alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Doe on demise of M’Lean & others *v.*Upchurch.

From Chatham.

When a Defendant in an execution sells Ins lands after the execution is in the Sheriff’s hands, such sale is void and the purchaser under the execution has the better title: and *it seems*the execution bound from its *teste,*it certainly did from its *delivery,*

An alias *fi. fa.*though a different piece of paper, is considered the same as the first *fi. fa.*as to the lien created.

This was an action of *ejectment*and from the case agreed the following appeared to be the facts.

On the 2d of February 1804, Robert Harris was seised of a tract of land including within its boundaries the land in dispute, and conveyed the same to Joseph Brant-ley, jr. and John Crump. On the 5th of April 1805, Crump conveyed his moiety to Brantley.

At November term 1801, of Chatham County Court, Brantléy had confessed a judgment to Ambrose Ratnsay for ¿§160 2-6 with interest from 2d October 1801, till paid *i “*execution to issue when called for.” No process issued on this judgment until November term 1805, when *aji.fa.*was sued out, after which executions regularly issued yvithin a year and a day up to February term 1807", when another execution isshed which was levied on the land in dispute, and under which, a sale of the land was made by the Sheriff to M’Lean one of the lessors of the Plaintiff.

On the 4th of February 1807, Brantley conveyed the land to the Defendant who took possession under liis deed,

Seaweix, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

At the time when the sale was made by Brantley to Upchurch viz: on the 4th of February 1807, there was in the Sheriff’s hands Ramsay’s execution, and the execution taken out from the term thereafter, though it is a different piece of paper, is still the same execution $ we do not therefore see upon what principle it can be con*354tended that the lands were not bound, as the sale was made not only after the *teste*of the execution, but after the *delivery*thereof to the Sheriff.

If it be, that these lands were acquired by Brantley after the judgment was obtained, we think there is nothing in that? for we do not decide how far a *judgment*binds lands, but think this case the common one of a party having lands and selling them after an *execution*is in the hands of the Sheriff against them. There must be judgment for the Plaintiff.
# C_2004228EN.01003903.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/39

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 June 2004

in Case T-267/02, Rewe-Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2004/C 228/89)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-267/02, REWE-ZENTRAL AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Weberndorfer and G. Schneider), the intervener before the Court of First Instance being Fritidsresor AB, established in Stockholm, represented by U. Sander, lawyer, an action brought against the decision of 1 July 2002 by OHIM's First Board of Appeal (case R 888/2000-1) as regards the registration of the sign Atlasreisen as a Community mark, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 14 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the matter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the matter.

| 2. | Each party is to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.

1

---
# C_2004118EN.01001502.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctive character)

(2004/C 118/27)

Language of the case: English

In Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P: five appeals by Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati (United States) (Lawyers: C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers ) v against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 in Case T-117/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white and pale green) [2001] ECR II-2723, Case T-118/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with green speckles and pale green) [2001] ECR II-2731, Case T-119/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with yellow and blue speckles) [2001] ECR II-2761, Case T-120/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with blue speckles) [2001] ECR II-2769, and Case T-121/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with green and blue speckles) [2001] ECR II-2777, seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg) - the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002

1

---
#### In re JOHORE INVESTMENT COMPANY (U.S.A.) INC., Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 83-00555.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii.

July 26, 1984.

*319H. William Burgess, Honolulu, Hawaii, for debtor.

James N. Duca, Jack Spradlin, Phyllis Spradlin, Honolulu, Hawaii, for TSL and TEI.

Earl Anzai, Schutter, Pavey & Cayetano, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Ahmad.

ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO EMPLOY SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE ON A CONTINGENCY FEE BASIS

JON J. CHINEN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Johore Investment Company (U.S.A.) Inc., (“Debtor”) requests permission to employ the law offices of Schutter, Pavey, and Cayetano (“SPC”) as special counsel in an action against Territorial Savings and Loan Association (“TSL”), and Territorial Enterprises, Inc. (“TEI”), on a contingency fee basis.

SPC currently represent Mr. Tunku Osman Ahmad in both the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii and in the United States District Court of Honolulu for fraud and misrepresentation against TSL and TEI. Mr. Ahmad is the sole shareholder of Toa, Inc., which owns fifty per cent (50%) of the shares of Debtor.

Debtor also intends to sue TSL and TEI for fraud and misrepresentation. In addition, Debtor also has potential claims against Mr. Ahmad. If Debtor had been overcharged and defrauded, it may have claims against any “insiders”, including Mr. Ahmad. Thus, Debtor’s attorney has a duty to investigate the past activities of Debtor which may involve some or all of the “insiders”.

11 U.S.C. § 327 prohibits the employment of any professional person who holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate or one who is not a disinterested person. There is clearly a conflict of interest between Mr. Ahmad and the Debtor.

Thus, the application to employ SPC as special counsel for Debtor on a contingency fee basis is hereby denied.
#### National Household Distributors, Inc., Appellant, vs. Tremel, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Clarence E. Barto,*attorney, and *Gen-rich & Genrich*of counsel, all of Wausau.

For the respondent: *Walter A. Graunke*of Wausau.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,770,889
<SECURITIES>                                 2,703,825
<RECEIVABLES>                                  950,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,174,111
<PP&E>                                       1,340,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                 447,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,083,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,309,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,389
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,584,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,083,167
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,405,547
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,946,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,960,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,699,960
<INCOME-TAX>                                   481,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,218,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,218,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
# CA2004137EN.01000101.xml

| 15.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 137/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 137/1

---

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for a Director (grade A2) in DG Enterprise (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations)

COM/077/04

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 92 A of 16 April 2004
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 92 A of 16 April 2004

(2004/C 137 A/01)

Page 7: Closing Date

Closing Date

For:

‘Applications must be sent on or before 14 May 2004 (date of e-mail or date as postmark for registered mail).

14 May 2004

Applications sent by express courier service must be delivered to the address above before 17.00 on 14 May 2004.’

14 May 2004

Read:

‘Applications must be sent on or before 1 June 2004 (date of e-mail or date as postmark for registered mail).

1 June 2004

Applications sent by express courier service must be delivered to the address above before 17.00 on 1 June 2004.’

1 June 2004

---
# C_2004273EN.01002703.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/27

---

Removal from the register of Case C-554/03 (1)

1

(2004/C 273/53)

By order of 22 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-554/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the l'Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Gorizia): Azienda Agricola Tomadin Silvano v A.G.E.A. (Agenzia Erogazioni in Agricoltura).

---

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.

1

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aavid
Thermal Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Bharatan R. Patel, Chairman, President, and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: May 7, 2004                                  /s/ Bharatan R. Patel
                                                    ---------------------

                                                    Bharatan R. Patel
                                                    Chairman, President
                                                    and Chief Executive
                                                    Officer

                                       27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001003936
<NAME> PITTSBURGH HOME FINANCIAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> 3,326,216
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,973,988
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,352,228
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                126,027,695
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    238,409,151
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,767,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             384,645,743
<DEPOSITS>                                 156,379,859
<SHORT-TERM>                                15,950,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,444,099
<LONG-TERM>                                172,566,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,337,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             384,645,743
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,734,331
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,783,437
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                96,244
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            13,614,012
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,524,861
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,361,536
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,252,476
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  300,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (4,564)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,761,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,615,826
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,761,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.35
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,420,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 3,420,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,737,973
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  339,236
<RECOVERIES>                                    68,912
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,767,649
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004217EN.01001701.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Oristano by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-285/04)

(2004/C 217/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Oristano (Italy) of 14 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612/EC (1) having regard to the following defects:

1

| (a) | lack of competence on the part of the Commission to adopt the contested decision in infringement of the combined provisions of Article 36 EC; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

lack of competence on the part of the Commission to adopt the contested decision in infringement of the combined provisions of Article 36 EC;

| (b) | infringement of the provisions governing the procedure provided for under Article 88(1) EC; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

infringement of the provisions governing the procedure provided for under Article 88(1) EC;

| (c) | infringement of the provisions governing the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

infringement of the provisions governing the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;

| (d) | failure to state reasons for the decision in application of the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1) EC; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

failure to state reasons for the decision in application of the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1) EC;

| (e) | infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’;

| (f) | breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

---

(1)  OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001003936
<NAME> PITTSBURGH HOME FINANCIAL CORP.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,704,474
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,069,541
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                112,234,187
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    256,143,853
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,912,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             392,766,503
<DEPOSITS>                                 162,019,303
<SHORT-TERM>                                15,750,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,534,698
<LONG-TERM>                                175,066,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,324,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             392,766,503
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             13,497,561
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,821,232
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               142,232
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            20,461,025
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,236,017
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,063,376
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,397,649
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  450,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (9,950)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,186,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,464,793
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,699,793
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.31
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,930,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 3,930,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,737,973
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  345,838
<RECOVERIES>                                    70,103
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,912,238
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. D-1061.

#### In re Disbarment of Waldron.

It is ordered that Kenneth L. Waldron, of Jackson, Mo., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.