alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Peerless Casualty Company, Respondent, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Appellant.

Argued January 18, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*641
      *William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Thomas W. A. Crowe*of counsel), for appellant.

*Joseph A. Solovei*and *Murray Brensilber*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
EE-RM-TP-99-480 COMMENT 01B

PRELIMINARY AGENDA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEW ABLE ENERGY 

PUBLIC HEARING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS 

FOR COMMERCIAL PACKAGED BOILERS, AND COMMERCIAL WATER 

HEATERS, HOT WATER SUPPLY BOILERS AND UNFIRED HOT WATER 

STORAGE TANKS 

PLACE OF HEARING: 

DATE AND TIME: 

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING 

FORREST AL BUILDING 

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, SW 

ROOM 1E-245 

WASHINGTON, DC 20585 

TELEPHONE: 202/586-9127 

TELEFAX: 202/586-4617 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20,2000 

9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 

The purpose of this public hearing is to hear the views of interested persons on the 

proposed requirements for commercial packaged boilers, and commercial water heaters, 

hot water supply boilers, and unfired hot water storage tanks. The Department will 

consider the views presented and comments submitted in formulating a final rule. 

I. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 

II. AGENDA REVIEW 

ffi. COMMERCIAL PACKAGED BOILERS - TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION 

A. General Statements 

B. Definition and Scope of Coverage 

1. Method of Shipment and Assembly 

2. Boiler Application 

3. Boiler Capacity 

4. Boiler Operation 

C. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency 

1. Test Procedure and Test Conditions for Low Pressure Boilers 

2. Test Procedure and Test Conditions for High Pressure Boilers 

3. Boilers Designed for Low Water Temperature Applications 
EE-RM-TP-99-480 COMMENT 01B

• I 

4. Condensing Boilers 

5. Modular Boilers and Multiple Boilers 

6. Testing and Rating a Steam and Hot Water Boiler 

D. Other Topics 

IV. COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS, HOT WATER SUPPLY BOILERS AND 

UNFIRED HOT WATER STORAGE TANKS - TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION 

A. General Statements 

B. Definitions and Coverage 

1. Instantaneous Water Heaters 

2. Hot Water Supply Boilers 

3. Heat Pump Water Heaters 

4. Waste Heat Recovery Water Heaters 

C. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency 

1. Gas-fired Water Heaters 

2. Oil-fired Water Heaters 

3. Electric Water Heaters 

D. Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks 

1. Exemption from and application of Maximum Heat Loss Requirement 

2. Unfired Hot Water Storage Tank Test Procedure 

E. Other Topics 

v. ADJOURNMENT
#### John B. Ayers, Respondent, *v.*The Western Railroad Corporation, Appellant.

(Argued April 9, 1872;

decided April 16, 1872.)

Costs on appeal in an action at law are in the discretion of the court only when the judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, or where a new trial is granted. The addition to a -judgment in this court of the words “ with costs,” or “ without costs,” cannot affect the right of the prevailing party in such action.

*661Motion to correct remittitur by adding the words “ with costs.” The court decide as above, but add: “ As we think that it (appellant) has the right to costs, we grant the motion.”

*John M. Reynolds*for the appellant.

*Geo. Bliss, Jr.,*for the respondent.

Motion granted. Per Curiam opinion.-

All concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1

WAVECOM S.A.

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 Wavecom S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Aram Hékimian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code, that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 21, 2003 |  | By: | /s/ARAM HÉKIMIANAram Hékimian
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|------------------ |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

QuickLinks
#### Johnny Bruce FRICKS, Appellant, v. Margaret Mae Smalley CARROLL and James L. Carroll, Appellees.

No. 23393.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 3, 1966.

L. Paul Cobb, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Glyndon C. Pruitt, Buford, Ga., for appellant.

Paul L. Millirons, Roscoe Roberts, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for appellees.

Before RIVES, BELL, and THORN-BERRY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a resident of Georgia, sued appellees, residents of Alabama, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident which occurred in Georgia. The District Court dismissed the action on the basis that it affirmatively appeared from the complaint that it was barred by the Alabama statute of limitations of one year. Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 26. This ruling was *330proper. The Alabama statute of limitations was applicable rather than the two year Georgia statute of limitations. Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. York, 1945, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079, 160 A.L.R. 1231; Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Company, 1953, 345 U.S. 514, 73 S.Ct. 856, 97 L.Ed. 1211; 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, pp. 740, 743-746; 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, pp. 590-604.

The judgment of the District Court should, however, be modified to provide that the complaint rather than the action be dismissed. This will avoid any res judicata problem, and the judgment is vacated and the case remanded so that the judgment may be modified accordingly.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded with direction.
#### SALAVEA, F., Plaintiff v. SALAVEA, N., Defendant

No. 18-1918

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” title: “Salavea”] [Land: “Faatauala”]

Date unknown

A. M. NOBLE, *Judge of the High Court*

ORDER

This cause coming on to be heard before his Honor A. M. Noble, Judge of the High Court, upon motion of the defendant, Salavea, N., that he be permitted to continue the use of the Salavea name, pending the trial in the High Court, entitled Salavea, F. against Salavea, N., and all parties being present; and it appearing to the Court that the defendant, Salavea, N., has held and enjoyed the use of the name, Salavea, since the death of his father, Salavea, Malua, in the year 1908, without objection having been filed in the Court to the use of the name, Salavea, by any member of the Salavea family: It is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant, Salavea, N., shall continue to hold and enjoy the use of said name with all the honors thereto appertaining until said cause shall have been determined in the High Court of American Samoa.

*298It is further ordered, considered and adjudged that the said Salavea, N., shall not interfere in any manner whatsoever with the lands over which the said Salavea, F.,. has control or over the land “FAATAUALA” now pending in the High Court of American Samoa.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged, that no member of the Salavea family shall in any manner interfere with the said Salavea, N., in his use and enjoyment of the name, Salavea, until said trial, now pending in the High Court, shall have been fully determined.
#### Dorothy A. Wolin, Respondent, *v.*William Wolin, Appellant.

Submitted June 7, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*Benjamin Barondess*for motion.

*Hyman Grill*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

466 

_’ d 

t&umrabla Jao. (i. ~cIclama 

&XUEE&~SlOXWJP 

Dspacww3nt of banktng 

Austin, Texao 

llerr u. lCAdaum! opinion LO. 

8Yc iuuid ll.ke to kntm whotber beaka 

rkiioh have aaquircd real estate before the 

Of~cUtfve data ot’ the 1~3~ItUbnkin$ Cod0 should 

~ollor t.hs pruvieione a? Article 514 n. 5. or 

thou@ of Article 2 kitlaptOP 8 of the 1943 HankAIl& c;oae. 

468 

(16) of eucikb a%gizml boor Talue until 

oaergea dew84 ce tment7-rive per eemt (a&) 

&-ha origi~l beak ralus; provided thet 

&he CduioQor may pore% a lesser perooatogte to be de#resiatal Qurirry any year.' 

ArUule 614 of she Mwlee4l Civil Statutes 8bwe 

*oWdwu l pMtotGhapter8 of Tit1@16 oi the Aaied 

civil gtntutm. krtiole 11 of Chaptar IX ef the State 

8uWng Cede deptod by *e 4atb ~egiolature expreeelf rapeela Title 16 of the Uwi~e& CL*11 Otattat88 of TOXM, 

ma n& with -us obb a l r t8tuto ms b l o ss dteo ti~ 

bmun~, th0reW orklng the cods ooaplete within itrelt, 

ua cm uolueirs 8t&Qte Mu4 ragtoo* te bwklng imti- 

~~tioM, b&IS expr~ pwieiel3 6f Alao f, chapter I, 

6ea1a$ng, Wtle Code pawidea 8 oumplate myatoa of uw* 

worni.ne the organisatioa, 

fiqs4iA.tion et me.&6 buss.. 

operat&oa, eupemidon and 

m'tmt,bberd ie a0 BktQtlory leria nmeupcin 

woa *ubJaut otha. bhaa ArbLL6le 8, CJiaptr t, et the stete 

ib a a - Ga le, a * l ?P wa qotsa.
#### William Romer, Resp’t, *v.*James C. Mix, Impl’d, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 9, 1891.)*

Bills and notes—Consideration.

In an action upon a promissory note brought by a *bona fide*holder, where the answer admits the giving of the note, but alleges that it was given to renew another note, but that the old note vas not delivered up, and there is no proof that the old note was not paid thereby, the defense of want of consideration fails and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff will, be sustained.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the decision of the trial justice, a jury trial having been waived.

Action upon a promissory note made by defendant Romer.

*Edgar A.*Montfort, for *app’lt; William*Romer, resp’t in person.

Barnard, P. J.

This action is brought to recover upon a note of fifty dollars dated 22d April, 1890, and given to run two-months, with interest. The note was given to the defendant Car*321penter, and by him transferred before maturity to the plaintiff for value, which was protested when it became due. The answer of defendant Mix admits the giving of the note; that it was given to renew another note for the same amount, but that the old note was not delivered up. The answer further avers as a defense that the first note was one of a series given by Mix to one Hub-bell under an agreement as to a patent right, and that Hubbell cheated him, Mix, in the transaction, and that the defendant Carpenter knew of Hubbell’s fraudulent representation in respect to the patent agreement. When the case came to trial it appeared that the note was $49.75. It appeared that it was given to renew another note held by Carpenter for $48.49. There was no proof given that the first note was not paid thereby. There is only an inference that it was not returned. That fact is stated in the answer, and the evidence is silent on the subject. The evidence as to representations made by Carpenter to defendant Mix was properly rejected. The note and its consideration and delivery were admitted. The agreement between Mix and Hubbell was admitted, but there was no attempt to connect Carpenter with it; no proof that Hubbell made fraudulent representations or that Carpenter knew of such representations being made. Ho defense was proven against Carpenter if he had been the plaintiff. The plaintiff Bomer proved that he paid the full face of the note, before it matured, in cash, and there was no contradiction made to this proof. The defense of want of consideration against Carpenter failed on the trial.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.
#### ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., *v.*DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT.

1. Agriculture — Pest Control — Discretion of Agriculture Department.

Decisions regarding the need to use pesticides in a certain area and the effect of such use are a matter of discretion left to the wisdom and judgment of the State department of agriculture (CL 1948, § 286.201 *et seq.,*as amended).

2. Same — Pest Control — -Discretion of Agriculture Department.

Decision by State agriculture department to use the pesticide Dieldrin in certain areas of Berrien county for the purpose of controlling the Japanese beetle, *held,*on reeord presented, not an abuse of discretion (CL 1948, § 286.201 *et seq.,*as amended).

Reference for Points in Headnotes

[1, 2] 3 Am Jur 2d, Agriculture § 38 *et seq.*

Original action for mandamus in the Court of Appeals.

Submitted Division 3 November 10, 1967, at Grand Eapids.

(Docket No. 4,594.)

Decided November 14, 1967.

Opinion filed June 24, 1968. Leave to appeal denied November 22,1967.

See 379 Mich 789.

*694Complaint by Environmental Defense Fund, Incorporated, for itself and on bebalf of all others similarly situated, against B. Dale Ball, Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture; Dean Lovitt, Chief, Plant Industry Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture; and Donald White, Regional Supervisor, Plant Industry Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture, for a writ of mandamus to prevent the Michigan Department of Agriculture from spraying the pesticide Dieldrin on certain areas of land in Berrien county to eradicate the Japanese beetle.

Writ denied.

*Yannacone <& Yannacone*and *Fox, Thompson & Morris,*for plaintiff.

*Franh J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, and *Francis J. Carrier*and *Maurice M. Moule,*Assistant Attorneys General, for defendants.

Per Curiam.

The department of agriculture determined in its judgment that the use of Dieldrin in the eradication of the Japanese beetle, a declared nuisance, was necessary to protect the agricultural crops in the Berrien county area. Under the appropriate statute* and in collaboration with the United States department of agriculture the Dieldrin plan was drafted and the required notices were served.

The evidence produced before the Court was to the effect that the department of agriculture had made its determination after considering the need and also the effect of such use of Dieldrin. Such a decision is one of discretion left to the wisdom *695and judgment of the Michigan State department of agriculture.

We find no abuse of discretion and, therefore, the writ of mandamus is denied and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is dissolved.

Burns, P. J., and Fitzgerald and Holbrook, JJ., concurred.

*

 CL 1948, § 286.201 *et seq.,*as amended (Stat Ann 1967 Bey an4 Stat Ann 1968 Cnm Supp § 12.201 *et seq.).*
****AMENDMENT TO SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT**

****This Amendment to Subscription Agreement** is entered into as of June 16, 2005 with reference to the following:**

****WHEREAS**, MERCATOR MOMENTUM FUND, LP, MERCATOR MOMENTUM FUND III, LP, AND MONARCH POINTE FUND, LTD., (collectively, the “**Funds**”) and M.A.G. CAPITAL, LLC, (formerly known as MERCATOR ADVISORY GROUP, LLC) (“**M.A.G.**”) (the Funds and M.A.G. are referred to individually as a “Holder” and collectively as the “**Holders**”), and**M-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation**(the “**Company**”) previously entered into that certain Subscription Agreement dated June 17, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and**

****WHEREAS**, the parties desire to amend the Agreement;**

****NOW, THEREFORE**, for good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:**

**1.*                *****Paragraph 7(b) is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted:  **

****“**Volume Limitation.**   Purchasers and MAG, on behalf of themselves and their affiliates, hereby covenant and agree not to, directly or indirectly, sell in the aggregate during any trading day shares of Common Stock totaling more than 20% of the total shares of Common Stock traded on such day.”**

**2.*                *****In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.**

| ** ** |
|------------|

*** *

****Signature**

*** *

****IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, this Agreement has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto as of the date first above written.**

****M-Wave, INC.**

*** *

****By:**/s/ Jim Mayer**                                                    **

****Name:**Jim Mayer**                                                   **

****Its:**CEO**                                                                 **

*** *

****MERCATOR MOMENTUM FUND, L.P.****

****By:  M.A.G. CAPITAL, LLC**Its:  General Partner******

****By:**                                                                        **

****Name:  David Firestone**

****Its:        Managing Member******MERCATOR MOMENTUM FUND III, L.P.****

****By: M.A.G. CAPITAL, LLC**

****Its: General Partner****

*** *

****By:**                                                                        **

****Name: David Firestone**

****Its:       Managing Member********MONARCH POINTE FUND, LTD**.******

****By:**                                                                        **

****Name: David Firestone**

****Its:       President**

* *

******M.A.G. CAPITAL, LLC******

****By:**                                                                        **

****Name: David Firestone**

****Its:       Managing Member**

*** *

| ** ** |
|------------|

*** *
See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he cour t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NU M BER 13- 10- 0026 7-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG IN RE: U NITT EXAS D RIL LIN G, L .L.C , U NITD RIL LIN G C OM PA NY, A ND C LIF F WEL KER On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . 

### MEM ORA NDU M OPI NI ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Rel ators, Uni t Texas Dr il li ng , L. L.C ., Uni t D ri ll ing Company , and C li ff W elk er , fil ed a pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i n the abov e c ause on M ay 5, 2010. On Ma y

6, 2010, the Cou rtreq uest ed th at t he real par ti es in int erest , C aesar M orale s an d h is wife, R honda Morales, f ile a respon se to th e pe tition for wri t of m and am us, an d such respon se w as du ly f iled on May

24, 20 10. On Ju ne 4, 201 0, relato rs f iled an a me nde d reply in f urthe r suppo rt of thei r peti ti on. On J une 7, 2010, thi s C our t g ra nted re lat ors’ “ Uno p p o sed Mo ti on to2

Con sol ida te an d St ay

the Inter loc utor

y Appea l Dea dli nes” i n this c a u se and t he rela ted appeal pendi ng i n c ause number 13- 10- 00247- CV
. Ma ndamus is an “extraordin ar y ” re medy
. In r

e Sw. Bel

l Tel. C o. , L.P. , 235 S.W .3d 619, 6 2 3 ( T e x. 2007)( or ig . proceed ing ); see In r e T eamR ock

et, L.P. , 256 S.W .3d 2 57, 259 (Tex. 2008 ) ( orig. proceed ing). In orde r to o bta in ma nda mu s relief , the rela tor mu st show thatthe tr ial co urt c lea rl y abus ed i ts dis creti on and that the rela tor has no a deq uate reme dy by app eal. In re Pru de n t ia l In s . Co
. o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 35- 36 ( Tex . 200 4) (o ri g . proceed ing ); s ee In r e Mc Al len Med
. C tr., Inc. , 275 S.W .3d 4 58, 4 62 ( Tex . 200 8) (o ri g . proceed ing ). T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us, t h e r e s p o n s e , a n d t h e re p ly t h e re t o , is o f t h e o p in io n t h a tre la t o rs h a ve n o tsh o wn themse lv es enti tl ed to the re li ef soug ht in t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus
. SeeT EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51.016 ( Ver non Supp. 2009) (al low ing for i nter loc utor

y appeal of a matter

su bje ct to t he F ederal Ar bit ra ti on Act t o t h e sa me extent as all ow ed unde r federal l aw ). Acco rd ing ly , the petit ion for w ri t of m andamus is D EN IED
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8(a).
PERC UR IAM Del iv ered and filed the 6th d ay of Jul y , 201 0.
**SPAR Group, Inc.**

 

EXHIBIT 32.2

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2008 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.         The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/ James R. SegretoJames R. SegretoChief Financial Officer, Treasurer andSecretaryNovember 14, 2008 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

Ex-4
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00398

- CV
In the Matter of the Marriage of Raymond Blinn Barron III and Crystal Dawn Barron and in the Interest of C.L.B and S.G.B.
On Appeal from the 135th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 20

- 06

- 85886

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged again s t appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 5, 2022
#### The Wayne and Ontario Collegiate Institute, Respondent, *v.*Horace Blackmar, Appellant.

(Argued September 21, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action upon- a subscription paper made payable to the *“*treasurer of a board of trustees which may be elected by the Wayne County Baptist Association at a convention to meet at Marion, on. Wednesday, the 30th of the present month,” and upon a bond executed to plaintiff, conditioned to pay $500 “ when a *Iona fide*subscription of $10,000 is made by such persons as are responsible, including the responsible subscriptions heretofore made,” etc.

Defendant offered to show, as a defence to the subscription, that the trustees mentioned in complaint are not the trustees elected at the time specified in the bond, but were irregularly elected at another time and place.

*Held,*that this was a good defence under the authority of the case *Same Plamtíff*v. *La/oinney*(Court of Appeals, December term, 1869), and the evidence was erroneously excluded.

Plaintiff produced and proved an agreement, signed by responsible persons, *“*agreeing to guaranty the payment of the subscriptions, and agreeing to pay to the trustees a further sum sufficient to make up, when added to the amount of such subscriptions, $10,500. *Held,*that this was a substantial and sufficient compliance with the conditions of the defendant’s bond.

*T. B. Strong*for the appellant.

*L. Tremain*for the respondent.

*664Hunt, 0., reads for deducting from the judgment the sum of $39.60, the amount of judgment upon the subscription paper, witli interest from April 24, 1865, and for affirmance of the judgment as to residue, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment accordingly.