alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00368-CR

Anthony Bernard Ware, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 20,088-CR, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Anthony Bernard Ware pleaded guilty to possessing less than four grams of 

cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.115(a), (c) (West Supp. 2002). The district court 

adjudged appellant guilty and, pursuant to a plea bargain, assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight 

years, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on community supervision. In his only point of 

error, appellant contends the court erred by overruling his pretrial motion to suppress evidence.

In its reply brief, the State draws the Court=s attention to a written waiver of appeal signed 

by appellant, his attorney, and the trial judge that appears in the clerk=s record. This document, which 

reflects a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal, was signed on the day sentence was 

suspended in open court. A defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives his right to appeal may not 

thereafter appeal without the trial court=s consent. Ex parte Dickey, 543 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1976); see also Hurd v. State, 548 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 
2

680 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). There is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant sought or obtained 

the permission of the trial court to pursue this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed

Filed: April 25, 2002

Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bunnie Benita Finley,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04051-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

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) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8888 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dylan Connell","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbconne1\/","title":"Celebrating Black Voices: Meet Gateway’s Amber Allen, Program Analyst","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"67gOKyF4yI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/johnson\/celebrating-black-voices-meet-gateways-amber-allen-program-analyst\/\">Celebrating Black Voices: Meet Gateway’s Amber Allen, Program Analyst<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/johnson\/celebrating-black-voices-meet-gateways-amber-allen-program-analyst\/embed\/#?secret=67gOKyF4yI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Celebrating Black Voices: Meet Gateway’s Amber Allen, Program Analyst” — NASA\" data-secret=\"67gOKyF4yI\" 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\/2022\/02\/amber_allen.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[788 NYS2d 236]

Per Curiam. Petitioner moves to suspend respondent attorneys, all of whom were admitted to practice by this Court, on the ground that they have failed to file a registration statement and pay the required attorney registration fee in accordance with Judiciary Law § 468-a and part 118 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 118).

The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration and a notice sent by petitioner, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee.

Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division . . . for disciplinary action.” This Court has previously held that failure to comply with the registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting discipline *(see e.g. Matter of Arms,*251 AD2d 743 [1998]; *Matter of Ryan,*238 AD2d 713 [1997]; *Matter of Farley,*205 AD2d 874 [1994]).

In view of respondents’ continued failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of the Judiciary Law and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, petitioner’s motion is granted and the respondents listed on the schedule attached hereto are suspended, effective 30 days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court *(see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a,*3 AD3d 662 [2004]).

*789Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that the respondents listed on the schedule attached hereto are suspended, effective 30 days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondents, for the period of suspension, are commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, and are forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondents shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

ATTORNEY YEAR OF ADMISSION

Pretz Amir 1987

Ana Atallah 1991

Thomas O. Blazsek 1995

John V. Bologna 1989

John N. Chigbu 1997

Neil G. Duffy 1983

John W. Hersperger 1995

Frank W. Hogan, Jr. 1985

James A. Hogan 1992

John P. Hogan 1981

Clinton G. Johnson 1993

Laura S. Kalick 1993

Margaret G. McCarthy 1978

Anthony N. Nduka-Eze 1995

Lee J. Saltzman 1993

Deborah A. Sanchez 1995

Gerald Simpson 1991

Constantine A. Solomos 1995

Daniel G. Vatanaviggun 1995

Kim D. Vo 1991

Richard J. Whitaker 1983
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"John Gould","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jgould4\/","title":"NASA Creating Tool to Predict Supersonic Jet Noise at Takeoff","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uIQ5sHqjd8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/nasa-creating-tool-to-predict-supersonic-jet-noise-at-takeoff\/\">NASA Creating Tool to Predict Supersonic Jet Noise at Takeoff<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/nasa-creating-tool-to-predict-supersonic-jet-noise-at-takeoff\/embed\/#?secret=uIQ5sHqjd8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Creating Tool to Predict Supersonic Jet Noise at Takeoff” — NASA\" data-secret=\"uIQ5sHqjd8\" 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\/1-39.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":362}
NO. 12-17-00294-CR

EMMETT ASBURY § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. § FOR THE TWELFTH 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, MELISSA L. HANNAH, Attorney of record for EMMETT 

ASBURY, Appellant in the above entitled and numbered appeal who files this 

motion to withdraw as such attorney, and for such motion would respectfully show 

the Court the following:

I. 

Appellant's counsel has filed contemporaneously with this motion a brief in 

compliance with Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493,87 S.Ct. 1396 

(1967). A copy of the complete record has been furnished to Appellant.

II. 

In accordance with the provisions of In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008), Movant requests that upon consideration of said brief, he be 

allowed to withdraw so that Appellant may file, if he so chooses, a pro se brief.

Wherefore, it is respectfully requested that the undersigned counsel be granted 

permission to with draw as attorney of record for Appellant.

ACCEPTED

12-17-00294-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/29/2017 3:43 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/29/2017 3:43:19 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

Melissa L. Hannah

State Bar No. 24035530

204 E. Lufkin Ave.

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Telephone: (936)632-6350

Facsimile: (936)632-6355

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion has been 

served on Appellant and Bennie Schiro, District Attorney, the attorney of record for 

the State, on November 29 2017.

______________________________ 

Melissa L. Hannah
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1199

MARIE J. CLINTON,

Petitioner,

versus

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; AMERICAN POSTAL

WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Postal

Service. (D90C-1D-96-21540)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie J. Clinton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Clinton seeks review of a decision by the United States

Postal Service Arbitration Panel dismissing her grievance. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C.A. § 7121(d) (1982);

Fed. Cir. R. 15. 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
#### Edward O'Neill et al., Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 615]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 20, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law § 205-a cause of action by demonstrating that no predicate violation existed to support the claim *(see Cibelli v Episcopal Diocese of N.Y.,*298 AD2d 485 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Leslie v Splish Splash at Adventureland,*1 AD3d 320, 321 [2003]; *Krash v Bishop-Sanzari, J.V.,*309 AD2d 788, 789 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT      32**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

----

**EXHIBIT      32**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

*MutualFirst*

| Date:                March 13, 2008 | By:       | /s/                David W. Heeter                   |
|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |                                    | David                W. Heeter                       |
|                                |                                    | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |                                    |                                                 |
|                                |                                    |                                                 |
| Date:                March 13, 2008 | By:                           | /s/                Timothy J. McArdle                |
|                                |                                    | Timothy                J. McArdle                    |
|                                |                                    | Treasurer                and Chief Financial Officer |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dolores J. Latawiec, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03465-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(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 10/26/2017, 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 8654 Filed 11/07/17 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 8654 Filed 11/07/17 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Estate of William Tizer, Deceased. Burton K. Stein et al., Respondents; Jeffrey R. Tizer, Appellant. Daniel Roskoff, Nonparty Respondent.

[786 NYS2d 743]

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about November 24, 2003, which admitted decedent’s will to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proponents of the will met their burden, through the affidavits of the subscribing witnesses and the attorney who had drafted the instrument, of establishing a prima facie case of testamentary capacity, and appellant failed to rebut that proof *(see Matter of Kumstar,*66 NY2d 691 [1985]; *Matter of Windheim,*192 AD2d 337 [1993], *lv denied*83 NY2d 751 [1994]). There is no evidence in the record of fraud or conspiracy on the part of petitioners or appellant’s appointed guardian ad litem.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
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 August 6, 2009

s0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138198

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138198 COA: 287449 Wayne CC: 81-006929 WILLIAM KEITH JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIK GUMMINGER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 12 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Ricketts *v.*Ash.

*Thursday, November**28.*

The jurisdiction of the justices of the peace, under the act of 1838 concerning tenants holding over, is not limited as to the amount of damages.

That statute only authorizes proceedings for the recovery of the possession of real estate, and damages for its detention. It has no relation to personal property.

ERROR to the *Putnam*Circuit Court.

Blackford,, J.

— This is a proceeding instituted by Ash, before two justices of the peace, under the statute of 1838 concerning tenants holding over. The complaint states that the plaintiff leased to the defendant a certain house and lot, which are described, and the goods and chattels and household furniture then in the house, for one year, in consideration of the sum of 200 dollars for the rent of said premises ■; that the defendant entered on the premises, and possessed the same for said term which had long since expired; that the plaintiff had, on, &c., demanded possession of the premises, which demand had been refused. Damage 100 dollars. The defendant having appeared, the suit was tried, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court; the cause was there tried, and the following verdict given, viz., The jury find that the plaintiff is entitled to the legal possession of the premises in the complaint mentioned, and assess the plaintiff’s damages for the unjust detention thereof at the sum of 60 dollars. Judgment as follows: It is therefore considered, that the plaintiff recover against the defendant the possession of the said'premises, together with the sum of 60 dollars, his damages as aforesaid assessed' for the unjust detention thereof, &c.

The defendant contends, that the justices have no jurisdiction in a case for so large a sum as that claimed as damages in this case. This objection is untenable, there being no limit in the statute as to the amount of damages that may be claimed. The judgment must, however, be reversed on another ground. Th? complaint is, that the plaintiff had leased to the defendant a certain house and lot, and goods and chattels and household- furniture in the house, in consideration of the sum of 200 dollars for the rent of said premises. It is evi*275dent that the word premises there means both the real and personal property leased. The verdict is, that the plaintiff was entitled to the premises in the complaint mentioned, that is, the said real and personal property ; and the judgment is for the possession of the said premises, plainly meaning all the property alleged to have been leased. It thus appears, that the plaintiff claimed the possession of personal as well as real property, and has obtained a verdict and judgment for the possession of both, and damages for the detention of both. The statute, under which the complaint was filed, only authorizes this proceeding for the recovery of the possession of real estate, and damages for its detention. It has no relation whatever to personal property. R. S. 1838, p. S84.

*J. M.*Hanna, for the plaintiff.

*J.*Cowgill, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.