alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM ROSSING v. JENS PEDERSON.1

March 26, 1920.

No. 21,682.

Sale — breach of warranty — evidence in corroboration admissible.

In an action for the breach of a warranty in a sale it was error to exclude as inadmissible under the pleadings the testimony of a witness corroboratory of that of the plaintiff, though it was not in the exact language of the warranty alleged or of the testimony of the plaintiff.

Action in the district court for Cottonwood county to recover $900 for breach of warranty. Defendant interposed two counterclaims. The case was tried before Nelson, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action and a jury which returned a verdict for $48.86 in favor of defendant. Prom an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.

Reversed.

*Henry M. Gallagher*and *John L. Sammons,*for appellant.

*T. J. Stevenson,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 177 N. *W.*125.

*277Dibell, J.

Action to recover damages for the breach of a warranty. There was a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendant Pederson sold to the plaintiff Eossing a gasolene tractor engine. The complaint alleges that the defendant “warranted the same to be in good running condition, and of sufficient power to pull the ordinary load of five horses, and to pull and operate any ordinary farm machinery usually pulled and operated by from four to eight horses.” The plaintiff testified -that he told the defendant that he knew nothing about -the particular kind of tractor, and that he would have “to guarantee this' tractor to do the work it is represented to do, pull three.bottom plows, first, last and all the time,” and that this warranty the defendant gave. The following testimony of a witness, taken on deposition, was excluded upon the objection of the defendant as inadmissible under the pleadings:

> “Mr. Pederson says: ‘What about the deal?’ Eossing says: ‘I don’t know much about gasolene tractors but if you want to guarantee this tractor to work first, last and all the time we’ll call it a deal.’ Pederson then said: ‘All right, we’ll call it a deal.’ ”

The defendant denied that there was any talk such as the plaintiff or such as this witness related, or that the witness was present at any conversation between him and the plaintiff.

The testimony of the witness was in corroboration of the plaintiff’s testimony. That it was not in the language of the allegation of the complaint or of the plaintiff was not a ground for its exclusion. The plaintiff was entitled to have it before the jury and its exclusion was error.

A new trial results and we omit a consideration of the other assignments of error.

Order reversed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(i)

                                   SCHEDULE II

         Ferro Corporation has entered into an executive employment agreement
with Hector R. Ortino which is substantially identical in all material respects
to the Form of Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement (Exhibit
10(a) to Ferro Corporation's Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,
1998), except the lump sum severance payment for Mr. Ortino is equal to a full
year's compensation (base salary and incentive compensation) multiplied by
three.

         Beginning in 1999, the Company discontinued its practice of signing
executive employment agreements. The Company has entered into change in control
agreements substantially identical with its form of change in control agreement
(Exhibit 10(j) to Ferro Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2000) with the following executive officers:

                                  James C. Bays
                                 Dale G. Kramer
                               Millicent W. Pitts
                                Robert A. Rieger


                                       50
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"SpaceX CRS-27 Liftoff","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2gFSjsUvj8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20230314-ph-spx02_0002\/\">SpaceX CRS-27 Liftoff<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20230314-ph-spx02_0002\/embed\/#?secret=2gFSjsUvj8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“SpaceX CRS-27 Liftoff” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2gFSjsUvj8\" 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-20230314-PH-SPX02_0002\/KSC-20230314-PH-SPX02_0002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL J. MCDOWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-94-128, CA-96-312-5-F)

Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. McDowell, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S.

June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298); United States v. McDowell, Nos. CR94-128; CA-96-312-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 22, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"SpaceX Crew-3 astronauts participate in water survival training","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"87burQ4onz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/spacex-crew-3-astronauts-participate-water-survival-training-4\/\">SpaceX Crew-3 astronauts participate in water survival training<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/spacex-crew-3-astronauts-participate-water-survival-training-4\/embed\/#?secret=87burQ4onz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“SpaceX Crew-3 astronauts participate in water survival training” — NASA\" data-secret=\"87burQ4onz\" 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\/jsc2021e017168-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Order entered November 29, 2017

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 01444

- CR

JOSE JUAN FLORES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR15

- 1639



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 20, 2017 motion for additional time to file his

brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before

Dece mber 4 , 2017.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### W. Partlow et al *v.*A. B. Clark et al.

Actions — Pleading—Answer Evasive — Demurrer.

Although the answer demurred to is evasive and insufficient as to some others it is good and therefore the demurrer should have been overruled.'

APPEAL FROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

October 5, 1869.

*Roe, for appellants.*

*Ireland, for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The demurrer was to the answer and cross-petition of Washington Partlow, leaving the fact whether Wesley Partlow was a partner, and as such, bound for the debt claimed in the petition, traversed by his answer, to be tried.

The cross-petition set up a claim for a credit for the delivery of more iron than was credited on the account, and Washington Partlow in his answer denied the coffee, sugar, molasses and bacon were worth, at the time and place of delivery, as much as was charged for them in the account. These were facts which he had a right to inquire into, and presented an issue. By sustaining the demurer to his answer and cross-petition, an investigation of these facts was prevented, leaving the fact put in issue by Wesley Part-low’s answer, alone to be tried. And as the record is here presented, we must presume nothing else was tried.

Although the answer demurred to is evasive and insufficient as to some items, as to some it was good.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the answer and cross-petition, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Anworth Mortgage Asset
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Thad M. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                      By: /s/ Thad M. Brown
                                          --------------------------------------
                                            Thad M. Brown,
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            November 14, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1992** 

ANTWAN EUGENE FORD SEN EL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. RACHEL ANN FESTA FLEMING, Judge; HERMAN MELVIN HOWELL, Judge , Defendants

– Appellees ,

a nd

CLOVER POLICE DEPARTMENT; PHILLIP HAWKINS, #311; C. B. FORD, #304; SGT. CALDWELL, #319; SELESTINO, #305 , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 0:13

- cv
- 00446

- CMC

- PJG )

Submitted : December 17, 2013 Decided: January 13, 2014

Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Antwan Eugene Ford Sen El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Antwan Eugene Ford Sen El seeks to appeal the d istrict

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing Defendants Judge Fleming and Judge Howell
without prejudice from this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006)

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and

collateral ord ers, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 ,
545

- 46 (1949). The order Sen El seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismis s the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2 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-K/A of Inland Real Estate Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Brett A. Brown certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:   May 7, 2009 By:  /s/ Brett A .Brown Name:  Brett A. Brown Title:  Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2014.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (entry from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Black Beauty Coal Co.*, Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-378-R, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that the resumption of mining in an area following a roof fall in that area constituted a violation and whether an on-shift examination of another area was required.)                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Emogene Johnson,

Administrative Assistant.

[FR Doc. 2014-25493 Filed 10-22-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Guyton,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03822-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP - New York, NY

(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 10/23/2017, 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: October 26, 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 8411 Filed 10/27/17 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 8411 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 2