alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. L. Byrne *v.*H. R. Bourland.

Damages — Negligence of Vendee in Failure to Remove Property.

Where a vendor is prevented by the negligence of the vendee, from the sale of corn or its removal from a place subject to overflow, the vendee is liable for all damages sustained thereby.

Principal and Agent — Personal Liability of Agent.

A personal action for damages for loss on com purchased by an agent, cannot be maintained against the agent, but must be against the principal.

Evidence — Acts of an Agency Generally Known to Vendors.

Testimony is permissible to establish an agency, by proof that it was generally known in the town where a contract was made, that the agent was purchasing com for his principal.

Same — Knowledge of Agency.

Knowledge of such agency, however acquired by a vendor, is sufficient to relieve the agent from personal responsibility.

*164Instructions — Disclosure of Agency.

An instruction, in a suit against an agent, for personal responsibility, for damage for delay in removing property bought, is misleading in apparently requiring an express disclosure of the agency and of the names of the principals at the time of the contract.

APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT.

January 6, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

As, according to the allegations and preponderating evidence, Bourland was prevented by the negligent and persistent conduct of Byrne from selling his corn to some other person or removing it from the island, the vendee is legally responsible for all the damages resulting from the loss of the corn by the overflow — and the verdict was in that respect neither unauthorized nor excessive.

But if Byrne bought the corn as mere agent of Lemont & Co., and the parties so understood at the time of the contract, his constituents alone are liable to this action, and the judgment against him is not maintainable.

As there was some evidence of such agency and mutual understanding, that evidence might have been legally *corroborated*by proof that it was generally known in the town where the contract was made that Byrne was purchasing corn as the agent of Lemont & Co., and consequently the circuit court erred in refusing to admit testimony to that effect.

The fourth instruction was also misleading and therefore erroneous in apparently requiring an *express*disclosure of the agency and of the names of the principals *at the time*of the contract.

Knowledge of those facts by Bourland, however acquired, and of the fact that the contract was made by Byrne as agent of Lemont & Co., was sufficient to relieve the agent from personal •responsibility.

Moreover, there is no proof of the quantity of Bourland’s corn.

On these grounds, the judgment is reversed and the cause *165remanded for further and amended proceedings as may be necessary for justice to all parties concerned.

*Bush, Spalding & Chapeze, Gibson, for appellant.*

*W. H. Goodloe, for appellee.*
#### ROBERT J. LINDEN, ET AL. v. DAVID N. SOLOMACHA, ET AL.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 232 *N.J.Super.*29).
#### Zerilda Burton, alias Stormes, *v.*C. C. Stormes, et al.

Divorce — Alimony—No Retroactive Lien on Husband's Property.

Unlike initial dower, alimony is never iniated or becomes potential until a divorce, or the commencement of a suit for it, and the husband’s property, divested by mortgage or otherwise, cannot be attacked by a retroactive lien on it for alimony.

APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 18, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

As the mortgage debts exhaust the assets and the testimony of the divorced husband as to outside liabilities to his father and brother, however false it may be, cannot, therefore, harm the appellant, we need not say whether the circuit court ought to have disregarded his statements.

On the record as now presented, the appellant can get nothing unless her supplemental petition for alimony can avail her. But, unlike initial dower, alimony is never initiated or becomes potential until a divorce, or the commencement of a suit for it. And, *161the property having been all divested by mortgage and deed of trust, there was no retroactive lien on it for contingent alimony.

Bradleys, *for appellant.*

Dunlap, *for appellees.*

Wherefore, the judgment must be *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SCHMITT
INDUSTRIES, INC. INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT AND CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS MAY 31, 1998, 1997, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       4167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6838
<PP&E>                                            2535
<DEPRECIATION>                                     691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5073
<OTHER-SE>                                        3615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9619
<SALES>                                          10626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10626
<CGS>                                             4632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (262)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1601
<INCOME-TAX>                                       351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"Former Astronaut M. Scott Carpenter","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tSGccCF2Uq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/former-astronaut-m-scott-carpenter\/\">Former Astronaut M. Scott Carpenter<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/former-astronaut-m-scott-carpenter\/embed\/#?secret=tSGccCF2Uq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Former Astronaut M. Scott Carpenter” — NASA\" data-secret=\"tSGccCF2Uq\" 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"}
#### ALBERT TROTTNOW, ET UX. v. MENAGERIE, INC., ETC., ET AL.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
F EXAS

February 23, 1965

Hon. Grady Hazlewood Chairman, State Affairs Senate of the State of Texas Capitol Building Austin, Texas Bear Senator Hazlewood: OpinionNo. C390 Re: Constitutionality of Senate Bill 35 of the 59th ,Legisla:ture.

You have requestedour opinion on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 35 of the 59th Legislature, authorizing the State Board of Education to supply free textbooks to blind and visually handioappedscholastics. Free textbooks,under the definitioncontained in the Bill include books in Braille, and blind and visuallyhandscapped scholasticsInclude any child whose visual acuity ia Impaired to the 'ext'ent that he is unable to read the print In regularlyadopted textbooksused In the class concerned.

Section 3 of ArticleVII of the Constitutionof Texas requires the State Board of Education to provide free textbooks for the use of children attendingpublic free schools of this State. Charles Scribner'sSons v. Marrs, 114 Tex. 11, 262 S.W.

; American Book Co. v. Ma rrs, 113 Tex. 291, 253 S.W. - In view of the provisionsof Section 3 of ArticleVII of the Constitutionof Texas, it Is our opinion that free textbooks designed for the use of blind and visually handicappedscholastics is authorized. You are thereforeadvised that the provisions of Senate Bill 35 of the 59th Legislatureare constitutional. SUMMARY Senate Bill 35 of the 59th Legislature, authorizingthe purchase of free textbooks, includingbooks in Braille, for the use of the blind and visually handicappedchildren attending public schools of this State Is constitutional. Section 3 of ArticleVII of the Constitutionof Texas. -1846-Hon. Grady Hazlewood,page 2 (C-390)

Very truly yours, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

JR:ms:mkh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Pat Bailey George Gray Kerns Taylor Harold Kennedy APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Stanton Stone

-1847-
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2847

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of 1984.

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

2

S 2847 ES

1 SECTION 1. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH.

2 (a) GENERAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA3 TIONS.—Section 104(f)(1) of the Water Resources Re4 search Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10303(f)(1)) is amended

5 by striking ‘‘$9,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $10,000,000

6 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and $12,000,000

7 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘$12,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through

9 2008 and $13,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009

10 and 2010’’.

11 (b) APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH FOCUSED ON

12 WATER PROBLEMS OF INTERSTATE NATURE.—Section

13 104(g)(1) of the Water Resources Research Act of 1984

14 (42 U.S.C. 10303(g)(1)) is amended by striking

15 ‘‘$3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $4,000,000 for fiscal

16 years 2002 and 2003, and $6,000,000 for fiscal years

17 2004 and 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘$6,000,000 for the period

18 of fiscal years 2005 through 2008 and $7,000,000 for the

19 period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010’’.

Passed the Senate October 11, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2847

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act

of 1984.
Order entered April 2 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00130 - CV KELLEY|WITHERSPOON, LLP, ET AL. , Appellant s V. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIO NAL SERVICES, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 11 - 01907 - E



### O RDER We GRANT appellee’s March 21, 2014 motion to reconsider this Court’s order dated March 14, 2014. We VACATE the March 14, 2014 order. The notice of cross

- appeal filed by appellee on March 5, 2014 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Guadalupe County 

Groundwater Conservation 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 5, 2015

No. 04-15-00433-CV

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

GUADALUPE COUNTY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-0863-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. 

The appellee’s brief is due on November 10, 2015. No further extensions, absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 4.10

INTERNATIONAL HI-TECH INDUSTRIES INC.
1096 West 10th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C.
V6H 1H8

June 17, 2005

434088 B.C. Ltd.
1096 West 10th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C.
V6H 1H8

Dear Sirs:

Commercial Lease of premises at 1096 West 10th Avenue

We are writing in reference to the Commercial Lease Agreement dated July 1, 1996 (the "IHI Lease") between R.A.R. Investments Ltd. ("R.A.R. Investments") and International Hi-Tech Industries Inc. (the "Tenant"), for a portion of the premises located at 1096 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.  We note that you are the successor to R.A.R. Investments with regard to the Lease by way of an assignment to the Lease.  The property is now owned by 434088 B.C. Ltd.

We are also writing in reference to the Commercial Lease Agreement dated July 1, 1997 (the "CHT Lease") between  R.A.R. Investments and Canadian Hi-Tech Manufacturing Ltd. ("CHT"), for another portion of the premises located at 1096 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.  We note that you are the successor to CHT with regard to the Lease by way of an assignment to the Lease.  The property is now owned by 434088 B.C. Ltd.

Pursuant to an Asset Transfer Agreement made on March 31, 1995, as amended on September 15, 1995, the Tenant became responsible for all liabilities arising after the closing date of such agreement in respect of the CHT Lease, and became entitled to all rights thereunder.

As the Tenant, we wish to extend the IHI Lease and the CHT Lease, respectively, with effect from July 1, 2005.  We acknowledge that the renewal lease is for a period of one year and will expire on June 30, 2006, and will be governed by the same terms and conditions as the original IHI Lease and CHT Lease, as the case may be.  The base rent payable for the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 is $18,000 per annum in respect of the IHI Lease and $60,000 per annum in respect of the CHT Lease and will be paid in accordance with the terms of the IHI Lease and CHT Lease, respectively.

Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and your agreement to renew the lease by signing this letter in the space provided and return one copy to the undersigned.

Yours truly,

INTERNATIONAL HI-TECH INDUSTRIES INC.

Per:	/s/ Roger A. Rached
________________________________________
	Authorized Signatory

Signed and accepted this 21st day of June, 2005, with effect from July 1, 2005.

434088 B.C. LTD.

Per:	/s/ Hilda Abi-Rached
________________________________________
	Authorized Signatory
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Earnest Chandler, 

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-17-03518-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 6, 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 8663 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Ronald C. DUKE, Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 79-1677.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 1980.

Decided March 21, 1980.

Cliff Jackson, Solloway & Jackson, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

William H. Sutton, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee; Donald H. Bacon and Overton S. Anderson, Little Rock, Ark., on brief.

Before BRIGHT, ROSS and McMILLI-AN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A fire occurring on December 24, 1974, destroyed plaintiff-appellant Ronald Duke’s Garland County, Arkansas, home. Duke subsequently brought this suit to recover under a fire insurance policy issued by defendant-appellee Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford). Hartford admitted that the policy was in effect and applied to *510the fire in question. Hartford denied liability, however, and defended on the grounds that Duke or his agent intentionally burned the dwelling, and that certain false statements made by Duke voided the policy.

At trial, Duke admitted to making misrepresentations to Hartford during the course of its investigation of the fire. Duke’s admitted misrepresentations included, *inter alia,*statements to Hartford that he had no knowledge of the cause and origin of the fire, that he was on a trip to Oklahoma at the time of the fire, and that he had neither suffered burns nor received medical treatment for burns around the time of the fire.

Duke’s fire insurance policy contained the following provision:

> *Concealment, fraud.*This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, the insured has willfully concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of the insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the insured relating thereto.

The district court determined that Duke’s admitted misrepresentations fell within this provision of the fire insurance policy. Accordingly, the court granted Hartford’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of Duke’s case' and entered a judgment dismissing the action. Duke brings this appeal.

This is a diversity case in which state law governs. In such cases we give great weight to the district court’s view of state law. *E. g., Foremost Insurance Co. v. Sheppard,*610 F.2d 551, 554 (8th Cir. 1979). Appellant has not shown the district court’s construction of the insurance contract to be inconsistent with the case law of Arkansas or any other jurisdiction. Indeed, both parties refer to only one case dealing with similar facts, and it supports the district court’s decision. *Edmiston v. Schellenger,*343 So.2d 465, 466-67 (Miss.1977), *citing Claflin*v. *Commonwealth Insurance Co.,*110 U.S. 81, 3 S.Ct. 507, 28 L.Ed. 76 (1884). Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment on the basis of its unpublished memorandum opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 14.
#### In the Matter of 21 Lizensk Corporation, Respondent, v Yeshaiya Benyamin Spillman, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 890]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J), entered November 20, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated August 22, 2003, granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order dated August 22, 2003, is vacated, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petition to confirm the arbitration award should have been denied on the ground that the procedures set forth in CPLR article 75 were not followed (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iv]; [2] [i]; see *also Matter of Brentnall v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*194 AD2d 537 [1993]; *Matter of Katz [Uvegi],*18 Misc 2d 576 [1959], *affd*11 AD2d 773 [1960]). There is no proof in the record that timely written notice of the time and place of the arbitration hearing held on June 9, 2003, was delivered to the appellant (see CPLR 7506 [b]; *Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker,*68 NY2d 225 [1986]; *Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v Cannon Express Corp.,*1 AD3d 358 [2003]; *Matter of Oakland Jewish Ctr. v Isaacson,*179 AD2d 761 [1992]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ, concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Erika Peters","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/epeters9\/","title":"Orion Spacecraft Adapter (SA) Cone Install","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Z5FMlrqMa2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20200806-ph-kls01_0068\/\">Orion Spacecraft Adapter (SA) Cone Install<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20200806-ph-kls01_0068\/embed\/#?secret=Z5FMlrqMa2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Orion Spacecraft Adapter (SA) Cone Install” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Z5FMlrqMa2\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/KSC-20200806-PH-KLS01_0068\/KSC-20200806-PH-KLS01_0068~large.jpg?w=600&h=1920&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1920}