alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 12/7/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 234

Kenneth Paul Hoover, Appellant

v.

Director, North Dakota

Department of Transportation, Appellee

No. 20100226

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Gail H. Hagerty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Michael R. Hoffman, P.O. Box 1056, Bismarck, ND 58502-1056, for appellant.

Douglas B. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 N. 9th Street, Bismarck, ND 58501-4509, for appellee.

Hoover v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation

No. 20100226

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kenneth Paul Hoover appealed a district court’s judgment affirming the administrative revocation of his driver’s license.  Hoover argues he was denied the opportunity to cure his prior refusal to submit to a blood test.  We affirm the district court’s judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).  See Houn v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2000 ND 131, ¶ 9, 613 N.W.2d 29 (noting the arrestee has the burden of curing a prior refusal within two hours of driving) (citing Lund v. Hjelle, 224 N.W.2d 552, 557 (N.D. 1974)).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Zane Anderson, D.J.

[¶3]The Honorable Zane Anderson, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
#### James JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. T. SMITH & SON, Inc., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14420.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 27, 1933.

W. H. Sellers, of New Orleans, for appellant. '

Harry R. Cabral,-of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment awarding plaintiff, a negro longshoreman, seven weeks’ compensation at the rate of $20 a week, plus a doctor bill of $22.

The propriety of the award is dependent upon the medical testimony in the record. Two doctors testified, one for plaintiff and one for defendant. Their testimony is irreconcilable, one declaring that plaintiff was disabled during the period for which he claims compensation, and the other that the disability terminated seven weeks earlier, when he was discharged as having been restored to health and able to work.

Due to the fact that the trial court believed the testimony of plaintiff’s physician, and considering that on our own account we are unable to say, after an examination of the record, that the judge a quo was manifestly in error, we have concluded that the judgment appealed from must be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3875 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3875

  To redesignate the dam located at mile 153.6 on the Rogue River in 
 Jackson County, Oregon, and commonly known as the Lost Creek Dam Lake 
     Project, as the ``William L. Jess Dam and Intake Structure''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 1996

Mr. Cooley of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the dam located at mile 153.6 on the Rogue River in 
 Jackson County, Oregon, and commonly known as the Lost Creek Dam Lake 
     Project, as the ``William L. Jess Dam and Intake Structure''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The dam located at mile 153.6 on the Rogue River in Jackson County, 
Oregon, and commonly known as the Lost Creek Dam Lake Project, shall be 
known and designated as the ``William L. Jess Dam and Intake 
Structure''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the dam referred to in section 1 shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``William L. Jess Dam and Intake 
Structure''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL NO. 09-10467

LIONEL KEITH BOYD, JR.,

Plaintiff(s),

-vSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., ET.AL,

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER SETTING ASIDE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

At a session of said court, held in the

 United States Courthouse, in the City of

 Detroit, State of Michigan, on February 18, 2009.

 

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Court having issued an Order to Show Cause for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and the Defendant having filed a consent to removal, therefore;

IT IS ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction be and the same is hereby SET ASIDE.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: February 18, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on February 18, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10467-PJD-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 02/18/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 77
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Giovanni Borrero, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00118

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 76th District Court of Titus County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 17,812 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We no te that the appellant, Giovanni Borrero, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 4, 2013 BY O RDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ASHER DANIEL JONES

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D1 9

- 1596

[ November 27, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 50 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 43

- 2002

- CF

- 000867

.

Charles G. White of Charles G. White, P.A., Miami

, for appellant

.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Ares Management LLC 
 1999 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 1900 
 Los Angeles, California 90067 

March 28, 2014 
 EXCO Resources, Inc. 

12377 Merit Drive, Suite 1700 
 Dallas, TX 75251 

 

	 	Re:	Termination of Board Designee to the Board of Directors 

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to that certain side letter dated March 28, 2007 (the “Side Letter”), regarding the nomination of
designee to the Board of Directors of EXCO Resources, Inc. (“EXCO”), by and among EXCO, Ares Corporate Opportunities Fund, L.P., ACOF EXCO, L.P., ACOF EXCO 892 Investors, L.P., Ares Corporate Opportunities Fund II, L.P., Ares EXCO,
L.P., and Ares EXCO 892 Investors, L.P. 
 Effective as of the date hereof, the parties to the Side Letter hereby acknowledge and agree that
the Side Letter is hereby terminated and of no further force or effect. 
 [Signature page follows.] 







 If the foregoing accurately sets forth our understanding, please acknowledge by
signing in the space provided below. 
 Sincerely, 

 

							
	ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L.P.
		
		 	 BY: ACOF OPERATING MANAGER, L.P.

Its Manager

				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Naseem Sagati

		 		 	Name:	 	Naseem Sagati
		 		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ACOF EXCO, L.P.
		
		 	BY: ACOF MANAGEMENT, L.P.
		 	Its General Partner
			
		 		 	 BY: ACOF OPERATING
 MANAGER,
L.P.

		 		 	Its General Partner
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Naseem Sagati

		 		 	Name:	 	Naseem Sagati
		 		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ACOF EXCO 892 INVESTORS, L.P.
		
		 	BY: ACOF MANAGEMENT, L.P.
		 	Its General Partner
			
		 		 	 BY: ACOF OPERATING
 MANAGER,
L.P.

		 		 	Its General Partner
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Naseem Sagati

		 		 	Name:	 	Naseem Sagati
		 		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND II, L.P.
		
		 	BY: ACOF OPERATING MANAGER II, L.P. Its Manager
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Naseem Sagati

		 		 	Name:	 	Naseem Sagati
		 		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory


 [Signature page to side letter] 







 
							
	ARES EXCO, L.P.
		
		 	BY: ACOF MANAGEMENT II, L.P.
		 	Its General Partner
			
		 		 	 BY: ACOF OPERATING
 MANAGER II,
L.P.

		 		 	Its General Partner
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Naseem Sagati

		 		 	Name:	 	Naseem Sagati
		 		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ARES EXCO 892 INVESTORS, L.P.
		
		 	BY: ACOF MANAGEMENT II, L.P.
		 	Its General Partner
			
		 		 	 BY: ACOF OPERATING
 MANAGER II,
L.P.

		 		 	Its General Partner
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Naseem Sagati

		 		 	Name:	 	Naseem Sagati
		 		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory


 Agreed and Accepted as of the date 

set forth above: 
 EXCO RESOURCES, INC. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/ William L. Boeing

	Name:	 	William L. Boeing
	Title:	 	Vice President and General Counsel

 [Signature page to side letter]
#### Lee E. STEVENSON and Arthur Mitchell, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John J. McKEITHEN, Governor of the State of Louisiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 72-2937

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 5, 1972.

Luke Fontana, New Orleans, La., for Stevenson.

David L. Morgan, New Orleans, La., for Mitchell.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stanford O. Bardwell, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir,; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 E.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

The attempted appeal in this case is dismissed because it is taken from a non-final judgment. See Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company v. Randolph, 8 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 996; United States v. Atlantic Coast Line, 5 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 1015; 9 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 110.07.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6093

DAVID M. WASANYI, Pharm.D. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. GEORGE TRENT, Superintendent, PCC , Respondent

- Appellee , and
BERKELEY COUNTY , Respondent

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 00225

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
David M. Wasanyi, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA , Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David M. Wasanyi seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions and denying a certificate of appealability . The order s are not

a ppealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the priso ner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134,
140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wasanyi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Wasanyi’s motions to appoint counsel, deny Wasanyi’s motions to transfer his case to another district court judge, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

. DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.39

 

Equity Transfer Agreement

(translated version)

 

This Agreement is executed as of September 2, 2013 by and between:

 

	
Transferor: Yu   Zhou
    	
ID Card No.:   370203197209032018 (“Party A”)
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Transferee: Qin   Qiong
    	
ID Card No.:   310108197109214485 (“Party B”)
    


 

SHANGHAI QUAN TOODOU NETWORK SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD (the “Target Company”) has a registered capital of RMB 150 million, of which Qin Qiong contributed RMB 100 million, representing 66.7%, Yu Zhou contributed RMB 27 million, representing 18%, and Liu Dele contributed RMB 23 million, representing 15.3%. In accordance with pertinent laws and regulations, upon amicable negotiations between the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

 

Article  1                                                Subject and Price of Transfer

 

1.                          Party A will transfer the 18% equity it holds in the Target Company (equivalent to RMB 27 million) to Party B at a valuated price of RMB 27 million.

 

2.                          Other rights affiliated to the equity will be transferred together with the equity.

 

3.                          The Transferee shall pay the equity transfer price in full to the Transferor in cash or via wire transfer within 30 days upon the date hereof.

 

Article  2                                                Undertakings and Warranties

 

Party A undertakes that it is the legal owner of, and has full and valid right to dispose of, the equity to be transferred to Party B pursuant to Article 1 hereof. Party A further undertakes that the equity to be transferred by it is free of any mortgage or other security interest and subject to no claims by any third person.

 

Article  3                                                Liabilities for Breach

 

To the extent that Party B fails to pay the equity transfer price as scheduled, for each overdue day, it shall bear a penalty fine equivalent to 0.1% of the outstanding amount of equity transfer price; it shall also compensate Party A for any economic loss arising as a result of its breach that cannot be covered by the penalty fine.

 

Article  4                                                Dispute Resolution

 

Any disputes arising from the performance of this Agreement shall be resolved by the Parties through amicable negotiations. In case such negotiations fail, such disputes shall be summited to Shanghai Arbitration Commission for arbitration.

 

Article  5                                                Miscellaneous

 

1.                          This Agreement is made in five originals, one for each Party and one for the Target Company for purposes of relevant procedures.

 











 

2.                          This Agreement shall take effect upon executed by both Parties.

 

[No body text below]

 

 

	
Party A   (signature): 
    	
/s/ Yu Zhou
    	
 
    	
Party B   (signature):
    	
/s/ Qiong Qin
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:   September 2, 2013
    	
 
    


 

2
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhiguang Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  May
      20, 2008
            /s/
      Zhiguang ZhangBy:  Zhiguang
      ZhangIts:  Chief
      Executive Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4170

To provide a sentence of death for certain importations of significant

quantities of controlled substances.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. GINGRICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To provide a sentence of death for certain importations of

significant quantities of controlled substances.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Importer Death

5 Penalty Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 4170 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERNATIONAL DRUG

2 TRAFFICKING.

3 Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import

4 and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended by adding

5 at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

7 the court shall sentence a person convicted of a violation

8 of subsection (a), consisting of bringing into the United

9 States a mixture or substance—

10 ‘‘(A) which is described in subsection (b)(1);

11 and

12 ‘‘(B) in an amount the Attorney General by

13 rule has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage

14 amounts of such mixture or substance;

15 to imprisonment for life without possibility of release. If

16 the defendant has violated this subsection on more than

17 one occasion and the requirements of chapter 228 of title

18 18, United States Code, are satisfied, the court shall sen19 tence the defendant to death.

20 ‘‘(2) The maximum fine that otherwise may be im21 posed, but for this subsection, shall not be reduced by op22 eration of this subsection.’’

23 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED

24 STATES CODE.

25 (a) INCLUSION OF OFFENSE.—Section 3591(b) of

26 title 18, United States Code, is amended—
3

•HR 4170 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

2 (1);

3 (2) by striking the comma at the end of para4 graph (2) and inserting ‘‘; or’’ at the end of para5 graph (2); and

6 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the follow7 ing:

8 ‘‘(3) an offense described in section 1010(e)(1)

9 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export

10 Act;’’

11 (b) ADDITIONAL AGGRAVATING FACTOR.—Section

12 3592(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

13 inserting after paragraph (8) the following:

14 ‘‘(9) SECOND IMPORTATION OFFENSE.—The

15 offense consisted of a second or subsequent violation

16 of section 1010(a) of the Controlled Substances Im17 port and Export Act consisting of bringing a con18 trolled substance into the United States.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Case No. 09-12950

Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA,

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER SETTING THE DEADLINE FOR RECEIVER TO RESPOND

TO HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation [dkt. # 114],

It is ORDERED that Earle I. Erman, the Receiver of BBC Equities, LLC and Bravata

Financial Group, LLC, shall file his response to Huntington National Bank’s motion to intervene

on or before Monday, November 16, 2009.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: October 29, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on October 29, 2009.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 128 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 1 of 1
#### R. Gordon McNeil, Appellant, *v.*The Board of Supervisors of the County of Suffolk and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Frank H. Call and Others, Respondents.

Second Department,

March 5, 1909.

Pleading — practice — right to answer after frivolous demurrer.

Where the demurrer of a defendant is overruled as frivolous he should not be permitted to answer except upon showing to the, reasonable satisfaction of the court that the demurrer was interposed in good faith and-that he has a valid defense.

Appeal by the plaintiff, R. Gordon McNeil, from part of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on the 28th day of September, 1908.

*John J. Cunneen*[ *William W. Niles*with him on thebrief], for the appellant.

*George H. Furman,*for .the respondents.

Jenks, J.:

The plaintiff moved for judgment in that the defendants’ demurrer was frivolous. The Special Term thereupon made an order that declared the demurrer frivolous, and ordered judgment with costs and $10 costs of the motion, but that also granted leave to the defendants on payment of $10 costs .of this motion to serve an answer within 10 days. The plaintiff appeals from the part of the order that permits an answer. (Code Civ. Proc, § 497,) When a demur*127rer is overruled as frivolous, the demurrant as a defendant should not be permitted to answer in course, but only upon a showing to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that the demurrer was interposed in good faith and that he has a valid defense. (See *Patten*v. Harris, 10 Wend. 623; *Miller*v. Heath, 7 Cow. 101; *Fishery.*Gould, 81 N. Y. 231; *Osgood*v. *Whittelsey,*20 How. Pr. 72; *Norwood*v. Harris, 69 N. C. 204.) It does not . appear that the defendants even attempted thus to satisfy the court. Hence to permit this order to stand is a recognition of practice which is available for mere vexation or for delay. Doubtless the Special Term, upon due and diligent application, would withhold the entry of judgment upon the frivolous pleading to enable the pleader to satisfy the court that he should be permitted to answer upon proper terms.

■ The order so far as appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, without prejudice to the respondents to apply for leave to answer.

Hirscjhberg, P. J., Woodward, ¡Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order ■ so far as appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, without prejudice to the respondents to apply for leave to answer.