alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas M. King and others, Respondents, v. Reon Barnes, Appellant, impleaded, etc.

Order refusing to resettle case affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000032

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD L. WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant

A PPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NORTH AND SOUTH HILO DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DTP-19-023340)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL ( By: Chan, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that:(1) On January 21, 2020, self-represented DefendantAppellant Donald L. Wilkerson ( Wilkerson ) filed the notice of appeal without paying the fees required by Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 3(a);

(2) On January 23, 2020, the circuit court clerk mailed Wilkerson a notice of non-payment, informing him that he is required to pay the filing fees by February 3, 2020, or the appeal could be dismissed;

(3) On March 30, 2020, the appellate clerk filed a notice of non-payment, informing Wilkerson that he had not paid the filing fees or filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis , and that failure to do either by April 9, 2020, could result in dismissal of the appeal;

(4) On July 17, 2020, the appellate clerk entered a default of the record on appeal, informing Wilkerson that the Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000032 25-SEP-2020 08:53 AMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### time to docket the appeal expired on March 23, 2020, he had not paid the filing fees, the record on appeal cannot be filed without payment of fees or an order allowing him to proceed on appeal i n forma pauperis , the matter would be brought to the court's attention on July 27, 2020, for action that may include dismissal of the appeal, and he could seek relief from default by motion; (5) Wilkerson took no further action in the appeal; and

(6) An appeal may be dismissed where the record on appeal has not been prepared because the appellant failed to pay the required fees or obtain an order allowing the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis . HRAP Rule 11(b)(2), (c)(2).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 25, 2020.
/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Presiding Judge
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 EXHIBIT I

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BAKER 

&

HOSTE TL E R L LP

ATTOR NE YS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 1

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 2

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 3

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 4

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 5

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 6

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 7

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 8

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 9

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 10

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 11

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 12

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 13

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 14

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 15

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 16

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 17

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 18

of 19
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2844-9 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:16:23 Page 19

of 19
a6018654ex10-3.htm


    Exhibit
10.3

    


    Policy Regarding the
Recoupment of Certain

    Performance-Based
Compensation Payments

    


    The Board
of Directors or Compensation Committee shall, in such circumstances as it
determines to be appropriate, require reimbursement of all or a portion of any
performance-based short or long-term cash or equity incentive payments to an
employee at the level of vice-president or above where: (1)  the
amount of, or the number of shares included in, any such payment was calculated
based on the achievement of financial results that were subsequently the subject
of an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with any financial
reporting requirement under the securities laws; (2) the need for the accounting
restatement was identified within 3 years after the date of the first public
issuance or filing of the financial results that were subsequently restated; and
(3) a lesser payment of cash or shares would have been made to the employee
based upon the restated financial results.  This policy does not limit
any other remedies the Company may have available to it in the circumstances,
which may include, without limitation, dismissing the employee or initiating
other disciplinary procedures.  The provisions of this policy are in
addition to (and not in lieu of) any rights to repayment the Company may have
under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other applicable
laws.
BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

(;+,%,7/

352326('25'(5

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2995-14 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:38:11 Page 1

of 3
























































BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

5REHUW$-XOLDQ6%1

&HFLO\$'XPDV6%1

%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

%DWWHU\6WUHHW6XLWH

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

7HOHSKRQH

)DFVLPLOH

(PDLOUMXOLDQ#EDNHUODZFRP

(PDLOFGXPDV#EDNHUODZFRP

(ULF(6DJHUPDQ6%1

/DXUHQ7$WWDUG6%1

%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

:LOVKLUH%OYG6XLWH

/RV$QJHOHV&$

7HOHSKRQH

)DFVLPLOH

(PDLOHVDJHUPDQ#EDNHUODZFRP

(PDLOODWWDUG#EDNHUODZFRP

Counsel for the Official

Committee of Tort Claimants

81,7('67$7(6%$1.5837&<&2857

1257+(51',675,&72)&$/,)251,$

6$1)5$1&,6&2',9,6,21

,QUH

3*	(&25325$7,21

 DQG

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&

&203$1<

'HEWRUV

Ƒ $IIHFWV3*	(&RUSRUDWLRQ

Ƒ $IIHFWV3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

Ŷ $IIHFWVERWK'HEWRUV

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

No. 19-30088 (DM).

%DQNUXSWF\&DVH

1R'0

&KDSWHU

/HDG&DVH

-RLQWO\$GPLQLVWHUHG

25'(5*5$17,1*),567,17(5,0

$33/,&$7,212)%$.(5	

+267(7/(5//3)25

$//2:$1&($1'3$<0(172)

&203(16$7,21$1'

5(,0%856(0(172)(;3(16(6

)257+(3(5,2')(%58$5<

7+528*+0$<

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2995-14 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:38:11 Page 2

of 3
























































BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

7+,60$77(5FDPHEHIRUHWKH&RXUWXSRQFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHFirst Interim 

Application for Allowance and Payment of Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the 

period February 15, 2019 through May 31, 2019>'RFNHW1R;;;@WKH3$SSOLFDWLRQ ́ILOHG

E\%DNHU	+RVWHWOHU//33%DNHU ́FRXQVHOIRUWKH2IILFLDO&RPPLWWHHRI7RUW&ODLPDQWV

37&& ́%DVHGXSRQWKH&RXUW¶VUHYLHZDQGFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKH$SSOLFDWLRQWKHGHFODUDWLRQV

LQVXSSRUWWKHUHRIDQGWKHRWKHUUHFRUGVDQGSOHDGLQJVILOHGLQWKHDERYHFDSWLRQHGFKDSWHU

FDVH

7+(&2857+(5(%<),1'6WKDWQRWLFHRIDQGRSSRUWXQLW\IRUDKHDULQJRQWKH

$SSOLFDWLRQZDVGXO\JLYHQWKDWVXFKQRWLFHZDVDSSURSULDWHDQGVXIILFLHQWXQGHUWKHSDUWLFXODU

FLUFXPVWDQFHV,WDSSHDUVWRWKH&RXUWWKDWJRRGFDXVHH[LVWVIRULQWHULPDSSURYDORIWKHIHHVDQG

H[SHQVHVUHTXHVWHGE\%DNHULQWKH$SSOLFDWLRQSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQRIWKH%DQNUXSWF\&RGH

DQG)HGHUDO5XOHRI%DQNUXSWF\3URFHGXUH7KH&RXUWIXUWKHUILQGVWKDWWKHIHHVDQG

H[SHQVHVUHTXHVWHGLQWKH$SSOLFDWLRQDUHUHDVRQDEOHDQGKDYHEHHQHDUQHG

7+(5()25(,7,6+(5(%<25'(5('

 7KH$SSOLFDWLRQLVDSSURYHGRQDQLQWHULPEDVLVDVUHIOHFWHGKHUHLQ

 $ZDUGLQJLQWHULPDOORZDQFHRIFRPSHQVDWLRQIRUSURIHVVLRQDOVHUYLFHVUHQGHUHG

GXULQJWKH$SSOLFDWLRQ3HULRGLQWKHDPRXQWRIFRQVLVWLQJRILQIHHV

RFFXUUHGDQGLQDFWXDODQGQHFHVVDU\H[SHQVHV

 $XWKRUL]LQJDQGGLUHFWLQJWKH'HEWRUVWRPDNHSURPSWSD\PHQWWR%DNHUWKHWRWDO

DPRXQWRIZKLFKLVWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHDPRXQWUHTXHVWHGDQGWKHDPRXQW

DOUHDG\SDLGE\WKH'HEWRUVSXUVXDQWWRWKH,QWHULP&RPSHQVDWLRQ2UGHU

 7KH&RXUWUHWDLQVMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUDQ\LVVXHVRUGLVSXWHVDULVLQJRXWRIRUUHODWLQJ

WRWKLV2UGHU




(1'25'(5




Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2995-14 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:38:11 Page 3

of 3
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13532]



[[Page 32163]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Federal Advisory Committee; Meeting of the Defense Policy Board

AGENCY: Defense Policy Board, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Policy Board will meet in closed session on June 
23 and 24, 2010, at the Pentagon.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 23, 2010, from 0730 hrs until 
1800 hrs and on June 24, 2010, from 0730 hrs until 1030 hrs.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Pentagon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ann Hansen, 703-571-9232.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to provide the 
Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy with independent, informed advice on major 
matters of defense policy. The Board will hold classified discussions 
on national security matters.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App II (1982)), it has 
been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
552B(c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to 
the public.

    Dated: June 2, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-13532 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARK D. WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

TAKELYA L. WALKER,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00029-CV

Appeal from the

426th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC#294,292A)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the trial court’s judgment 

should be affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. We affirm the trial court’s order on 

all issues not related to the interest rate set on the judgment against Appellant for the child support 

arrearage owed to Appellee. We reverse the trial court’s order that 12% interest be applied to the

child support arrearage and remand the cause to the trial court for consideration of the amount of 

interest to be included in the judgment consistent with the terms of this decision.

We further order that Appellee recovers from Appellant and his sureties, if any, for 

performance of the judgment and all costs, for which let execution issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5.

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Signed and Filed: February 12, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 12, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 413 Filed: 02/12/19 Entered: 02/12/19 15:55:05 Page 1 of 1
#### SAVANNAH RIGGAN, Administratrix, v. C. H. HARRISON et al.

(Filed 21 September, 1932.)

1. Appeal and Error E a — The issues ux>on which a case is tried are a necessary part of the record proper;

The pleadings on which a case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from are necessary parts of the record, Rule 19, sec. 1, and where the record does not contain these necessary parts the appeal will be dismissed.

*1922. Appeal and Error G b — Exceptions not discussed in brief are abandoned.

Exceptions wbicb are not brought forward and discussed in appellant’s brief are deemed abandoned. Rule 28.

3. Appeal and Error F g — Affidavit for appeal in forma pauperis must contain averment that counsel has advised that there is error.

The affidavit for appeal *in forma pauperis*must contain an averment that appellant is advised by counsel that there is error of law in the decision appealed from, O. S., 649, and the matter is jurisdictional and may not be cured by consent of counsel.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gowper, Special Judge,*at April Term, 1932, of Haenett.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful death, occasioned by an automobile accident.

It appears from the charge of the court that the usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to the jury, and it was stated on the argument that the first two issues were answered in the affirmative. The judgment recites they were answered in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*Young & Young for plaintiff.*

*Thos. W. Puffin for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

*We*have examined the seven assignments of error appearing on the record and find none of sufficient merit to warrant a new trial.

But for other reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.

1. Rule 19, sec. 1, provides that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” The issues upon which the case was tried are not in the record. It is the uniform practice to dismiss the appeal for failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper. *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126; *Waters v. Waters, ibid.,*667, 155 S. E., 564.

2. None of the assignments of error is brought forward and discussed in appellant’s brief. They are, therefore, deemed to be abandoned. *S. v. Lea, ante,*13. “Exceptions in the record not set out in appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.” Rule 28; *In re Beard,*202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748.

*1933. The appeal is *in forma pauperis,*and the affidavit is defective in that it does not contain tbe averment as required by C. S., 649, that appellant “is advised by counsel learned in tbe law tbat there is error of law in tbe decision of the Superior Court in said action.” Tbis is a jurisdictional matter. *Honeycutt v. Watkins,*151 N. C., 652, 65 S. E., 762.

Following the entry of appeal-is tbe notation: “Appeal *in forma pauperis*by consent.” Tbis,.of course, is unavailing. 7 R. C. L., 1039.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WENDELL JONES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 24 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all 

remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in denying Petitioner’s claim trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on alibi 

and failing to object to the court’s failure to provide such an 

instruction in its final charge to the jury?
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGEACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14578

 

 

HCW PENSION REAL ESTATE FUNDLIMITED PARTNERSHIP 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes __ No   X_
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 27, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01352-CV CHESTER CARR II AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF 1163 SOPHIA STREET, AL LEN, TEXAS 75013, Appellants V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 002-00510-2013



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellee’s motion to di smiss the appeal. Appellee contends the appeal should be dismissed for want of pros ecution. Appellants did not file a response to appellee’s motion. In a letter dated December 31, 2013, the Court in formed appellants that they had received notice from the Collin County Clerk that the cler k’s record had not been filed because they had not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee. We instructed appellants to file, within ten days, either written verification that appellants have pa id or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee or written documentation that they have been found to be entitled to proceed without advance payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that if we did not r eceive the required documentation within the time specified the C ourt might dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).–2– As of today’s date, appellants have not responded to our request for documentation regarding payment for the clerk’s record. Acco rdingly, we grant appell ee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b) & 42.3(b).

1313532F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CHESTER CARR II AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF 1163 SOPHIA STREET, ALLEN, TEXAS 75013, Appellants
No. 05-13-01352-CV V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Collin County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 002-00510-2013. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Brown, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., recover its costs of this appeal from appellants, CHESTER CARR II AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF 1163 SOPHIA STREET, ALLEN, TEXAS 75013.
Judgment entered February 27, 2014

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
|   | (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/      John J. Lennon |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                    |   |
|   | Name:                   | John      J. Lennon |
|   | Title:                  | President,      Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board |
|   |                    | (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|   |                    |   |
|   | /s/      John J. Lennon |
|   |                    |   |
|   | Name:                   | John      J. Lennon |
|   | Title:                  | President,      Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board |
|   |                    | (Principal      Financial Officer |
|   |                    | and      Principal Accounting Officer) |

----
#### CARLENE WOODY v. A. A. PRIVETT.

(Filed 10 September, 1930.)

Judgments K b — Finding of meritorious defense is necessary to order setting aside judgment for excusable neglect, etc.

In order to have a judgment by default set aside on tbe ground of excusable neglect and irregularity tbe movant must show a meritorious defense, and where sucb defense is not made to appear an order granting a motion therefor will be vacated on appeal and the cause remanded.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Grady, J.,*at May Term, 1930, of WilsoN.

Motion to set aside judgment by default and inquiry for excusable neglect and irregularity. Motion allowed, and plaintiff appeals.

*W. A. Lucas for plaintiff.*

*O. P. Diclcinson and Finch, Band & Finch for defendant.*

*379Stacy, O. J.

There is no finding of a meritorious defense, hence the order vacating the judgment will be set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the rights of the parties. *Jones v. Swepson,*94 N. C., 699; *Gaylord, v. Berry,*169 N. C., 733, 86 S. E., 623.

A party who seeks to be relieved from a judgment on the ground of excusable neglect or irregularity must show merit, otherwise the court would be 'engaged in the vain procedure of setting aside a judgment, when, if there be no defense, it would be its duty to enter the same judgment again on motion' of the adverse party. *Taylor v. Gentry,*192 N. C., 503, 135 S. E., 327; *Duffer v. Brunson,*188 N. C., 789, 125 S. E., 619; *Crumpler v. Hines,*174 N. C., 283, 93 S. E., 780.

Error and remanded.
#### Thomas M. King, Respondent, v. Reon Barnes, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Order granting stay reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.