alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. C. Howard *v.*M. Murphy.

Instructions — Contrariety of Evidence.

Where there is some contrariety of evidence a peremptory instruction should not be given, even though a second instruction be given, which might have cured the improper peremptory.

Pleading — Answer—Plea in Bar — Replication.

An answer, which presents a plea in bar, does not require a replication, as, under the provisions of the Civil Code, the plea stood denied except so far as confessed by the statements of the petition.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT OOURT.

July 1, 1867.

Michael Murpby sued Henry 0. Howard for $82.03, being the balance claimed due him for services as a farm laborer, part of his wages, some $111, having been paid by his employer. Defendant answered, denying the indebtedness, or any part thereof, but alleged in justification of his refusal to pay the demands of plaintiff, that he had employed said Murphy to work for him for one year for the sum of $300. And that after serving for several months the said Murphy quit him and refused to perform further labors as per the contract. After some conflicting evidence was offered by both parties, the jury were given a peremptory instruction to find for plaintiff. Defendant filed motion for new trial, with affidavits of newly discovered evidence, all shown by a proper bill of exceptions.

The instructions referred to in the opinion are as follows:

1st. “The jury will find for the plaintiff the amount claimed in the petition, and may or not in their discretion, give interest from the institution of the suit.”

2nd. “They will also find for the defendant the damages which they believe from the evidence, the defendant sustained by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to work the remainder of the year from the 26th of May to 1st of October, and the difference between the value of plaintiff’s services as a good gardner and farm hand, and the services rendered by him as he was. If the jury find for defendant on his counter-claim an amount equal to that *555claimed by plaintiff, they will find for defendant, but if less, they will subtract such sum from the amount due plaintiff, and render a verdict for the difference.”

*Holt, for appellant.*

*Tenney, for appellee.*

From a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $50 defendant appeals.

OniNioN op the Court by

Judge William:s:

The answer of defendant below was not an off-set or counterclaim, but presented an issue in bar which by the provisions of the Civil Code stood denied except so far as confessed by the statements of the petition; therefore it was not only unnecessary to reply, but no such pleading is known to the Code.

There was some contrariety of evidence; therefore, the jury should have been permitted to find on it without a peremptory instruction from the court to find for plaintiff.

It was erroneous to give the peremptory instruction, which was not cured by the following instruction, though they seem to be inconsistent.

As the judgment must be reversed for this error, it is unnecesssarv to say anything as to the discovery of the evidence after the trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, with directions for a new trial.
#### SUMNER v. LAW OFFICES OF KATHLEEN G. SUMNER

No. 574P01

Case below: 146 N.C. App. Ill

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001. Conditional petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 8 November 2001.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF CONSOLIDATED GRAPHICS, INC. FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000. 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>         MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                          8,197
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                 118,409
<ALLOWANCES>                   (2,763)
<INVENTORY>                    32,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              161,460
<PP&E>                        375,149
<DEPRECIATION>                (64,805)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                677,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          99,730
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                          137
<OTHER-SE>                    272,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  677,277
<SALES>                       624,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              624,895
<CGS>                         437,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 437,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              109,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             13,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                64,130
<INCOME-TAX>                   25,651
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            38,479
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                   38,429
<EPS-BASIC>                      2.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                    2.51


</TABLE>
#### 405 44th Street Realty Co., Respondent, v 168 Fortune Realty, Inc., et al., Defendants. Naftoli Weber, Nonparty Appellant; Sunset Gardens Housing Corporation, IntervenorRespondent.

[788 NYS2d 404]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, nonparty Naftoli Weber, an unsuccessful bidder at a foreclosure sale, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 1, 2003, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated August 1, 2002, directing that the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to certain terms of sale, and to set aside the foreclosure sale, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion to confirm the referee’s report of sale. Motion by the intervenor Sunset Gardens Housing Corporation, inter aha, to dismiss the appeal as academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 9, 2004, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal as academic was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is,

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The subject property was sold to the intervenor, a good-faith purchaser for value, during the pendency of the appeal. Since any determination by this Court will not affect the rights of the parties and the matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine, the appeal is academic *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; *NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Equitable Funding Corp.,*301 AD2d 506 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60192 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES WILSON BROCK, also known as Tobert Sones Brock Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3-97-CR-56-ALL-LN

- - - - - - - - - - June 1, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Wilson Brock was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Government of claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. Brock’s court-appointed counsel, Cynthia A. Stewart, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brock was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses noNo. 99-60192 -2- nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. We previously ordered Stewart to file a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding referenced in her motion and brief as providing for a waiver of Brock’s right to appeal. She has not done so but has filed a letter indicating that she does not have a signed copy of such document. Although Stewart stated that she reviewed this memorandum and represented to the court that Brock waived his right to appeal his guilty plea and sentence, the record is devoid of any evidence that Brock waived his right to appeal. Stewart is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why she should not be sanctioned for making material misrepresentations to this court. Stewart shall have until June 15, 2000, to file with the Clerk of this Court under oath her response to this show cause order.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Calibration and Validation for Constellations of Remote Sensing CubeSats with Microwave Radiometers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"I7dS861TDE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/calibration-and-validation-for-constellations-of-remote-sensing-cubesats-with-microwave-radiometers\/\">Calibration and Validation for Constellations of Remote Sensing CubeSats with Microwave Radiometers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/calibration-and-validation-for-constellations-of-remote-sensing-cubesats-with-microwave-radiometers\/embed\/#?secret=I7dS861TDE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Calibration and Validation for Constellations of Remote Sensing CubeSats with Microwave Radiometers” — NASA\" data-secret=\"I7dS861TDE\" 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\/2016\/06\/hubble_friday_06242016.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":374}
#### John Stegal et al., *v.*James Brooke.

Appeals — Cross Appeals.

A party has no right to a cross appeal where there has been no appeal from the judgment in his favor.

Wills — Married Women.

Mrs. Anderson being a married woman could make no will except in pursuance of a power and her father’s will uevising to her the land in contest did not give this.

Adverse Possession — Evidence—Will.

A will otherwise inoperative is competent to prove how the devisee held title and that his holding was in his own right and adverse to the world.

APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 27, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Appellants having recovered what they claimed of Stephen Cummins in the 21 acres of land did not appeal from the judgment as to him; but their claim as to the 129 acres then in possession of John Brooke being rejected they did appeal as to this. This, then, being no appeal by Stegal et al against Cummins he could not take a cross appeal, but if dissatisfied with the judg*194ment must sue out an appeal from the clerk of this court, therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the plea of limitations as to'his cross appeal was in time or not, it being filed after submission, the cross appeal of Cummins is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

*Bradleyfor appellants.*

Dunlap, *for appellees.*

Mrs. Ann Anderson being a married woman could make no will except in pursuance óf a power and her father’s will devising to her the land in contest did not give this.

But still the will was competent to show how her son to whom she devised the land held and that his holding was in his own right and adverse to all the world and especially towards his half brothers and sisters, children of his mother by another father. The will of the testatrix Ann Anderson was admitted to record in the year of 1829 and this 'suit was not brought until July 16, 1S56, some twenty-seven years thereafter, the statute of limitation is relied on as a bar among other defences. There is nothing in the record to take the case out of the operation of the statute and this was sufficient reason for the courts adjudging against plaintiff’s claim to the 129 acres.

The judgment in favor of plaintiffs for live-sixths of the 21 acres manifests that the court regarded Mrs. Anderson’s will as insufficient by itself to convey the Jand, but adverse possession under it may by lapse of time perfect the title under it.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                                    ANALOGY, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                                     IN THOUSANDS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Three months ended                   Six months ended 
                                                                       September 30,                       September 30, 
                                                              ------------------------------     -------------------------------
                                                                  1997               1996             1997               1996
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------
                                                              (As Restated)                      (As Restated)
<S>                                                           <C>                <C>             <C>                 <C>
Net income (loss)                                                  $    55         $   (932)        $   (888)        $  (1,641)
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------

Earnings (loss) per share                                          $  0.01         $  (0.11)        $  (0.10)        $   (0.20)
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding:
   Common stock                                                      9,171            8,356            9,149             8,334 
   Common stock issuable upon exercise of
      stock options                                                    637               --               --                -- 
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------
Shares used in per share calculations                                9,808            8,356            9,149             8,334 
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------
                                                              -------------      -----------     -------------       -----------
</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended and Section 107.1900 of the SBA Rules and Regulations, SBA by this notice declares null and void the license to function as a small business investment company under Small Business Investment Company License No. 04/04-0235 issued to Hickory Venture Capital Corporation.

United States Small Business Administration.

 Dated: October 2, 2014.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2014-24490 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32

                            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 on Form 10-KSB of Akid,  Inc.  (the
"Company") for the period ended April 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, the undersigned,  in
the capacity and on the date  indicated  below,  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 my knowledge:

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

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

     Date:  June 23, 2004                        By:  /s/ James B. Wiegand
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     James B. Wiegand,
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
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 AIMS Worldwide, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald Garcia, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) 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 or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.       /s/Gerald Garcia, Jr. Gerald Garcia, Jr., Chief Executive Officer April 17, 2007
Exhibit 99.1



LOGO



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Board of Directors and Stockholders

FC Bancorp.



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Bancorp. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three-month and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity for the six-month period ended
June 30, 2005. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.



We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.



We have
previously audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversights Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 11, 2005, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A. C.
|Wexford, PA              
|July 22, 2005