alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

Countrywide Home Loans company logo here

400 Countrywide Way
Simi Valley, California 93065-6298

March 25, 2005

Morgan Stanley ABA Capital 1 Inc.
Re: CDC 2004-HE1, CDC2004-HE2, CDC 2004-HE3, IXIS 2004-HE4
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

Deutsche Bank
Re: CDC 2004-HE1, CDC2004-HE2, CDC 2004-HE3, IXIS 2004-HE4
1761 E. St, Andrews Place
Santa Ana, Ca 92705

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
4 New York Plaza - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10004

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph Candelario, herby certify that I am the First Vice President, Loan
Administration of Countrywide Home loans, Inc., fka Countrywide Funding
Corporation. I further certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing
Agreements, listed on Exhibit I hereto (the "Agreements"), for Countrywide Home
Loan Servicing LP (the "Servicer"), the following:

I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the
Fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 under the Agreements and, to the best of my
knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties,
responsibilities or obligations under the Agreements throughout the fiscal year.

By: /s/: Joseph Candelario
Joseph Candelario
Date: March 25, 2005
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration

<page>

re: Investor Numbers
See Deal Name Listing on Exhibit 1
See Deal Name Listing on following page

Exhibit 1

1.  CDC Mortgage Capital Trust 2004-HE1: Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
    as of February 1, 2004.

2.  CDC Mortgage Capital Trust 2004-HE2: Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
    as of May 1, 2004.

3.  CDC Mortgage Capital Trust 2004-HE3: Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
    as of August 1, 2004.

4.  IXIS Real Estate Capital Trust 2004-HE4: Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
    dated as of November 1, 2004.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1**  **264**

JIHUI ZHANG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS; NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; PROMETRIC , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00129

- CCE

- PTS )

Submitted : May 31 , 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jihui Zhang , Appellant Pro Se. Jon Berkelhammer, Patrick Michael Kane, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina ; Benjamin R. Norman, Reid Lloyd Phillips, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLE NDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina , for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jihui Zhang appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and deny ing relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Zhang v. Fed’n of State Med. Bds. , No. 1:11

- cv - 00129

- CCE

- PTS (M.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2012)
. We d ispense 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Levanda Denise Grogan,

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-17-03916-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: October 26, 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 8511 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
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

Michael Apelt, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-882-PHX-ROS

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to file ex parte and under seal his lodged

Motion to Supplement Budget. The lodged motion contains information protected by the

attorney work-product doctrine. Consequently, the Court finds the need for confidentiality

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) and will permit the lodged motion to be filed ex parte and

under seal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 305) is

GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file Petitioner’s lodged Motion to Supplement Budget

(Doc. 306) ex parte and under seal.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2012.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Howard Dean Neeley","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lnO0BceMbR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/howard-dean-neeley\/\">Howard Dean Neeley<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/howard-dean-neeley\/embed\/#?secret=lnO0BceMbR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Howard Dean Neeley” — NASA\" data-secret=\"lnO0BceMbR\" 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\/2021\/04\/ed13-0052-10_p-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":800}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51195 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
SERGIO SALGADO-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-03-CR-384-1-WWJ

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sergio Salgado-Diaz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Salgado-Diaz contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-51195 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Salgado-Diaz maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Salgado-Diaz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Challenges Students to Fly Earth and Space Experiments","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7cNDNIjE00\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-challenges-students-to-fly-earth-and-space-experiments\/\">NASA Challenges Students to Fly Earth and Space Experiments<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-challenges-students-to-fly-earth-and-space-experiments\/embed\/#?secret=7cNDNIjE00\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Challenges Students to Fly Earth and Space Experiments” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7cNDNIjE00\" 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\/afrc2020-0100-30_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### McGuire *v.*Robertson.

Opinion delivered November 24, 1930.

*762
      *Hay me, Paries $ Westfall,*for appellant.

*L. B. 8 mead*-and *H. G. Wade,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellants insist that the verdict is not supported by the testimony, while appellees contend that the verdict is demonstrably inaccurate, and that they are entitled to a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, for the full amount of their claim.

It may be said that the testimony is in conflict, and certainly as to whether there was a new oral contract made for the last work and a final settlement for the first work done under the written contract, and same is sufficient to have supported a verdict for either party, the plaintiffs or defendants, under their contentions.

It is true that the verdict is not consistent, but that is no ground for reversal thereof in this court, it being supported by sufficient testimony. The appellants contend that there was only one contract, and that the final estimate of all work done, both at the first stations and after the removal north to the other stations, under the contract amounted to a certain designated sum, and that the payments made were more than the amount thereof —an overpayment, in fact, of a substantial amount. On the other hand, according to appellees’ contention, they were only paid in full for the amount of work first done, and they insist appellants were due them more than a $1,000 for the work done under the oral contract after the removal from the first stations and the completion of that contract and final payment made, and that the jury, having found in their favor, entitles them to a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, for the whole amount.

There could be no judgment notwithstanding the verdict upon this state of the case within the meaning of the statute *{%*6273, Cl & M. Digest), and the rules of this court thereon. *Fulbright*v. *Phipps,*176 Ark. 356, 3 S. W. (2d) 49 ; *Moore*v. *Rogers Wholesale Gro. Co., 177*Ark.*763993, 8 S. W. (2d) 457 ; *Oil Field's Corp.*v. *Cubage,*180 Ark. 1018, 24 S. W. (2d) 328.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Johnnie G. Brock,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03900-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shrader & Associates, LLP

(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 10/25/2017, 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 8484 Filed 11/01/17 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 8484 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Ann M. Ferguson, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form10-K of Schmitt Industries, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 
    Date: September 27, 2019   /s/ Ann M. Ferguson   Ann M. Ferguson   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   (principal financial officer)**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS )

LIABILITY LITIGATION, )

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) MDL Docket No. 15-2641

)

2:17-cv-03979-DGC )

___________________________________ )

)

MARK PARRISH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

C. R. BARD, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO: The Clerk of the Court and all parties of record:

We are admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court and we appear in this 

case as counsel for plaintiff, Mark Parrish.

Dated: 10/30/2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Thomas P. Cartmell 

Thomas P. Cartmell (MO Bar No. 45366 )

 (admitted pro hac vice)

Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP

4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300

Kansas City, MO 64112

(816) 701-1100

(816) 531-2372 (fax)

By: /s/David C. DeGreeff 

David C. DeGreeff (MO Bar No. 55019)

 (admitted pro hac vice)

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8456 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 2
Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP

4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300

Kansas City, MO 64112

(816) 701-1100

(816) 531-2372 (fax)

ddegreeff@wcllp.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

I hereby certify that on this 30TH day of October, 2017, I electronically 

transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for 

filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing.

/s/ David C. DeGreeff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8456 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOM'S FOODS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 25, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                           1,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,764)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,606
<PP&E>                                          97,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,456
<BONDS>                                         69,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,021
<PREFERRED>                                     27,390
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,774
<SALES>                                         45,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,572
<CGS>                                           27,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,828)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,129)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,129)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
9285.

#### Kelly *v.*Shores-Mueller Company.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Complaint; from Murray superior court—Judge Tarver.

*King & Starr,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. K. McCutcheon, B. Noel Steed,*contra.

Wade, C. J.

Where exception is taken to a preliminary judgment overruling an oral motion to dismiss an action, and it appears from the bill of exceptions that a final judgment was rendered in the case, upon which there is no assignment of error, this court is without jurisdiction, and the writ of error must be dismissed. *Lyndon*v. *Ga. Ry. El. Co.,*129 *Ga.*353 (58 S. E. 1047); *Newberry*v. *Tenant,*121 *Ga.*561 (49 S. E. 621); *Kibben*v. *Coastwise Dredging Co.,*120 *Ga.*899 (48 S. E. 330); *Ox Breeches Mfg. Co.*v. *Bird,*1 *Ga. App.*40 (57 S. E. 975); *Anderson*v. *Hall,*3 *Ga. App.*555 (60 S. E. 294); *Simmons*v. *Peagler,*7 *Ga. App.*252 (66 S. E. 629; *Tinsley*v. *Gullett Gin Co.,*21 *Ga. App.*512 (94 S. E. 892), and eases there cited.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Jenhins and Luhe, JJ., concur.*
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-02398-DMF Document 6 Filed 11/24/15 Page 15 of 15