alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1305.

#### Groves *v.*Sexton.

Complaint, from city court of Macon — Judge Hodges. June-13, 1908.

Argued October 29,

Decided November 10, 1908.

The action was by Marie W. Sexton against Mrs. W. C. Groves: as maker of a promissory note payable to the order of Thomas F.. Beytaugh. The court, on demurrer, struck the defendant’s plea,, and judgment was rendered for the amount of the note ($251.50- and interest, and 10 per cent, thereon as attorney’s fees). She.excepted to the judgment sustaining the demurrer.

The demurrer was on the grounds, that the plea is insufficient in law, that it fails to set forth with certainty and particularity the-alleged fraud and misrepresentation, and that, so far as it attempts to set up a partial payment, it is insufficient because it: fails to allege when, by whom, and where the payment was made.. Those parts of the plea which relate to fraud and to payment are: “2. Defendant denies the second paragraph of said plaintiff’s petition [alleging execution and delivery of the note], and says-that a note signed by the defendant was signed under misrepresentation. Defendant thought she was signing a note for $100, instead of one for $250.51. Defendant says that one Mr. Thomas. Beatey came to her and represented to her that he could settle the cases against her husband, W. C. Groves, charged with selling-liquor and gambling, for the sum of $100, and that she signed the note, thinking it was for $100, in order to settle the cases against-her husband for gambling. 3. Defendant says that the note was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Beatey, and she pleads fraud and says she ought not to be made to pay this note. She says further that she has made a payment on this-note of $60 which she thought was for $100, leaving a balance due-*161on the note of only $40, which she is now ready to pay. . Defendant now . . pleads fraud and prays the judgment of the court in her favor.”

*160Russell, J.

1. A plea of payment which, fails to allege with reasonable-certainty when, how, and to whom the payment was made is insufficient, and, unless amended, should be stricken, upon demurrer, timely filed, specifically pointing out these defects-.

2. In pleading fraud, the specific facts constituting- fraud must be stated. The averment of fraud must not depend upon conclusions, but the conclusion must arise from the full, certain, and explicit statement of the facts relied upon to show fraud.

3. There was no error in sustaining the demurrer. *Judgment affirmed.*

*161Citations by counsel: *Ga. R.*98/173; 6/437; 68/637; 79/391; 93/785; 101/741; 110/891; 113/149.

*John B. Gooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter J. Grace, E. W. Maynard,*contra.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-372-CV

IN RE LIONEL D. MURPHY, JR.	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  October 9, 2008
1467.

#### Gossett *v.*City of Atlanta.

Motion to dismiss tbe writ of error.

Submitted December 8,

Decided December *22, 1908.*

*Morris Macks, F. M. Hughes,*for plaintiff in error.

*James L. Mayson,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

This court can not review a refusal to sanction an. application for certiorari, unless the petition for certiorari be incorporated in the bill of exceptions, or otherwise verified’ by the trial judge as a part' thereof. A petition for certiorari does not become a part of the record until granted; and, therefore, if the error assigned in the bill of exceptions be the refusal of the court to -grant the writ of certiorari, and the petition for certiorari comes up in the record’ with no other identification than the usual certificate of the clerk, the writ of error will be dismissed. *Hall v. State,*2 *Ga. App. 437*(58 S. E. 558), and cases there cited. *Writ of error dismissed.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.             Donna Lehmann is theChief Financial Officer of BH/RE, LLC, a Nevada Limited-Liability Company (the “Company”).

 

2.             The undersignedcertifies to the best of her knowledge:

 

(A)  The Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2004 accompanying this Certification, in the formfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(the “Exchange Act”); and

(B)  The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  November 15, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ Donna Lehmann       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Donna Lehmann           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1492.

#### Stewart *v.*The State.

Indictment for larceny, from Pulaski superior court — Judge? Martin. October 6, 1908.

Submitted December 8,

Decided December 22, 1908.

*M. II. Boyer,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. D. Graham, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

No error of law is complained of. The only doubtful issue? of fact is, whether the taking of the hogs by the defendant was under-a bona fide claim of light, or animo furandi. This issue was clearly-submitted by the charge, and the verdict of the jury is sufficiently supported to prevent the interference of this court.

*Judgment affirmed.*
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

PSS World Medical, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement File Nos. 33-80657, 33-90464, 333-15043, 333-64185, 33-85004, 33-97756, 33-99046, 33-97754, 333-30427, 333-50526, 333-58272, 333-104262 and 333-138173 on Form S–8 of PSS World Medical, Inc. of our reports datedMay 20, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of PSS World Medical, Inc. as of March 27, 2009 and March 28, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three–year period ended March 27, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 27, 2009, which reports appear in theMarch 27, 2009 annual report on Form 10–K of PSS World Medical, Inc. 

Our report dated May 20, 2009 refers to the adoption of FinancialAccounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, effective March 31, 2007. 

/s/ KPMG

May 20, 2009 

Jacksonville, Florida 

Certified Public Accountants
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than February 16, 2005.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. Nicholas, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

*1.  William E. Blomster*, Fairmont, Minnesota; to acquire voting shares of B & M Bancshares, Inc., Fairmont, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of State Bank of Fairmont, Fairmont, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 27, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-1853 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
1289.

#### CONSIGNEES’ FAVORITE BOX COMPANY *v.*SPEER.

This was a claim ease involving the title to a number of articles levied on under an attachment and under a lien foreclosure in favor of the same plaintiff. The jury found all the property subject. Some of the px-operty was cleai'ly not subject. As to the other articles the charge of the court did not fairly present the issues.

Levy and claim, from city court of Dalton- — -Judge Longley. June 9, 1908.

Submitted October 29,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*M. C. Tarver, George G. Glerm,*for plaintiff in error.

*William E. Mann,*contra.

Powell, J.

As to the property contained in the bill of sale, the claimant’s title accrued prior to the foreclosure of the lien. So far as the evidence shows, the claimant purchased in good faith and without notice. We find nothing in the record suggesting fraud; no single suspicious circumstance or badge of fraud is pointed out in the brief of counsel; and the submission of that issue to the jury seems to have been error. The verdict finding so much of the property as was included in the bill of sale subject is, therefore, clearly without evidence to support it.

The fact that the defendant in fi. fa. had bought timber from a third person who retained the title until it was paid for, and that the claimant had paid the purchase-price, did not put the title either of the timber or of the lumber sawed therefrom into the claimant. If there was an additional agreement that the defendant should cut the lumber and stack it, and that it should be the property of the claimant when stacked, and that the value thereof should be credited on the amount of advances of the claimant to the defendant, the cutting and the stacking of the lumber would amount to delivery to the claimant, so as to put title in it, if it was the intention of the parties that actual delivery should be dispensed with and this constructive delivery substituted. The claimant’s testimony as to this feature of the case was not as clear and definite as it was in the *Meers*case, ante, 155 (62 S. E. 1000); but the issue as to this should have been submitted to the jury. There was no error in refusing to compel the plaintiff to elect between his attachment and his lien. These are not inconsistent *157remedies. Especially is this true, as it appears from an inspection of the account attached to the plaintiff’s pleading that many of the items are not such as to constitute a lawful basis for a lien under section 2809 of the Civil Code, but are such as to be the basis for an attachment. *Judgment reversed.*
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Quintiles Transnational Corp.:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 23, 2002 (except with respect to the matters discussed in
Note 23, as to which the date is March 22, 2002) included in this Form 10-K,
into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements 33-91026 on Form
S-8, 333-03603 on Form S-8, 333-16553 on Form S-8, 333-40493 on Form S-8,
333-60797 on Form S-8, 333-75183 on Form S-8, 333-92987 on Form S-8, and
333-51272 on Form S-8.


                                                    /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina,
March 22, 2002.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 06-0491

((((((((((((((((

In Re  Baylor Medical Center At Garland

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1.This cause has been **ABATED** pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2. 

2.This case is removed from the Court’s active docket and shall be treated as closed, subject to reinstatement upon proper motion or further order of the Court.

3.All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 03-9170-H, styled *Steve and Tammy Williams v. Baylor Medical Center at Garland*, in the 160th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

4.The Court requests that relators notify the Court when the successor judge has ruled in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b).

Done at the City of Austin, this 29th day of August, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent
Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
(the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to
(section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
      HARVEY P. EISENName:
            Harvey
      P. EisenTitle:
            Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
            May
      15, 2008
 
 
 
 /s/
      IRA J. SOBOTKOName:
            Ira
      J. SobotkoTitle:
            Vice
      President, FinanceDate:
            May
      15, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      State of
                                                      Percentage    Incorporation
                                                           of              or
        Parent                Subsidiary               Ownership     Organization
        ------                ----------               ---------     ------------
<S>                           <C>                      <C>            <C>
Ottawa Financial                AmeriBank                100%           Federal
 Corporation



AmeriBank                       OS Services, Inc.        100%           Michigan



AmeriBank                       AmeriPlan Financial      100%           Michigan
                                Services, Inc.

</TABLE>


         The financial statements of Ottawa Financial Corporation are
consolidated with those of its subsidiaries.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,047
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              95
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     46,460
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,590
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             9,699
<LOANS>                                        180,673
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 262,798
<DEPOSITS>                                     230,534
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,837
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,185
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,462
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 262,798
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,036
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,276
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   289
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,601
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,994
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,167
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,434
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      624
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (12)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,040
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,040
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.26
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,866
<LOANS-PAST>                                       618
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,836
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      569
<RECOVERIES>                                        64
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,955
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,955
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Ryan Gabriel GARCELL.

No. 465A06-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Durham, for Garcell, Ryan Gabriel.

Elizabeth Hambourger Koch, for Garcell, Ryan Gabriel.

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of June 2015 by Defendant to Hold in Abeyance the Time in Which to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
VACATE AND REMAND and Opinion Filed November 18, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00788-CV
EBAY, INC., Appellant V. ORIGAMI OWL, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417-01112-2014



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion

to the extent that we vacate th e trial court’s order w ithout regard to the merits and remand this

case to the trial court for re ndition of judgment in accordance with their agreement. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

140788F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

EBAY, INC., Appellant

No. 05-14-00788-CV V.

ORIGAMI OWL, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 417-01112-2014. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Evans and Stod dart, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is VACATED without regard to the merits and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered November 18, 2014.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-96024 of Video Update, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated September 1, 2000
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to Video Update, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going
concern), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Video Update, Inc. for
the year ended April 30, 2000.


                            /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 8, 2000
Exhibit
23.2





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-118861, 333-74490, 333-26743,
333-153447 and 333-61467 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos.
333-74065, 333-39013  and 333-36337 on Form S-3 of our report dated
March 28, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Cenveo, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the adoption of the
provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cenveo,
Inc. for the year ended January 3, 2009.





/S/DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP








Stamford,
Connecticut


March 18,
2009
STATE of North Carolina v. John Scott HUDSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-571

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

DISMISSED IN PART; NO ERROR IN PART.