alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FOSTER et al., Respondents, *v.*BENDER et al., Defendants; BENDER, Appellant.

(No. 1,637.)

(Submitted July 13, 1903.

Decided July 20, 1903.)

*Appeal*— Decree *Canceling Tax*Deed— *Correction.*

Judgment in favor of plaintiff canceling a tax deed, but failing to require payment to defendant of tbe amount admitted by plaintiff in Ms complaint to be due defendant, and so found by the district court, will on appeal be remanded to the court, with directions to amend its decree conformably to the conclusions found by it.

*Appeal from District*Court, *Silver Bow County; John Lind*say, *Judge.*

Action by Lee W. Foster and another against Louis Y. Bender and others. Decree for plaintiffs. Defendant Bender appeals.

.Remanded with directions to amend decree.

*Mr. John 0. Bender,*for Appellant.

*Messrs. McHaMon <& Cotter,*for Respondents.

*527ME. COMMISSIONER CALLAWAY

prepared tlie opinion for tlie court.

This action was brought for the purpose of canceling a tax deed affecting certain real property in the city of Butte, which was sold April 1, 1895, by the treasurer of Silver Bow county to Fergus F. Kelly for taxes attempted to be levied thereon in the year 1894.

In their complaint plaintiffs offered to pay the defendant the amount of all taxes, penalty, and costs assessed and accruing against the property for the year 1894, with interest thereon.

In its conclusions of law made upon a trial of the cause, the court found the plaintiffs entitled to have the tax deed canceled, and the defendant entitled “to the amount of taxes due upon the property for the year 1894, together with the interest thereon allowed by law upon delinquent taxes from the time of the sale of the premises to Fergus F. Kelly, assignor of the plaintiff.” The word “plaintiff” should read “defendant.;” it was conceded by all that Kelly was the assignor of the defendant, and tlie court so states in its findings of fact. Upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court entered a decree in favor of plaintiffs, canceling the deed, but failed to provide in the decree that the plaintiffs should refund to defendant the taxes, penalty, costs and interest above mentioned.

The defendant complains that the decree is not responsive to the pleadings, and does not conform to the conclusions of law, because it cancels the tax deed without requiring payment to the defendant of the amount admitted by plaintiffs to be due, and so found by the court. The decree must be corrected in this respect.

We advise that the cause be remanded to the district court, with directions to amend its decree conformably to the conclusions heretofore found by it, and that, when so modified, the judgment be affirmed.

*528Pee Cueiam. — Por tbe reasons given in tbe foregoing, opinion, tbe cause is remanded, witb directions to amend tbe decree as above suggested, and, wben so modified, tbe judgment will-be affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, William J. Catacosinos, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TNP Enterprises, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986] 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and as presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and; 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 4, 2004