alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Eduardo Garcia, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02402

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, May 20, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Discovery

conference convened. Defendant's motion for a protective order barring the deposition of

Perry Hilzendeger [87] and its motion for protective order barring the depositions of its

CEOs [89] are entered and continued. Should the currently−scheduled deposition of Mr.

Knoll not provide information Plaintiff requires, the court will consider these motions, but

is likely to direct that Plaintiff take a deposition on written questions only of Mr. Stumpf.

Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice [85] is granted in

part and denied in part. The court sustains objections to designation of a witness on Topics

21, 23, and 24. Plaintiff has refined Topics 5, 6, and 22; as so limited, Defendant's

objection is overruled. Defendant's objection to Topics 7−17 and 19 are overruled. As

Plaintiff's counsel stresses he will not ask questions already propounded in the Hernandez

litigation, and that his Rule 30(b)(6) questioning will be succinct, the parties are directed

to confer about appropriate time limits, which the court presumes will not exceed seven

hours in total. Date for submission of a further written status report is extended to June 23,

2022. Mailed notice(mjc, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1565
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jason Ramjattansingh v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-01089-CR

Trial court case number: 2019635

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County

Appellant, Jason Ramjattansingh, has filed a Motion to Abate and to Stay 

Briefing Schedule. Ramjattansingh contends he filed a timely motion for findings 

of fact and conclusions of law regarding the denial of his motion to suppress. 

The motion is GRANTED. We abate the appeal and remand for the trial 

court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law, separate and apart 

from any docket sheet notations in this case, in conjunction with the trial court’s 

denial of Evans’s motion to suppress. See State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that trial court must provide findings of fact and 

conclusions of law adequate to provide appellate court with basis to review trial 

court’s application of law to facts, either in writing or on record at hearing); Wicker 

v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. 

The trial court shall make the appropriate findings and conclusions and shall 

cause them to be filed with the trial court clerk within 20 days of the date of this 

order. We further order the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court 

within 30 days of the date of this order.

Appellant’s brief will be due 30 days after the supplemental clerk’s record is 

filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually Date: May 17, 2016
Case 2:16-cr-00070-NVW Document 4 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00070-NVW Document 4 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00070-NVW Document 4 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**ALTON D. BROWN (A/K/A POLITICAL PRISONER #DL 4886),** 

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 45 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Application for Le ave to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is** DENIED

**.**
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Meagan Chappell","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mchappe3\/","title":"NESC Honor Awards","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XtATrVVSV2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nesc\/nesc-honor-awards\/\">NESC Honor Awards<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nesc\/nesc-honor-awards\/embed\/#?secret=XtATrVVSV2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NESC Honor Awards” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XtATrVVSV2\" 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\/2024\/02\/techup2023-pg68-69-art1-1.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"50 Years Ago: NASA Launched Apollo 7","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"drOLNNLTPn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-nasa-launched-apollo-7\/\">50 Years Ago: NASA Launched Apollo 7<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-nasa-launched-apollo-7\/embed\/#?secret=drOLNNLTPn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“50 Years Ago: NASA Launched Apollo 7” — NASA\" data-secret=\"drOLNNLTPn\" 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\/2018\/10\/apollo7_patch_crew.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":239}
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Petitioner Charlie L. Morgan has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 8). The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United 

States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 21), 

recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Metcalf advised the parties that 

they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely 

objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Doc. 

21 at 12); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCharlie L. Morgan, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02646-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02646-SPL Document 22 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 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 

taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 8) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice; 

3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02646-SPL Document 22 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 2
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Osborne, et al.

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft 

Heinz, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20-cv-02256

Judge Robert M. Dow

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ ,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, David Knopf, 

 Greg Guidotti, Bernardo Hees, Paulo Basilio, Andrew Stoner, Rishi Natarajan, Yang Xu, James 

 Liu, Christpher Skinger, and Vince Garlati. 

and against plaintiff(s) John Osborne, Brian Coleman, Eve Coleman, Helen Millhouse, Matthew 

 D. Brown. 

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other:

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Robert M. Dow on a motion to dismiss. 

Date: 9/15/2021 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Case: 1:20-cv-02256 Document #: 107 Filed: 09/15/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:940
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

Carolyn Hoesly, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-02256 Document #: 107 Filed: 09/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:941
9182.

#### Mangham *et al. v.*Head.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Petition for certiorari; from Pike superior court—Judge Searcy. August 25, 1917.

*B. C. Johnson Jr., Henry 0. Farr,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. F. Dupree,*contra.

Bloobworth, J.

The court did not err in refusing to sanction the certiorari in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Barwell, J., concur.*
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 97

To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit Members

of Congress after leaving office from representing foreign governments

before the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. UPTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to

prohibit Members of Congress after leaving office from

representing foreign governments before the United

States Government.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESTRICTION ON REPRESENTING

4 FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

5 (a) RESTRICTION.—Section 207(f) of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘Any’’ and in8 serting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (2), any’’;
2

HR 97 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as

2 paragraphs (3) and (4); and

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS

6 OF CONGRESS.—Any person who is a Member of

7 Congress and who, after that person leaves office as

8 such Member—

9 ‘‘(A) represents a foreign government be10 fore any officer or employee of any department

11 or agency of the United States with the intent

12 to influence a decision of such officer or em13 ployee in carrying out the officer’s or employ14 ee’s official duties; or

15 ‘‘(B) aids or advises a foreign government

16 with the intent to influence a decision of any of17 ficer or employee of the United States in carry18 ing out the officer’s or employee’s official du19 ties;

20 shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this

21 title.’’.

22 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 207(f)(4) of title 18,

23 United States Code, as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)

24 of this section, is amended to read as follows:
3

HR 97 IH

1 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub2 section—

3 ‘‘(A) the term ‘foreign entity’ means the

4 government of a foreign country as defined in

5 section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registration

6 Act of 1938 or a foreign political party as de7 fined in section 1(f) of that Act; and

8 ‘‘(B) the term ‘foreign government’ means

9 the government of a foreign country as defined

10 in section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registra11 tion Act of 1938.’’.

12 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this

14 Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act.

16 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this

17 Act shall apply to any person whose service as a Member

18 of Congress (as defined in section 202(d) of title 18, Unit19 ed States Code) terminates before, on, or after the effec20 tive date set forth in subsection (a), but shall not apply

21 to activities prohibited by such amendments which are

22 conducted before such effective date.

Æ
\ -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THE JAMES STREIBICH REVOCABLE TRUST 

OF 2002, an Illinois Trust, individually, and 

derivatively, on behalf of FOLDING LIGHT, LLC, 

a Delaware Limited Liability Company

Plaintiffs,

v.

BROCK H. FLAGSTAD, an individual; OXFORD 

MARKETING PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; OXFORD MEDIA, 

LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; 

OXFORD TAX PARTNERS, LLC, an Illinois 

Limited Liability Company; OXFORD FG, LLC, 

an Illinois Limited Liability Company; OXFORD 

GP, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; 

FINANCIAL FREEDOM ADVISORS, LLC, an 

Illinois Limited Liability Company; and 

CLOVERPOINT PARTNERS, LLC, an Illinois 

Limited Liability Company; 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-2242

Honorable Judge Manish S. Shah

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs, THE JAMES STREIBICH REVOCABLE TRUST OF 2002, an Illinois Trust,

individually (“the Trust”), and derivatively, on behalf of FOLDING LIGHT, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company (“Folding Light”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby 

file this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

Case: 1:20-cv-02242 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/20/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:953
-2-

Dated: July 20, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ William K. Kane 

William K. Kane, Esq. (6194466)

David M. Poell, Esq.(6302765)

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

Three First National Plaza

70 West Madison Street, 48th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: 312.499.6300

Facsimile: 312.499.6301

wkane@sheppardmullin.com 

dpoell@sheppardmullin.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs, The James Streibich 

Revocable Trust of 2002, an Illinois Trust,

individually, and derivatively, on behalf of Folding 

Light, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company

Case: 1:20-cv-02242 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/20/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:954
-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of July 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will 

send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ William K. Kane

William K. Kane

Case: 1:20-cv-02242 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/20/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:955
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 Quarterly Report of Energy Visions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D. Wayne Hartford, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



/s/ D. Wayne Hartford

____________________________________

By: D. Wayne Hartford

Chief Executive Officer



September 22, 2003
#### Hedwig Ridder and Others, as Trustees under Deed of Trust Made by Amalia Jaeger, Appellants, *v.*The Mutual Paper Co., Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 3,1925.

Landlord and tenant — action by tenants for breach, of covenants in lease to keep premises in good order and repair — landlord bound by absolute obligation to put premises in repair — liability not limited by age and character of building — evidence establishing necessity for repairs and damages — tenants entitled to directed verdict.

In an action by tenants for breach of covenants in a lease to put and keep premises in good order and repair, said plaintiffs are entitled to a directed verdict, notwithstanding the fact that there was no testimony as to the age and character of the building, since the obligation in the lease was not limited by the original condition or age of the premises, but was a direct obligation upon the part of the landlord to put the premises in good repair.

The' necessity for the expenditures made by the tenants was shown by photographic evidence of disrepair and damage, and moreover, the amount of damages was proved *prima facie*by the testimony of the contractor who made the repairs.

Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District, entered upon a directed verdict after a trial before a judge and jury.

*Smith, Townley & Chambers [Henry Siegrist*of counsel], for the appellants.

*Joseph A. Arnold [Matt Goldstein*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs sued for breach of covenants in a lease to *put*and keep the premises in good order and repair. The defendant argues that even in such a contract the obligation of the lessee depends upon the age and character of the building and that since there was no testimony in that regard the verdict directed for the defendant was correct. It seems to us, however, that the obligation was not limited by the original condition of the premises nor by their age but was a direct and absolute obligation to put the premises in good repair. *(City of New York*v. *McCarthy,*171 App. Div. *109561.) The necessity for the expenditures is demonstrated by photographic evidence of great dilapidation and damage, and the amount of damage was proved *prima facie*by testimony of a contractor who repaired it.

Both sides moved for a directed verdict.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed, with $30 costs, and a verdict directed in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $1,000, with costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.
#### Tibbs *v.*Barker.

A specific performance of a parol agreement for the sale of land will be decreed, where the purchase money has been paid, and possession taken, in pursuance of the contract.

SUIT in Equity, transferred from the *Crawford*Circuit Court previously to a decree, in consequence of the interest of the circuit judge (1). — The complainant prayed a specific perform*59anee of *aparol agreement*for the assignment of a land office certificate; and alleged a part performance, by having paid the purchase money, received the certificate, and possessed the land, in pursuance of the agreement. The defendant pleaded the statute of frauds, and denied the acts of part performance alleged in the bill.

*Nelson,*for the complainant.

*Stevens,*for the defendant.

(1)

 Const. Ind. a. 5. s. 2 . — Ind. Stat. 1818, p. 45; — 1823, p. 130.

Scott, J.

The part performance of this parol agreement, alleged and proved, takes it out of the statute of frauds.

*Per Curiam.*

A specific performance is decreed, with costs.