alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JILIN HENGHE PHARMACEUTICAL CO. and Jilin Pharmaceutical USA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1565.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2005.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*403
      *ORDER*

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

Jilin Henghe Pharmaceutical Co. et al. (Jilin) move to dismiss the United States’ appeal, vacate the judgment of the Court of International Trade, and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint in case no. 1:04-CV-00151. The United States moves for an extension of time to file its response to Jilin’s motion. The United States responds. Jilin replies.

Jilin states that it seeks to withdraw its challenges to the liquidation instructions that gave rise to this case and relinquish all claims to the antidumping duty cash deposits and interest related to this action. Jilin correctly asserts that the United States’ appeal, challenging the Court of International Trade’s judgment, is thus moot. The parties are a bit confused concerning what procedure a court of appeals follows when an appeal becomes moot in this manner.

Vacatur of the trial court’s judgment is appropriate when mootness results from the action of the party who prevailed in the trial court. *U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership,*513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994). Thus, we vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss. Jilin additionally asks that we dismiss the appeal. However, a court may not both dismiss and remand.

The United States argues that, in addition to vacating the judgment, we must vacate the Court of International Trade’s opinion. In the alternative, the United States argues that we should deny Jilin’s motion and allow the appeal to continue, notwithstanding the lack of an actual case or controversy. The cases cited in support of that argument deal with an entirely different issue, i.e., whether a trial court should dismiss a complaint with or without prejudice in certain circumstances.

Clearly, under *Bancorp,*the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to the Court of International Trade with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Because we vacate the judgment, and because the Court of International Trade’s opinion is merely an explanation for the now-vacated judgment, there is no need to separately vacate the opinion. *See, e.g., Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc.,*755 F.2d 1549, 1556 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“This court reviews judgments, not opinions.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) The motion to dismiss is denied.

> (2) The motion to vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint is granted.

> (3) The United States’ motion for an extension of time to file its response is granted.

> (4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

> (5) All pending motions are moot.
#### James L. SHORES, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of Clarence E. Bishop, Jr., etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jerald H. SKLAR et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-2896.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 1980.

W. Eugene Rutledge, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.

George B. Azar, Montgomery, Ala., for Rakerd.

Frank M. Young, III, Birmingham, Ala., for Cecil Lamberson & Jackson Municipals.

Meade Whitaker, Jr., Hobart McWhorter, Jr., Samuel H. Franklin, Birmingham, Ala., for Capell, Howard, Knabe & Cobbs.

Henry E. Simpson, Birmingham, Ala., for First Alabama Bank of Phenix City.

B. G. Minisman, Jr., Crawford S. McGi-varen, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for Asa G. Candler, V.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion Jan. 21, 1980, 5 Cir., 1980, 610 F.2d 235).

Before COLEMAN, Chief Judge, and BROWN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, KARVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.*

*

Judges Godbold and Vance have recused themselves and did not participate in this decision.

*442BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COHEN DOWD QUIGLEY 

The Camelback Esplanade One 

2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 1100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone 602•252•8400

Daniel G. Dowd (012115) 

Email: ddowd@CDQLaw.com

Gabriel R. Aragon (024649) 

Email: garagon@CDQLaw.com 

Stacey F. Gottlieb (015084) 

Email: sgottlieb@CDQLaw.com

J. Neil Stuart (028569) 

Email: nstuart@CDQLaw.com

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order in this matter (Doc. 56) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2), plaintiff Gray Services L.L.C. (“Gray Services”) provides this Notice that, on 

January 25, 2017, it disclosed to defendant TPG (Grigio) Note Acquisition L.L.C. (“TPG”) 

the rebuttal expert reports of Blake Inglish and Gary Cadenhead, Ph.D. in this matter. 

Gray Services L.L.C., an Arizona limited 

liability company, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TPG (GRIGIO) Note Acquisition L.L.C., 

a Delaware limited liability company, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CV-15-01602-PHX-NVW

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF 

GRAY SERVICES L.L.C.’S REBUTTAL 

EXPERT REPORTS PURSUANT TO 

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) 
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COHEN DOWD QUIGLEY

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: January 26, 2017. 

COHEN DOWD QUIGLEY 

 The Camelback Esplanade One 

 2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 1100 

 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

 By: /s/ Gabriel R. Aragon_____

 Daniel G. Dowd 

 Gabriel R. Aragon 

Stacey F. Gottlieb 

J. Neil Stuart 

 
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COHEN DOWD QUIGLEY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on January 26, 2017, I electronically transmitted the foregoing to 

the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal to the following 

CM/ECF registrants: 

William J. Maledon 

Dawn Dauphine 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 

The Phoenix Plaza 

2929 North Central Avenue 

Twenty-First Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 J. Michael Hennigan 

 Kirk D. Dillman 

 Robert W. Mockler 

 Matthew P. Gelfand 

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 

 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900 

 Los Angeles, California 90017 

Attorneys for Defendant 

By /s/ Marci Kramer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            2000               1999                1998
                                                          ---------          ---------           ---------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>                 <C>
Weighted average number of issued shares each
period                                                    5,615,000          5,579,000           5,514,000
Common stock equivalents, computed using
treasury stock method                                       443,000            453,000             291,000
                                                          ---------          ---------           ---------
                                                          6,058,000          6,032,000           5,805,000
                                                          =========          =========           =========
Shares used in
Basic EPS                                                 5,615,000          5,579,000           5,514,000
Diluted EPS                                               6,058,000          6,032,000           5,805,000
</TABLE>


                                       40
IB

House Calendar No. 88

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 548

[Report No. 105–234]

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street in

New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. NADLER (for himself and Mr. RANGEL) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

JULY 31, 1997

Additional sponsors: Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. RAHALL, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr.

DELLUMS, Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. LAFALCE,, Mr.

COYNE, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms. PELOSI, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr.

MORAN of Virginia, Mr. FROST, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms.

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. YATES, Mr. EVANS,

Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. SERRANO, Mr.

MCHUGH, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MANTON, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr.

ACKERMAN, Ms. FURSE, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. JEFFERSON

JULY 31, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500

Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Ted

Weiss United States Courthouse’’.
2

•HR 548 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in

5 New York City, New York, shall be known and designated

6 as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

10 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Court12 house’’.

House Calendar No. 88

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 548

[Report No. 105–234]

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located

house’’.York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courtat 500 Pearl Street in New York City, New

JULY 31, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Apollo-Soyuz: An Orbital Partnership Begins","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2syhFlkzAp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/apollo-soyuz\/apollo-soyuz-an-orbital-partnership-begins\/\">Apollo-Soyuz: An Orbital Partnership Begins<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/apollo-soyuz\/apollo-soyuz-an-orbital-partnership-begins\/embed\/#?secret=2syhFlkzAp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo-Soyuz: An Orbital Partnership Begins” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2syhFlkzAp\" 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\/2015\/06\/260346main_astp_hatch_full_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Romone L. GABRIEL, Appellant.

No. 03-3032.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 2, 2005.

Elizabeth Trosman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Harper Danello, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Robert Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roscoe Conklin Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, A. J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, Neil H. Jaffee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Beverly Gay Dyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDWARDS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the joint motion for remand and to expedite return of the mandate, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the court’s judgment filed April 16, 2004, be vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court appealed from in this cause be affirmed in part and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion issued April 16, 2004, and the Supreme Court’s opinion in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
{"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":"ssc-20230615-s01453h","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hvSgWPsdpO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/ssc-20230615-s01453h-2\/\">ssc-20230615-s01453h<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/ssc-20230615-s01453h-2\/embed\/#?secret=hvSgWPsdpO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“ssc-20230615-s01453h” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hvSgWPsdpO\" 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\/06\/ssc-20230615-s01453h-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Exhibit 10.15


                         WAUSAU-MOSINEE PAPER CORPORATION
                           INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
                                       FOR
                               EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                                     (2003)


      The President and CEO, Executive Vice President, Administration, Senior
Vice President, Finance, and Senior Vice President, Engineering and
Environmental Services each have a bonus opportunity equal to a maximum of 75%
of base salary based upon earnings per share.  Incentive bonuses will be 0% of
base salary if earnings are $.34 per share and will increase on a pro rata
basis to a maximum of 75% of base salary at $1.11 per share.  These officers
will also be entitled to a maximum bonus of 25% of base salary upon
satisfaction of individual performance objectives established at the beginning
of the year by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors or
President and CEO.

      Each of the Senior Vice Presidents, Printing & Writing Group, Specialty
Paper Group, and Towel & Tissue Group, will be eligible to earn an incentive
bonus based on the operating profits of their Group as well as earnings per
share.  In each case, achievement of the Group's minimum targeted operating
profit will result in incentive compensation equal to 0% of base salary, with a
pro rata increase of up to 50% of base salary based upon achievement of
operating profit goals above the minimum targeted amount.  Each of these Senior
Vice Presidents also have a bonus opportunity of 25% of base salary based upon
earnings per share.  Incentive bonuses will be 0% of base salary if earnings
are $.34 per share and will increase at a pro rata basis to a maximum of 25% of
base salary at $1.11 per share.  In addition, each of these Senior Vice
Presidents will be eligible to earn incentive compensation in a amount equal to
a maximum of 25% of base salary for achievement of individual performance
objectives established at the beginning of the year by the President and CEO.

      For purposes of this plan, "earnings per share" means earnings per share
as reported in the company's audited financial statements, as adjusted for
accruals on SAR's, bonus expense, and other extraordinary items as determined
in the discretion of the Executive Compensation & Bonus Committee.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lucy M. Aguayo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Nancy A. Berryhill, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 15-2224-PHX-MHB

ORDER

The Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees Under

the Equal Access to Justice Act” (Doc. 30),

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Lucy M. Aguayo’s “Unopposed Petition for Attorney

Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act” (Doc. 30) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $7,668.00 pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, this award shall be payable to Plaintiff and is

subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States pursuant

to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 594 (2010).

DATED this 15th day of December, 2017.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 632 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 632

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 1997

 Mr. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
 the Committee on House Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, 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 ``Balance the Budget First Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
            (3) by striking ``, as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection''.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of the Congress that pay for Members of Congress 
should not be increased until such time as the Federal budget has been 
balanced, as certified by the Congressional Budget Office.
                                 <all>
```
#### G. D. McMichael *v.*Robert McMichael.

Pleadings — Demurrer to Answer — Application to Petition.

The application to the petition of the demurrer of the plaintiff to the answer, does not dispose of the answer.

Mortgages — Mortgagee in Possession.

A mortgagee in possesison cannot be ousted until the mortgage be satisfied.

APPEAL FROM ANDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

July 7, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The application to the original petition, of the demurrer of the plaintiff to the defendant’s original answer by no means disposed of the answer which still remains as a defense and raises issues to be tried by the court of an equitable nature, therefore, it was erroneous on the dismissal of the second answer to adjudge by default against the defendant and the judgment is reversed for this error with directions to permit the defendant to answer the amended petition and then proceed to try the equitable and legal *614issue. A mortgagee in possession cannot be ousted until tbe mortgage be satisfied, hence it is, essential to determine tbe mortgage set up by defendant.

*Draffin, for appellant.*

*Hank, for appellee.*

Judgment reversed.