alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Byrne v. Byron W. S. Clark.

*Practice—Bill of Exceptions—Attachment of Documents to by Stipulation.*

1. The omission to incorporate in a bill of exceptions certain papers can not be repaired by a stipulation that the clerk shall attach them thereto; for the determination of what shall be a part of the bill is a judicial act and can not be delegated.

2. This court can only consider in a given controversy, matters incorporated in a bill of exceptions duly authenticated by the signature and seal of the trial judge.;

[Opinion filed April 3, 1889.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding. '

Mr. E. W. Adkinson, for appellant.

Mr. E. F. Thompson, for appellee.

Gary, J.

There is nothing in this record from which this court can see what was done in the case in the Superior Court. There is a declaration in assumpsit with special and common counts and amended declaration of like character, each of which are followed in the transcript by what purport to be exhibits or copies of instruments sued upon. But such copies are no part of the pleading either on demurrer in the Supe*652rior Court—Hart v. Tolman, 1 Grilm. 1, Harlow v. Boswell, 15 Ill. 56—or on appeal to this: Sims v. Hugsby, Bre. 413; Franey v. True, 26 Ill. 184; though they may become so for both courts by being set out on oyer, or for this, by bill of exceptions. Smith v. Wilson, 26 Ill. 186, is one of the numerous cases as to what, to be seen on error, must be on a bill of exceptions. These exhibits or copies are probably copied again in the transcript, after the bill of exceptions, with instructions and motions, but they are there invisible to the judicial eye. The parties seem to have stipulated that the clerk should repair the omission of the appellant, to incorporate all these papers in the bill of exceptions by attaching them to it, but the determination of what shall be a part of the bill of exceptions is a judicial act, and can not be delegated even by the court to the clerk. Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. 489.

Since the statute permitting original bills of exceptions to be used on appeal for writ of error, many decisions have been made that the court of review can not look beyond what is authenticated by the signature and seal of the judge, to ascertain what happened in the course of the case below.

Here is a verdict and judgment upon the common counts. Without the documentary evidence, which this court can not see, it is not possible to judge, even as to the relevancy or competency of the testimony that is in a shape to be seen here.

The presumption, unless the contrary appears, is that the judgment is right. Schmidt v. Braley, 112 Ill. 48.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2992]



[[Page 7121]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510


Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Change of Sponsor 
Address

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal 
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor address for 
Bioproducts, Inc.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith M. O'Haro, Center for 
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-238), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bioproducts, Inc., has informed FDA of a 
change of address from 8221 Brecksville Rd., Cleveland, OH 44141, to 
320 Springside Dr., suite 300, Fairlawn, OH 44333-2435. Accordingly, 
the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) and 
(c)(2) to reflect the new address.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and 
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is 
amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 512, 701, 721 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 
353, 360b, 371, 379e).


Sec. 510.600  [Amended]

    2. Section 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of 
sponsors of approved applications is amended in the table in paragraph 
(c)(1) in the entry for ``Bioproducts, Inc.,'' and in the table in 
paragraph (c)(2) in the entry for ``051359'' by removing ``8221 
Brecksville Rd., Cleveland, OH 44141'' and adding in its place ``320 
Springside Dr., suite 300, Fairlawn, OH 44333-2435''.

    Dated: January 31, 1995.
George A. Mitchell,
Director, Office of Surveillance and Compliance, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 95-2992 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
FILE COPY

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

(512)463-1312

October 17, 2013

Mr. Steven Rade Guy

The Norman Law Firm

215 East Commerce St, 2nd Floor

Jacksonville, TX 75766-1870

Mr. Gregory Lee West

Cherokee County Jail

272 Underwood St.

Rusk, TX 75785

RE: Case Number: 13-0760

Court of Appeals Number: 12-13-00273-CV

Trial Court Number: 2011 -02-0106

Style: IN RE GREGORY LEE WEST

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court lifted the abatement order of September 30, 2013 and reinstated the

petition for writ of habeas corpus in the above-referenced case. The Supreme Court requests that real

party in interestfile a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the above-referenced case. The

response is due to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m., October 23, 2013. PLEASE NOTE pursuant to Misc.

Docket No. 11-9152 - Electronic-Filing Rules, Attorneys must e-file all documents (except documents

submitted under seal) through Texas.gov. Persons not represented by an attorney may e-file documents,

but e-filing is not required. Two paper copies of the requested response must be filed within three

business days after the response is e-filed. The paper courtesy copies must be the printed version of the

file-stamped e-filed response and must comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9. Y For more

details, see the Court's Order Requiring Electronic Documents in the Supreme Court of Texas at

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/11/11915200.pdf.

Please note all notices or communication about this case will be sent by email in lieu of mailing

paper documents. (See Misc. Docket No. 11-9152, Electronic-Filing Rule No. 9).

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

cc: Ms. Laveme Lusk

Ms. Cathy S. Lusk

Ms. Kelley Denney Peacock

Cherokee County District Attorney

PO Box 839

Linden, TX 75563

FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th Court ofAppeals District

/LER TEXAS CATHY S. LUSrdCLERJ

Ml --
## Financial Data for a Selected Time Period

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Time series for selected trust fund components 

Graphs showing trust fund assets, income, & cost.

Trust fund data

Trust fund FAQs

Beneficiary data

Old-Age and Survivors InsuranceDisability Insurancecomponents of income and cost
**Select *one* option from the following              		   1. Select type of year: 		     Calendar               FiscalThe Federal Government's fiscal year is the 12-month period ending September 30.             2. Select calendar quarter:            1              2              3              4 			            3.                        Select month January             February             March             April             May             June             July             August             September             October             November             December            Display units  None          Thousands          Millions          Billions                 Footer menu**
Document

Exhibit 10(t)(t)(t)


AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE
HP INC.
2005 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
The HP Inc. 2005 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the dates provided below:
1.Effective with respect to amounts earned by an Outside Director on or after March 1, 2023, the definition of “Annual Retainer” in Article I shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“Annual Retainer” means the cash portion of any annual retainer paid to an Outside Director, as well as any cash paid to an Outside Director with respect to additional meeting fees or chairman or committee chair fees.


2. Effective as of January 1, 2023, a new definition of “Points” shall be added to Article I to read as follows:


“Points” means the sum of a Participant’s age and years of service, based on the continuous service date (or its equivalent) reflected in the Company’s HR system of record.
3.Effective as of January 1, 2023, the definition of “Retirement Date” in Article I shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“Retirement Date” means, (a) with respect to deferrals of a Participant’s Actual Pay for Plan Years beginning before January 1, 2023, and deferrals of Incentive Pay with respect to performance periods beginning before November 1, 2022. the date on which a Participant has completed at least 15 years of service, as measured from such Participant’s last hire date, and has attained age 55, and (b) with respect to deferrals of a Participant’s Actual Pay for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2023, and deferrals of Incentive Pay with respect to performance periods beginning on and after November 1, 2022, the date on which a Participant has attained age 55 and at least 70 Points. 
In all other respects the Plan, as amended herein, is hereby ratified and confirmed.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, HP Inc. has caused this instrument to be signed by its duly authorized officer as of this  20  day of September, 2022.


															
		HP INC.
		
		By:	 /s/ Kristen Ludgate
		Its:	 Chief People Officer
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 516 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:57:15 Page 1 of 1
[No. 24330.

*En Banc.*

April 21, 1933.]

#### Seattle Gas Company, *Appellant,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.**2*

*Poe, Falknor, Falknor & Emory,*for appellant.

*A. O. Van Soelen, Walter L. Baumgartner*and *G. V. Hoard,*for respondent.

2

Reported in 21 P. (2d) 732.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action brought to enjoin the enforcement of a tax imposed upon appellant under ordinance No. 62,662 of the city of Seattle. The same questions are raised as in the cases of *Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Seattle, ante p.*649, 21 P. (2d) 721, and *Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, ante*p. 667, 21 P. (2d) 727. For the reasons stated in those cases, the judgment entered herein is affirmed.

Steinert, J.

(dissenting)- — For the reasons already stated by me in *Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Seattle, ante*p. 649, 21 P. (2d) 721, and *Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, ante*p. 667, 21 P. (2d) 727, I dissent.
No. 1307, Misc.

#### Bell *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 21  SUBSIDIARIES:  Dendrite Andes (Ecuador) Dendrite Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia) Dendrite Belgium S.A. (Belgium) Dendrite Brasil LTDA (Brazil) Dendrite Canada Company (Canada) Dendrite Colombia LTDA (Colombia) Dendrite France S.A. (France) Dendrite Hungary Software Services, Inc. (Hungary) Dendrite Interactive Marketing, LLC (New Jersey) Dendrite International Services Company (Delaware) Dendrite Italia, S.R.I. (Italy) Dendrite Japan Corporation (Japan) Dendrite Mexico (Mexico) Dendrite Netherlands, B.V. (Netherlands) Dendrite New Zealand Ltd. (New Zealand) Dendrite Portugal (Portugal) Dendrite Software India Private Limited (India) Dendrite U.K. Ltd. (United Kingdom) Info-Med Gesellschaft fur Marketing mbH (Germany) Informed Management Ltd.  (UK) Permail Pty. Ltd. (Australia) Pharma Vision BV (The Netherlands) Pharma Vision Marketing Services S.A. (Belgium) PMS Pty. Ltd (Australia) SAI Acquisition L.L.C (New Jersey) Synavant Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia) Synavant Belgium SA/NV (Belgium) Synavant Canada Ltd. (Canada) Synavant Data GmbH (Austria) Synavant de Brazil Ltda. (Brazil) Synavant de Mexico S.A. (Mexico) Synavant Deutschland (Germany) Synavant France SA (France) Synavant Hellas SA (Greece) Synavant Italia S.r.L. (Italy) Synavant Nederland B.V. (Netherlands)  
   Synavant Netherlands Finance B.V. (The Netherlands) Synavant Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. (Singapore) Synavant Spain SA (Spain) Synavant
Turkey, Inc. (DE) Synavant UK Holding Ltd. (U.K.) Synavant UK, Ltd. (U.K.) Uto Brain Co., Ltd. (Japan)
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS FREDRICK SMITH 

### 71 •79 ;; 

# i---•
NO. 

### 2023 KW 0771 

### AUGUST 11, 2023
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,



### 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### DC -22- 03661.
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. 

## The trial court's ruling denying the state's motion to continue 

### is vacated. Pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 711, unless the motion to continue 

### is 

## consented to by all parties, 

### the motion shall be tried summarily and contradictorily with the adverse 

### party. The trial court cannot 

## deny the motion ex parte without giving the mover an opportunity to have a 

# hearing andpresentevidence thatcanbe reviewed bythis court. Accordingly, the motion 

### is remanded to the trial court for a 

## contradictory hearing on the merits ofthe motion. PMC CHH SMM
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Ex Rel. H. EDMUND RODGERS, Admr. c. t. a. of Estate of R. L. FOX, v. O. E. TODD and B. F. BRITTAIN, JR., Executors of Estate of R. L. FOX, Deceased, and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA.

(Filed 12 December, 1945.)

1. Appeal and Error § 30b—

An appeal which is both premature and fragmentary will be dismissed.

2.- Same—

No appeal lies from the denial of motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Appeal by defendants from *Williams, J.,*at October Term, 1945, of New HaNovee. Appeal dismissed.

*Poisson & Campbell for plaintiff.*

*Stevens & Burgwyn for defendants.*

*690Per Curiam.

This was an action by tbe administrator *c. t. a.*of tbe estate of R. L. Eox against former executors of tbe estate and tbe surety on tbeir bond to recover for losses alleged to bave been sustained by tbe estate due to failure to account for certain funds collected and for negligent failure to collect others. Tbe defendants, among other defenses, pleaded several statutes of limitation, and moved tbe court for judgment declaring plaintiff’s action barred, and for judgment on tbe pleadings.

Tbe court below held that neither of tbe statutes of limitation pleaded constituted a bar, and denied tbe motion. Defendants excepted and appealed.

It is apparent that defendants’ appeal is both premature and fragmentary. No final judgment has been rendered, and no substantial rights of the. defendants bave been affected by tbe ruling which cannot be protected by an exception and appeal from tbe final judgment, if adverse. Only part of tbe case has been brought up, leaving other parts unsettled. *Johnson v. Ins. Co.,*215 N. C., 120, 1 S. E. (2d), 381; *Cole v. Trust Co.,*221 N. C., 249, 20 S. E. (2d), 348; *Utilities Com. v. R. R.,*223 N. C., 840, 28 S. E. (2d), 490; McIntosh Prac. & Proc., 776. No appeal lies from tbe denial of motion for judgment on tbe pleadings.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10.1


 


SEVENTH AMENDMENT


 


This
Seventh Amendment, effective as of the date set forth above the signatures of
the parties below, amends the Amended and Restated Exclusive Patent License
Agreement effective November 1, 2002, as subsequently amended by a First
Amendment on November 15, 2002, a Letter Agreement on September 12,
2003, a Letter Agreement on October 22, 2003, a Second Amendment on November 19,
2003, a Third Amendment on April 2, 2004, a Fourth Amendment on July 17,
2004, a Fifth Amendment on August 5, 2006, and a Sixth Amendment on January 10,
2007 (“LICENSE AGREEMENT”) between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“M.I.T.”),
a Massachusetts corporation having its principal office at 77 Massachusetts
Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139, USA and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(“COMPANY”), a Delaware corporation having its principal office at 675 West
Kendall Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.


 


WHEREAS,
M.I.T. Case No. 9180 is licensed to COMPANY and COMPANY will pay for
maintaining the U.S. issued patent 6,846,917 relating to M.I.T. Case No. 9180
as of January 16, 2009; and


 


WHEREAS,
COMPANY does not desire to support patent costs related to PATENT RIGHTS CASE
9180 BACKGROUND.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained
herein, the parties hereby agree to modify the LICENSE AGREEMENT as follows:


 


1.             PATENT
RIGHTS CASE 9180 BACKGROUND shall be removed from the LICENSE AGREEMENT and
rights shall be terminated effective immediately.


 


2.             COMPANY
shall be responsible for all costs incurred after January 16, 2009
relating to U.S. patent 6,846,917 (relating to M.I.T. Case No. 9180) pursuant
to Section 6.4.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed under
seal by their duly authorized representatives.


 


Signatures follow on next page:


 


The Effective Date of this Seventh Amendment is June 1,
2009.


 


 


	
  MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF

  	
   

  	
  MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS,

  	
   

  	
  TECHNOLOGY

  
	
  INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Lita Nelson

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Bruce Leicher

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Lita L. Nelsen

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Bruce Leicher

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Director, Technology
  Licensing Office

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Senior VP and General
  Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0908]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Clinical Trial 
Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring 
Committees

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Clinical Trial 
Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring 
Committees'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d585879486a1b4b3b395b3b1b4fbbdbda6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="227270637156434444624446430c4a4a510c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 22, 2015, the Agency submitted 
a proposed collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Clinical 
Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data 
Monitoring Committees'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 
3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0581. 
The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01781 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1709

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. NUBIAN PRINCESS ENT, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01625-TLW)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert L. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely

filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 31, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed at the earliest on June 13, 2008. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### H. P. SWINSON v. LANCE PACKING COMPANY et al.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

*1.*Pleading’s E a: Judgments *It*a—

The denial of a motion to amend tlie complaint by adding two canses of action nonsuited on tbe evidence upon a former trial is properly entered upon tbe grounds of *res judicata.*

2. Pleadings E c—

Tbe trial court bas tbe discretionary power to allow a complaint to be amended by adding two new causes of action based upon tbe same subject of action as tbe original cause.

Appeals by plaintiff and defendant Lance Packing Company from *McElroy, J.,*at April Term, 1935, of Mecklenbubg.

*Oa/rswell & Ervin for •plaintiff.*

*Tillett, Tillett & Kennedy for defendant Packing Company.*

Stacy, C. J.

Civil action for slander, tried originally at May Term, 1934, appeal by defendant, and new trial ordered 28 January, 1935, opinion reported in 207 N. C., 637, 178 S. E., 111.

Thereafter, plaintiff asked to be. permitted to amend bis complaint (1) by bringing forward again tbe two causes of action originally non-suited; and (2) by adding two new causes of action originally regarded as secondary publications. See case as reported on first appeal.

Tbe court denied tbe first part of tbe motion on tbe ground of *res judi-cata (Revis v. Ramsey,*202 N. C., 815), and allowed tbe second part in bis discretion. Botb sides appeal. Tbe ruling on tbe first part of tbe motion is affirmed on wbat was said in *Hampton v. Spinning Co.,*198 N. C., 235, 151 S. E., 266, and tbat on tbe second part on authority of *Grant v. Burgwyn, 88*N. C., 95.

Defendant’s appeal seems precautionary, as tbe matter presently debated doubtless would have been rendered academic by subsequent plea and motion. *Capps v. R. R.,*183 N. C., 181, 111 S. E., 533; *Gordon v. Fredle,*206 N. C., 734, 175 S. E., 126.

On plaintiff’s appeal, affirmed.

On defendant’s appeal, affirmed.