		 		  	- [no. of shares] -
		
		 	Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands
		
	Ordinary Share(s):	 	Share capital is US$1,000,000 divided into 10,000,000,000 Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each
	- [no. of shares] -	 		  	
		
	 Issued to:
 [name of
shareholder]
	 	THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [name of shareholder] is the registered holder of [no. of shares] Ordinary Share(s) in the above-named Company subject to the
Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.
		
		 	EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the      day of             
20     by:
			
	Dated	 		  	
			
	Transferred from:	 		  	
			
		 	DIRECTOR                            
                                         
               	  	








  

					
	TRANSFER	  		 	
			
	I	  		 	(the Transferor) for the value received
			
	DO HEREBY transfer to	  		 	(the Transferee) the
			
		  		 	shares standing in my name in the
	undertaking called MECOX LANE LIMITED	  		 	
			
	To hold the same unto the Transferee	  		 	
			
	Dated	  		 	
			
	 Signed by the Transferor
  

in the presence of:
	  		 	
			
	  
	  		 	  

	Witness	  		 	Transferor
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
QUARTER 1997 10-Q OF BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,814
<SECURITIES>                                   160,570
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     99,636
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               361,466
<PP&E>                                         216,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 751,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,337
<BONDS>                                        403,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   751,200
<SALES>                                        193,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,324
<CGS>                                          143,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,119
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,753
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,753
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059440
<NAME> BROOK GROUP LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,368
<SECURITIES>                                    59,809
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,448
<PP&E>                                         132,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 550,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,157
<BONDS>                                        191,193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,094
<OTHER-SE>                                    (125,927)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   550,532
<SALES>                                        217,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,292
<CGS>                                           81,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               299,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (27,061)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                308,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                    83,374
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            223,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,249
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,056)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   223,561
<EPS-BASIC>                                      10.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.57


</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 95-30261 Conference Calendar

_________________ JUDE B. SAUCIER, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOEY ALCEDE, Warden, Calcasieu Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-30261

- - - - - - - - - - June 28, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jude B. Saucier requests a certificate of probable cause (CPC) and maintains that he has exhausted state remedies regarding his challenge to the constitutionality of Louisiana's "good-time" statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 15:571.5 (West 1994). Saucier's habeas petition is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, not a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Dickerson v. Louisiana , 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 956 (1987). He is attacking a restraint on his liberty, a parole-hold detainer, caused, not by documents issued by a state court, but byNo. 95-30261 -2-
Louisiana prison officials. See Birdwell v. Skeen , 983 F.2d 1332, 1335 n.5 (5th Cir. 1993) (documents such as detainers issued by a criminal justice agency are not documents issued by a state court). Thus, a CPC is unnecessary for the appeal because "the detention complained of [does not] arise[] out of process issued by a State court." Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); cf . 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Saucier's motion for a CPC is DENIED as unnecessary. There is no statutory requirement that a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief under § 2241 exhaust state habeas remedies.
See § 2241(c)(3). However, there is a "judicially crafted" exhaust ion requirement based on "federalism grounds in order to protect the state courts' opportunity to confront and resolve any constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions as well as to limit federal interference in the state adjudicatory process." Dickerson , 816 F.2d at 225. The exhaustion doctrine requires a habeas petitioner to present his claims to the state's highest court in the procedural posture in which the claims ordinarily will be considered on their merits. Castille v. Peoples , 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989); Dupuy v. Butler , 837 F.2d 699, 702 (5th Cir. 1982). Saucier admits that he has not done this. The district court's dismissal, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state remedies was proper. CPC DENIED as unnecessary; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H24]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  APPOINTMENT AS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE HOUSE FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule II, and the 
order of the House of today, the Chair announces that the Speaker, 
majority leader and minority leader jointly appoint Mr. James J. 
Cornell, Springfield, Virginia, to the position of Inspector General 
for the House of Representatives for the 111th Congress.

                          ____________________
```
<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

I, Gary B. Horton, Treasurer of AMERCO, certify that:

1.   the Annual Report of AMERCO on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31,
     2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
     hereof (the "Report"), which this statement accompanies, 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 AMERCO.


                                   /s/ GARY B. HORTON
                                   -------------------
                                    Gary B. Horton
                                    Treasurer
                                    September 25, 2002
#### Eckhardt and others, Respondents, vs. Judevine and others, Appellants.

*November 9*—

December *5, 1939.*

*169For the appellants there was a brief by *J. W. Frens*of Baraboo, attorney, and *Bagley, Spohn, Ross ■& Stevens*and *Francis Lamb,*all of Madison, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Lamb*and *Mr. Frens.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *W. G. Evenson*of Baraboo, attorney, and *Wilkie, Toebaas, Hart, Kraege & Jackman*of Madison of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Harold M. Wilkie*and *Mr. Evenson.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

This action involves principally questions of fact. We have examined the record, the findings are well sustained by the evidence, and the judgment would be affirmed without opinion were it not for a question of law raised in the case. We shall state such facts only as are necessary to present that question.

It was claimed by the defendants that the conveyances were made by Arthur and Seba Judevine to the daughter Ethel in satisfaction of a debt. The debt arose in this way: The *170defendants testified that Arthur Judevine agreed with his daughter Ethel that if she would remain at home during her high-school years and take care of the home and the store, he would give her a four-year college education. At the time of the alleged agreement she was either fifteen or sixteen years of age. It was the contention of the defendants that by the making of this agreement she became emancipated and was entitled to compensation for the seryices rendered to the parents in the home. She testified these services were worth $20 a week for services in the store and $7 while working at home.

The defendants rely upon the case of *Curt v. Industrial Comm.*(1937) 226 Wis. 16, 275 N. W. 447. That case involved a construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Sec. 102.07 (4), Stats., provided that minors should have the same power of contracting for their services as adult employees, but it is expressly provided that the section defines employee “as used in this chapter [ch. 102].” That case must be read and understood in the light of the facts of the case. It was not intimated in that case that the provisions of ch. 102, Stats., operated generally to' enable minors to enter into enforceable contracts. They may enter into such contracts for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. While the court speaks of emancipation it is not held or intimated that emancipation was for any other purpose than entering into a contract of employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The general law of emancipation of minors is not affected. The trial court rightly held that upon the facts of the present case the minor daughter was not emancipated.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 893 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.893

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide equitable treatment 
with respect to State and local income taxes for certain individuals who 
                       perform duties on vessels.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 111 OF TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE.
    Section 11108 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
        (1) by inserting ``(a) Withholding.--'' before ``Wages''; and
         (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Liability.--
        ``(1) Limitation on jurisdiction to tax.--An individual to whom 
    this subsection applies is not subject to the income tax laws of a 
    State or political subdivision of a State, other than the State and 
    political subdivision in which the individual resides, with respect 
    to compensation for the performance of duties described in 
    paragraph (2).
        ``(2) Application.--This subsection applies to an individual--
            ``(A) engaged on a vessel to perform assigned duties in 
        more than one State as a pilot licensed under section 7101 of 
        this title or licensed or authorized under the laws of a State; 
        or
            ``(B) who performs regularly-assigned duties while engaged 
        as a master, officer, or crewman on a vessel operating on the 
        navigable waters of more than one State.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

 Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v. OSHRC Docket No. 10-0359

AMERICAN ENGINEERING & 

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Respondent.

BRIEFING NOTICE

The Commission requests that the parties brief the following issues:

(1) In affirming Citation 1, Item 1, which alleges a repeat violation of 29 C.F.R.

§ 1926.652(a)(1), did the judge err by concluding that Respondent had knowledge of 

the violative conditions? 

(2) If the Secretary established that Respondent had knowledge of the violative 

conditions alleged in Citation 1, Item 1, did the judge err by rejecting Respondent’s 

affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct?

The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the 

Commission for review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review.

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose.

All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party who does not intend to file a brief must notify the 

Commission in writing setting forth the reason therefor within the applicable time for filing 

briefs, and shall serve a copy on all other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of

intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service.

 

1

The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal 

articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties 

should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate.
2

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION

Dated: March 3, 2011 ___/s/_____________________________

Ray H. Darling, Jr.

Executive Secretary
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 944

To amend Public Law 105–188 to provide for the mineral leasing of certain

Indian lands in Oklahoma.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3, 1999

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend Public Law 105–188 to provide for the mineral

leasing of certain Indian lands in Oklahoma.

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

3 SECTION 1. MINERAL LEASING OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS

4 IN OKLAHOMA.

5 Public Law 105–188 (112 Stat. 620 and 621) is

6 amended—

7 (1) in the title, by inserting ‘‘and certain

8 former Indian reservations in Oklahoma’’ after

9 ‘‘Fort Berthold Indian Reservation’’; and

10 (2) in section 1—
2

S 944 IS

1 (A) by striking the section heading and in2 serting the following:

3 ‘‘SECTION 1. LEASES OF CERTAIN ALLOTTED LANDS.’’;

4 and

5 (B) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking

6 clause (i) and inserting the following:

7 ‘‘(i) is located within—

8 ‘‘(I) the Fort Berthold Indian

9 Reservation in North Dakota; or

10 ‘‘(II) a former Indian reservation

11 located in Oklahoma of—

12 ‘‘(aa) the Comanche Indian

13 Tribe;

14 ‘‘(bb) the Kiowa Indian

15 Tribe;

16 ‘‘(cc) the Apache Tribe;

17 ‘‘(dd) the Fort Sill Apache

18 Tribe of Oklahoma;

19 ‘‘(ee) the Wichita and Affili20 ated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi,

21 Waco, and Tawakonie) located in

22 Oklahoma;

23 ‘‘(ff) the Delaware Tribe of

24 Western Oklahoma; or
3

S 944 IS

1 ‘‘(gg) the Caddo Indian

2 Tribe; and’’.

Æ