alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### P. S. Babcock and Sol Weil *v.*The Milmo National Bank.

(No. 1412, Op. Book No. *2,*p. 658.)

Appeal from Webb County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 817. *General denial; effect of.*A general denial puts in issue all the material issuable allegations in the petition except such as are required to be put in issue by a special plea [Sayles & Bassett’s Plead. & Prac. § él], and it is error-to strike out such plea.

§ 818. *Surety; plea of suretyship; discharged from liability, when, etc.*Appellee sued appellants upon a promissory note which they had signed with one Burbank. Appellants pleaded the general denial, and specially that they had signed the note merely as accommodation sureties, and that appellee knew this fact; that appellee, without their knowledge or consent, afterwards, for a valuable consideration, extended to Burbank, the princicipal, the time of payment of said note; that at the time of the maturity of said note, said Burbank, principal, was well able pecuniarily to pay said note, but at the time of the institution of the suit was, and still is, insolvent,” etc. Upon exceptions of' appellee, this plea was stricken out, and judgment rendered against appellants for the amount of the note. *Held,,*this plea presented a valid defense to the plaintiff’s action, and should have been entertained and heard. It was a good plea under article 3G62, Rev. Stats., although it does not appear to have been presented under that statute. But independently of the statute, and for the purpose for which it was pleaded, it presented a valid defense. Whilst it is true that no subsequent contract or agreement between the principal debtor and the creditor, which does not alter or vary the liability of the sureties or in some way affect their rights under the contract, will discharge them; and whilst it is also true that mere indulgence to the debtor, or giving of time, without a binding agreement'to that effect, will *469not release the sureties [Terrell v. Townsend, 6 Tex. 149: Burke v. Cruger, 8 Tex. 66; Carr v. Rowland, 14 Tex. 275; Payne v. Powell, 14 Tex. 600; Hunter v. Clark, 28 Tex. 159; Claiborne v. Birge, 42 Tex. 98], yet it is well settled that if a creditor, without the knowledge and consent of the surety, give time to the principal by a valid and binding agreement, enlarging the credit beyond the period stipulated in the contract, the surety will be discharged both in law and equity. Sureties can only be held liable to the precise terms of their contract. That liability, and the rights resulting to them from it, can neither be increased nor diminished by any stipulation or agi-eement entered into between the creditor and principal debtor, without their consent. [Burke v. Cruger, 8 Tex. 66; Wybrants v. Lutch, 24 Tex. 309; Pilgrim v. Dykes, 24 Tex. 383; Claiborne v. Birge, 42 Tex. 98; Story on Prom. Notes, § 313.]

January 10, 1883.

§ 819. *Parol evidence admissible to prove suretyship.*It is well settled that parol evidence is admissible to prove the fact of suretyship, although the instrument in writing shows the .party to be a principal obligor. [Burke v. Cruger, 8 Tex. 66.]

Reversed and remanded.
---



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Merus Labs
International Inc.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of our Independent Auditors Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated
December 18, 2014 on the consolidated financial statements of Merus Labs
International Inc. and its subsidiaries comprising the consolidated statement of
financial position as at September 30, 2014, the consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive loss, changes in equity and cash flows for the year
then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other
explanatory information which is incorporated by reference in this annual report
on Form 40-F of Merus Labs International Inc. and its subsidiaries for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2014.



Yours very truly,

Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Ontario

December 22, 2014







---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





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 the Annual Report of TXP Corporation (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Shores, Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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





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





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





April
      9 ,
      2007




*/s/ Michael
                Shores*Michael
                Shores
              Chief
                Executive*Officer (Principal Executive
                Officer)*
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 Maritime Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

September 22, 2010-2 p.m.

# PLACE: 

800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Part of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.

## Matters To Be Considered

### Open Session

1. Staff Update on Study of European Union Block Exemption Repeal.

2. Staff Briefing Regarding Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility Notice of Inquiry Information Collection.

### Closed Session

1. Staff Briefing on Financial Responsibility of Cruise West.

2. Staff Briefing on Economic Conditions and Impact on Stakeholder.

3. Staff Briefing Regarding Shanghai Shipping Exchange and China Ministry of Transport Regulations.

4. Fact Finding No. 27: Complaints or Inquiries from Individual Shippers of Household Goods or Private Automobiles—Status Report.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010-23435 Filed 9-15-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
[No. 44165-5-I.

Division One.

March 27, 2000.]

#### Arthur S. Langlie, *as Personal Representative, Respondent,*v. The Mimosa Company Trust, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-2-07246-8, Jeffrey Michael Ramsdell, J., entered January 21, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Kennedy, C.J., and Becker, J.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIANNA AGARDI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-17776

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03475-RS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Julianna Agardi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging federal racketeering and constitutional violations in connection

with defendant’s implementation of Proposition N. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

JUL 31 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Agardi’s

request for oral argument is denied. 
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo

v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Agardi’s action as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata because Agardi raised, or could have raised, her claims in a

prior state court action. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S.

75, 81 (1984) (to determine whether a state court judgment would bar an action in

federal court, a federal court must apply the res judicata law of the state in which

the judgment was entered); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los

Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (setting forth the legal standard

for res judicata under California law and noting that “[r]es judicata bars the

litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could

have been litigated”).

Agardi’s request to show cause and to order the federal government to

appear in this case, filed on October 8, 2013, is denied. 

AFFIRMED.

2 12-17776
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 19

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
    establish English as the official language of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2007

   Mr. Tancredo introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
    establish English as the official language of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1.  The English language shall be the official language 
of the United States. As the official language, the English language 
shall be used for all public acts including every order, resolution, 
vote, and election, and for all records and judicial proceedings of the 
Government of the United States and the governments of the several 
States.
    ``Section 2.  The Congress and the States shall enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
     <LEGEND> This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted
from the  Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the six months ended
September  30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  2,444
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                              23
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,722
<PP&E>                                 96,086
<DEPRECIATION>                         29,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         73,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   5,634
<BONDS>                                94,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                           (30,515)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           73,064
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,670
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           79
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (514)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (514)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            (514)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (11.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (11.73)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                     275,478
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           279,180   
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             279,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,036
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 705,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               279,180 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,153
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,364 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,364 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
                               

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements in the Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,178
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     75,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,341
<PP&E>                                          21,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,483
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,340)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,742
<SALES>                                        295,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               365,504
<CGS>                                          228,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  374,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 681
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                173,765
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   143,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            NEW PUBLIC LAWS

      (For last listing of Public laws, see Daily Digest, p. D508)
  H.R. 421, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide 
for the purchase of common stock of Cook Inlet Region. Signed May 18, 
1995. (P.L. 104-10)
  H.R. 517, to amend title V of Public Law 96-550, designating the 
Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites. Signed May 18, 1995. 
(P.L. 104-11)
  H.R. 1380, to provide a moratorium on certain class action lawsuits 
relating to the Truth in Lending Act. Signed May 18, 1995. (P.L. 104-
12)
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEPHEN MOORE.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 192 *N.J.Super.*437)
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 of All In Blind, Inc.. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Adri Chimberoff Adri Chimberoff Chief Executive Officer   /s/ Adri Chimberoff Adri Chimberoff Chief Financial Officer   Dated: July 11, 2014   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All In Blind, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

p0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

140725

BOBBI SEHY NIEWIANDOMSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140725 COA: 293954 Kalamazoo CC: 2009-000022-NH CHRISTOPHER P. SMITH, M.D., HEALTHCARE MIDWEST ENT a/k/a HEALTHCARE MIDWEST, P.C., and MIDWEST EAR NOSE THROAT HEAD AND NECK SURGERY CARE, P.C., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1200
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Gilman] at 12 noon.

                          ____________________
```