alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(91 Hun, 250.)

#### BLISS et al. v. RAYNOR et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Exemptions—Insurance on Exempt Property—Estoppel.

The proceeds of insurance on exempt property are exempt, and the fact that the debtor once assented to the application thereof to the debt will not estop him to afterwards claim the exemption.

Appeal from Suffolk county court.

Action by Ernest F. Bliss, Jr., and Albert E. Bliss against Frank C. Raynor, impleaded with another. From an order requiring the New York Underwriters’ Agency and the Norwich Union Fire Insurance Company to pay to the receiver of the property of defendant Raynor one-half of the amount due on a judgment in favor of one Henry Sayre, and from an order denying the application of said Raynor to vacate and set aside said order, Raynor appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Timothy M. Griffing, for appellant.

Walter H. Jay cox, for respondents.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the county court of Suffolk county requiring two insurance companies to pay to the receiver all the property of the defendant, the amount due from each company being over and above one-half of the amount due upon a judgment in favor of one Henry Sayre, and from an order of the county court denying the application of the appellant to vacate and set aside the first-mentioned order. The sole question involved is whether the sum of $149.90 due the defendant Frank C. Raynor from two insurance companies upon an insurance of exempt property shall be paid to the receiver in supplementary proceedings in this action or to the judgment debtor. The pretense for paying the money to the receiver is that the judgment debtor once expressed his willing*157
      *ness to*have it so applied. A sufficient answer to that position is that the defendant has repented, and now claims his legal rights, and no one has been or will be injured by the change. The exemption from seizure and sale of certain property of a householder is a humane provision in favor of families and it is the duty of courts to enforce its execution. The family of the judgment debtor is entitled to the protection and benefit of this benign statute, and these orders defeat that intention.

The orders should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the money in question directed to be paid to Frank C. Raynor. All concur.
#### Taylor *et al. v.*Tanner.

January 12, 1915.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Conyers. Jeff Davis superior court. November 1, 1913.

*O. B. Hay*and *L. D. Passmore,*for plaintiffs in error.

*L. B. Heath,*contra.

Hill, J.

-1. An approved brief of evidence is an indispensable part of a motion for a new trial; and if not prepared and presented as provided in the order setting the hearing in vacation, the motion for a new trial is properly dismissed on motion.

2. The final judgment complained of being the dismissal of the motion for a new trial, exceptions taken pending the trial of the main case, which are appropriate to be taken in a motion for new trial, are not reviewable.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
**Exhibit 32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted**


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





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eclipsys Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
      Eugene V. Fife, 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 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:
      November 9, 2005





/s/
      Eugene V. Fife


Eugene
      V.
      Fife


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.37
                        SUBORDINATION OF DEBT AGREEMENT

     THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT, made this 12 day of March, 1998, between Blue
Fish Clothing, Inc. (the "Borrower") and Jennifer P. Barclay (the Guarantor)

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS: the Borrower received a loan from Carnegie Bank, N.A. (the
"Bank") in the original amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,500,000.00) (the "Loan") on the 12 day of March, 1998.

     WHEREAS, the Loan is unconditionally guaranteed by Jennifer P. Barclay

     WHEREAS, the Bank has required, as a condition of the Loan, for the
Guarantor and the Borrower to subordinate to the Loan any existing or future
indebtedness by the Borrower to the Guarantor.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein the parties agree as follows:

     (1)  That the Guarantor agree that any existing and future indebtedness by
the Borrower to the Guarantor will be subject, subordinate and inferior in
priority to the Loan being given to the Borrower by the Bank.

     (2)  That this subordination shall continue and not be affected by any
future modification, extension or refinance of the Loan by the Bank.

     (3)  That this subordination shall be for the Loan and for all and any
advances to be made by the Bank under the Loan and the documents supporting the
Loan, in an amount not exceeding One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,500,000.00), for principal, excluding interest, costs and fees associated
with the Loan.

     (4)  This subordination is binding upon all parties, their successors
and/or assigns.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Subordination
Agreement on the date first written above.

WITNESS:
/s/ Eileen C. Wolfe                    /s/ Jennifer P. Barclay
-----------------------------------    -----------------------------------
                                       Jennifer P. Barclay


WITNESS:                               BORROWER:
                                       Blue Fish Clothing, Inc.

/s/ Eileen C. Wolfe                    By: /s/ Marc Wallach - President
-----------------------------------       --------------------------------
                                       Marc Wallach, President
Order filed February 15, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00142-CV

____________

IN RE CYPRESS TEXAS LLOYDS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCV-177586

O R D E R

On February 14, 2012, relator, Cypress Texas Lloyds, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221. Relator asks this court to order The 

Honorable Brady G. Elliott, Judge of the 268th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, to 

vacate his order dated January 20, 2012, entered in trial court cause number

10-DCV-177586, styled Kenneth Hamilton and Brenda Hamilton v. Cypress Texas Lloyds, 

Crawford & Co., Burt Breedlove, and James McMennamy. Relator claims the trial court 

abused its discretion in compelling discovery of certain e-mails. Relator also filed a 
2

motion to stay the trial court's order of January 20, 2012. Real parties in interest Kenneth 

Hamilton and Brenda Hamilton filed a response to the motion to stay.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition that relator’s request for relief requires 

further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief 

is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.

We therefore ORDER that the January 20, 2012 order of the court below be stayed 

in trial court cause number 10-DCV-177586, styled Kenneth Hamilton and Brenda 

Hamilton v. Cypress Texas Lloyds, Crawford & Co., Burt Breedlove, and James 

McMennamy. The order is stayed until final decision by this court of relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus, or until further orders of this court.

A response to the petition for writ of mandamus is requested within twenty days of 

the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish.
Exhibit 32.1



                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby
certify that:

         I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K;

         to the best of my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) 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 (ii) the information
contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of Tengasco, Inc. and its
subsidiaries during the period covered by this Report.

Dated: March 30, 2004



                                                     s/Richard T. Williams
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Richard T. Williams,
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:223
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:224
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:225
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:226
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:227
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:228
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:229
Case: 1:03-cv-02160 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/09/04 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:230
#### CITY OF SYRACUSE, Respondent, v. STACEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March, 1896.)

Action by the city of Syracuse against Richard M. Stacey.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
#### Hindman *v.*Raper.

Hill, J.

1. In dispossessory-warrant proceedings, where it appeared that the tenant contracted to pay a stipulated sum for a year, and that at the end of the year he had failed to pay it, and that his landlord had foreclosed a distress warrant to collect the rent, the landlord’s vendee was entitled to all the rights of the original landlord, including the right to issue a dispossessory warrant; and in an issue formed upon *644that, where the counter-affidavit did not deny that a demand was made, it was not error to charge that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the premises in dispute.

July 3, 1915.

Eviction. Before Judge Wright. Floj^d superior court. June 24, 1914. (See 140 *Qa.*775.)

*Eubanks & Mebane,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harris & Harris,*contra.

2. Where a vendee from a landlord sues out a dispossessory warrant on the ground of failure to pay rent when *due,*and the tenant *by*counter-affidavit denies that he is holding possession over and beyond his term, *and*denies that he holds the premises from the plaintiff or any one from whom the plaintiff claims, the demand for possession is not put in issue. *Mitchell*v. *White,*74 *Ga.*327 (2). And where it appears from the undisputed evidence that the landlord, after his rental to the tenant, sold and conveyed the land to the plaintiff by warranty deed, such vendee from the landlord, and not the landlord, could issue a dispossessory warrant. *Raines*v. *Hindman,*136 *Ga.*450 (71 S. E. 738, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 863, 24 Ann. Cas. 347). And on the trial where the tenancy under the original landlord is not denied, and the evidence is without dispute that the tenant failed to pay the rent when due, the plaintiff is entitled to recover double rent from the time of the demand, or, if no specified time of demand is proved, from the date of the issuance of the dispossessory warrant. The statute permits recovery o'f double rent from the time possession was demanded of the tenant. In order to recover double rent from the time of the demand, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish the date of the demand. If there *be*a failure in the evidence to show the date the demand was made, then the plaintiff would be entitled to x-ecover fx'om the tenant double *rent*from the date of the issuance of the dispossessory warrant, upon the doctrine that, inasmuch as no issue is xnade by the counter-affidavit as to the making of demand, it will be presumed to have been made as a pre-requisite to the issuance of the warrant. The same doctrine is applicable where there is a dispute between the tenaxit and the laxxdlord, oir the trial of the case, as to whether a demand in point of fact had been made, where the tenant fails to make this issue in his counter-affidavit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT A, 1 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 2 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 3 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 4 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 5 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 6 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 7 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 8 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 9 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT A, 10 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-01064-BR Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 10 of 10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,256,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,356,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                   132,276
<INVENTORY>                                  2,252,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,210,964
<PP&E>                                       3,387,265
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,686,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,001,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,071,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                       286,231
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,527,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,001,752
<SALES>                                     16,547,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,547,411
<CGS>                                        6,630,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,630,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,016,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                847,906
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            762,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   762,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
E. Mead, Chief Executive 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. Dated:  May 12, 2004
    /s/ ROBERT E. MEADRobert E. Mead
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            16,276
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         137
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  20,350
<CASH>                                              77
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               5,729
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           3,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,954
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  4,309
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 45
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  21,372
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           59,107
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,954
<PREMIUMS>                                       1,361
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                737
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 (1)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                       1,271
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        177
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    207
<INCOME-TAX>                                        71
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17273]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB311]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, 
and Butterfish Advisory Panel will hold a public webinar meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 1, 2021, from 
2:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information 
will be posted to https://www.mafmc.org/council-events.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel will meet via 
webinar to discuss recent performance of the Atlantic chub mackerel 
fisheries and develop a Fishery Performance Report. This report will be 
considered by the Scientific and Statistical Committee, the Monitoring 
Committee, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council when 
reviewing 2022 catch and landings limits and management measures for 
chub mackerel. These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Kimbel-Spedden, (302) 526-
5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 9, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17273 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Order filed, September 29, 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00586

- CV

____________ JOAQUIN SAUCEDA , Appellant

V.

MICHAEL HESS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 2013

- 12416



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 02, 2016

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because th e reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Tucker , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM