alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Masonic Temple Co. *v.*John Ward.

Limitations — Express Trust — Corporations—New Institutions Liable for Debts of Old.

It is a well settled rule that limitations will not run, as a general rule, against an express trust. An act providing for the organization of a new corporation in which it provides “to raise the necessary funds to pay the debts not secured by mortgage or deed of trust, and the punctual payment of interest on its debts and liabilities is held to clearly contemplate that the property of an old corporation it acquired, should pass to it, pledged for the payment of the debts of the old company.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

May 25, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin :

As it sufficiently appears that' the original claim of the appellee against the “Masonic Fraternity” as fixed by the arbitrator’s award of $1,580, was reasonable and just, if the conclusions of the chancellor be correct, that the Masonic Temple Company, as the successor of the Masonic Fraternity, took the property of the *379latter with a liability for its debts, and upon trust for their payments, against which limitation would not run to bar the claim, it may not be necessary to determine whether the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court upon the award was or not void for want of legal service of process, or if the same be void, whether the claim, notwithstanding the award, is not barred by limitation.

Barr, *for appellant.*

Caldwell, *for appellee.*

The act of February, 1860, providing for the new organization, seems to us to clearly contemplate that the property of the “Masonic Fraternity” should pass to it, pledged for the payment of the debts of the old company, the purpose of the act is expresesd in the first section being

> “to raise the necessary funds to pay the debts not secured by mortgage or deed of trust,-and the punctual payment of interest on its debts and liabilities,”

and this purpose seems to have been recognized and acquiesced in, in the organization of the new company.

But it is insisted for the appellant that if it be true, as is we think correctly contended for the appellant, that the transfer of the property created a trust in favor of the general creditors, the statute of limitations, nevertheless, runs against the appellee’s claim. And the ordinary case of a devise of an estate by will to a personal representative for the payment of debts, is cited for illustration, as one which is opposite in principle with this, and in which the statute would run in favor of the estate, notwithstanding the trust. But we do not regard the two cases as analogous. Whether the distinction arises from the difference between the rights of a creditor against an estate, however devised, and those of a *cestui que*trust, it is well settled that limitation will not run, as a general rule, against an express trust.

Wherefore, perceiving no available error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Super Guppy Delivers Rocket Test Article to Marshall","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mKQiEecQNS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasas-super-guppy-delivers-rocket-test-article-to-marshall\/\">NASA\u2019s Super Guppy Delivers Rocket Test Article to Marshall<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasas-super-guppy-delivers-rocket-test-article-to-marshall\/embed\/#?secret=mKQiEecQNS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Super Guppy Delivers Rocket Test Article to Marshall” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mKQiEecQNS\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Blyth Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (No. 33-91954,
No. 333-50011, No. 333-92557 and No. 333-93237) and Form S-3 (No. 333-59847 and
No. 333-77721) of our report dated March 15, 2000, except for Note 12 and Note
15, as to which the date is March 31, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Blyth Industries, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of January 31, 2000 and 1999, and for the three years in the
period ended January 31, 2000, which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.

                                        /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                        ------------------------------
                                        PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 28, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 254 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 254

To revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park 
            in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2003

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park 
            in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical 
Park Addition Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    Section 505(a) of Public Law 95-625 (16 U.S.C. 396d(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a) In order'' and inserting ``(a)(1) In 
        order'';
            (2) by striking ``1978,'' and all that follows and 
        inserting ``1978.''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
            ``(2) The boundaries of the park are modified to include 
        lands and interests therein comprised of Parcels 1 and 2 
        totaling 2.14 acres, identified as `Tract A' on the map 
        entitled `Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Proposed 
        Boundary Adjustment', numbered PWR (PISO) 466/82,043 and dated 
        April 2002.
            ``(3) The maps referred to in this subsection shall be on 
        file and available for public inspection in the appropriate 
        offices of the National Park Service.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dixon *v.*Boyer.

Suit by notice and motion, under the act of 1838, against a sheriff for not returning an execution. Judgment by default, damages assessed by a jury, and final judgment for the plaintiff. In the judgment, the Court stated that it appeared to their satisfaction that notice of the motion had been served on the defendant ten days, &c. *Held,*that there was no error in the proceedings.

*548
      *Friday, December*5.

ERROR to the *Clark*Circuit Court.

Sulhvan, J.

— This was a proceeding by notice and motion, under the 29th sect, of the act of 1838 subjecting real and personal estate to execution, commenced by *Boyer*against *Dixon,*sheriff of *Greene*county, for failing to return an execution, issued and directed to him from the *Clark*Circuit Court. The .defendant having failed to appear, judgment was taken against him by default, and a jury was impanelled to assess the plaintiff’s damages. Final judgment for the plaintiff.

The special errors assigned are, 1st, That it does not appear from the record that the plaintiff in error had notice of the suit; and, 2dly, That the jury that assessed the damages was not impanelled according to law.

The Circuit Court, in the judgment we are reviewing, say, that it appeared to their satisfaction that notice of the motion had been served on the defendant ten days before the first day of the term at which the judgment was rendered; and the only question as to the first error assigned is, whether that is sufficient to show that the defendant had notice, or whether the return itself is a necessary part of the record to prove the fact.

The decisions of this Court heretofore made are to the effect, that, in a judgment by default, it must appear by the record that the defendant had notice of the suit, otherwise the judgment against him will be erroneous. 4 Blackf. 169. 5 *id.*332. But we do not think it material, whether the fact appear from the return to the writ or notice set out *in hcec verba*in the record; or whether it appear from the substance of it set out in the judgment of the Court. In either case, the fact is shown by the record, and that is all that is required. If the Court were satisfied of the fact, and so express themselves, the presumption is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the proof of the fact was legal and sufficient. The first error complained of, therefore, is not well assigned.

The second we think is also unavailing. It was proper that the Court, in such a case as this, should inquire of the damages by a jury; and we see no irregularity in'impanel-ling the jury, nor is any pointed out to us.

*549
      *J. S. Watts,*for the plaintiff.

*J. H. Thompson,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with costs.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"AETC Propulsion Facility","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SNL84NIPe3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/armd-aetc\/aerosciences-evaluation-and-test-capabilities-aetc-portfolio-propulsion-facility\/\">AETC Propulsion Facility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/armd-aetc\/aerosciences-evaluation-and-test-capabilities-aetc-portfolio-propulsion-facility\/embed\/#?secret=SNL84NIPe3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“AETC Propulsion Facility” — NASA\" data-secret=\"SNL84NIPe3\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/psl-researchers-jet-engine.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":467}
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   March 31, 2006
Date
    
    /s/ George C. Platt

George C. PlattChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   March 31, 2006
Date
    
    /s/ Laurie L. Latham

Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 3, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VIDEO PROFESSOR, INC., a Colorado

corporation, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware

corporation, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 10-1220

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00636-REB-KLM)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER

In accordance with 10th Cir. R. 33.1 and upon consideration of the stipulation of

the parties to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned appeal, this appeal is dismissed. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. A copy of this order will stand as the

mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1220 Document: 01018470600 Date Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

____________________________________

This Document Applies to Plaintiff(s):

Louis Harold Hadley Jr. 

and Lorena Martin Hadley

No. CV-17-4617-PHX-DGC

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice before this Court, and I appear in this case

as lead counsel for: Louis Harold Hadley Jr. and Lorena Martin Hadley.

DATED: December 15, 2017

Respectfully submitted, 

THE NATIONS LAW FIRM

 /s/ Howard L. Nations

Howard L. Nations

Texas Bar No. 14823000

3131 Briarpark Dr., Suite 208

Houston, TX 77042-3795

(713) 807-8400

(713) 807-8423 (Fax)

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

-1-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9338 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed on this

15th day of December, 2017. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the court’s system. Copies

will be delivered by other means to the following parties not served by the Court’s ECF system.

 /s/ Howard L. Nations

Howard L. Nations

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9338 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-1242, styled State v. Robert Crumps, pending in the

144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00252-CR

IN RE Robert CRUMPS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 20, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 1, 2009, relator Robert Crumps filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining

of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion

for speedy trial filed in the trial court. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in

the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal

defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has

no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in
04-09-00252-CR

-2-

which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently,

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s motion for speedy trial and

his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that relates directly to his confinement based on the

criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that relator has not shown

himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF U. G. G. AND A.

N. A, CHILDREN

,

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 1 63

- C V

Appeal from the

109 th District Court

of W inkler C ounty, Texas

(TC# DC 17

- 17073 )

O R D E R

In order to protect the identity of the minor child ren who are t he subject of this appeal,

the Court has determined on its own motion that it is necessary to identify the child ren by their

i nitials, U. G. G. and A. N. A.

, and the parent by i nitials as well, in all papers submitted to the

Court, including letters, motions, and briefs. See Tex.R.App.P. 9..8. The Court will also refer to

the child ren a nd parent by their initials in correspondence, orders, and in its opinion and

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 1 th d ay of September

, 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Andrew Pilch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03980-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Goldenberg Law, PLLC 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/30/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8603 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8603 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2