alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jos. B. Wallingford *v.*Amos Bassett's Admr., &c.

Bond for Title — Sale of Land — Eesoission of Contract.

Interest not allowed for longer time than contract authorized. Purchaser not bound to accept deed, different from contract he made.

APPEAL FROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

November 3, 1871.

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Hardin:

The bond executed by Amos Bassett and Willitt and Clary and their wives to the appellant does not import a sale of the interests of Joseph Waring, Mrs. Johnson and the children of Mrs. Thompr son, deceased, nor does it appear that there was any contract, written or oral, between Waring and Johnson and wife and the appel*579lant for tbe sale of their interests in the land; and no sufficient reason is perceived for forcing on the appellant the alternative of either accepting the deed as tendered, including those interests, and paying for them at the contract price of the other shares, or submitting to a rescission of the contract as to the shares which he did not purchase; and the judgment is in that respect erroneous. It is also erroneous in allowing interest on the debts of Mrs. Thompson’s representatives for a longer time than their contract authorized.

Andrews, Thomas, *for appellant.*

Halbert, *for appellee.*

We are of opinion the court properly held the appellant bound by the statements of his answer showing there were 95 acres and 20 rods of the land, and as neither the appellant nor Mrs. Thompson’s children sought to avoid their sale, it would have been proper to adjudge a specific execution of the contracts, as embracing all the land except the interests of Waring and Johnson and wife, and to have enforced the vendor’s lien; provided the married women insisted in proper deeds to divest themselves of'title; but for the reasons we have sufficiently indicated, the appellant was not bound to accept the deed tendered, which expresses a different contract from that which he made.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
9344.

#### WEBB *v.*THOMPSON.

1, 2. The rulings of the trial judge on the admission of testimony, as complained of in the motion for new trial, are not erroneous.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided March 13, 1918.

Complaint; from Milton superior court—Judge Pendleton presiding. September *22,*1917. (See 146 *Ga.*461, 91 S. E. 480.)

Thompson brought suit against Webb upon a promissory note, alleging that it was secured by a deed to certain land described in the petition. Webb filed a plea setting up that when his equity of redemption in the land was exposed to ’ sale by the trustee in bankruptcy of his estate, and a short time. before the sale took place, he made a verbal agreement with the plaintiff, by which the plaintiff agreed to extend the time of payment of - the note, in consideration of certain improvements which the defendant was to make on'the place. ■ The defendant further claimed that in pursuance of this agreement he bought the equity of redemption at the sale, and complied with his part of the contract, in making the improvements, until he was stopped by an injunction obtained by the plaintiff. Testimony was offered by the defendant to support his plea. The plaintiff denied that any such agreement to extend the time of payment was-made. The issue was determined by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

*J. P. Brooke, J. Z. Foster,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. B. Walker, George F. Gober, W. I. Heyward,*contra.

Harwell, J.

1. In one ground of the motion for new’ trial it is alleged that the defendant was asked the question if he, in order to carry out the contract, had sold a portion of said land in order to enable him to pay for the land; to which he answered yes; and that the court excluded this- testimony. It appears from the motion that counsel for the defendant admitted that the contract with plaintiff did not contemplate that defendant should sell any of the land; and under this admission the court did not err in excluding this testimony. '

*2.*
      **In another ground of the motion it is complained that the plaintiff was permitted by the court to explain' a certain letter which the plaintiff had written to the defendant. The court did *40mot err in admitting this testimony, and there was no merit in this ground of the motion.

3. The court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion. There was a sharp conflict between the plaintiif and defendant as to the making of the alleged verbal contract extending the time of payment, but the jury decided this issue in favor-of the plaintiff. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and approved by the trial judge; and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworthy J., concur.*
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Triclawps, LLC an Arizona limited liability company,

Shadow Tech LLC, a Kansas limited liability

company, and Joshua E. Stabler, an individual

Shadow Tech LLC

4111 W 74th Terrace

Prairie Village, KS 66208

John D. Titus

HARTMAN TITUS PLC

7114 E. Stetson Drive, Suite 205

Scottsdale, AZ 85251-3250

Phone: (480) 659-0019

ISSUED ON 8:39 am, Jan 20, 2016 s/ Brian D. Karth, Clerk

Case 2:16-cv-00106-BSB Document 6 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 2:16-cv-00106-BSB Document 6 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1999 QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,889
<SECURITIES>                                   167,169
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,099
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,824
<OTHER-SE>                                       (813)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,268
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,404
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    90
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    278
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                278
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       278
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PAWNMART, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 1, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                AUG-1-1998
<CASH>                                         877,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,811,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,361,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,168,000
<PP&E>                                       2,732,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,557,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,542,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          952,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,518,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,542,000
<SALES>                                      3,527,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,149,000
<CGS>                                        2,344,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,567,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,780,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             831,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,029,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,029,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,029,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Petrosearch Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
J. Collins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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; 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:
      March 21, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      David J. CollinsDavid
      J. CollinsChief
      Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Garrett Shea","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/garrett-shea-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Navigating Tomorrow\u2019s Opportunities","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JHPQQRpmuY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/osbp\/navigating-tomorrows-opportunities\/\">Navigating Tomorrow\u2019s Opportunities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/osbp\/navigating-tomorrows-opportunities\/embed\/#?secret=JHPQQRpmuY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Navigating Tomorrow\u2019s Opportunities” — NASA\" data-secret=\"JHPQQRpmuY\" 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\/10\/seal-of-the-executive-office-of-the-president-of-the-united-states-2014.svg.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard L. Hutchinson,

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-17-03482-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 8543 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
9453.

#### Dillon *v.*Patterson.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Complaint; from Pickens superior court—Judge Morris. November 2, 1917.

*B. L. Smith, Thomas A. Brown,*for plaintiff.

*F. O. & Howard Tate, E. H. Clay, William Butt,*for defendant.

Broyles, P. J.

This suit was for a balance alleged to be due on the purchase price of an automobile. The defendant filed no plea of total or partial failure of consideration, but merely denied liability. In the alleged purchase he -was represented by his son. The car was sold in Atlanta for $550, and was delivered to the son, who then signed' his father’s name to a cheek for $300, which he gave to the 'plaintiff, and drove the car to his father’s home in Pickens county. The plaintiff subsequently cashed this check and received the money on it. The defendant testified that his son had no authority to buy the car for him or to sign his name to the check, and that when the car was brought to his home in Pickens county he (the defendant) repudiated, the contract, and, as soon as the condition of the roads permitted, had his son to drive the ear back to the plaintiff in Atlanta; that the plaintiff refused to rescind the trade, but told the defendant’s son that if he would store the car in a certain garage in Atlanta he "(the plaintiff) would sell it for him. Accordingly the car was so stored, where it remained for some time, but the plaintiff failed to sell it. Subsequently the defendant paid the storage bill to the garage company and' removed the car to his home in Pickens county, where he kept it for some length of time, and it was used occasionally by members of his family. The defendant finally, *without any notice to the plaintiff,*sold the car to another motor company in exchange for one of its "cars. *Held:*The defendant by his conduct ratified the act of his son in the purchase of the car and made himself liable for the balance of the purchase-price, and, under the evidence and the pleadings, was not entitled to a verdict in his favor. See sections 3591 and 3593 of the Civil Code of 1910; *Merchants Bank of Macon*v. *Central Bank of Georgia,*1 *Ga.*418; *Haney School Furniture Co.*v. *Hightower Baptist Institute,*113 *Ga.*289 (38 S. E. 761); *Home Fertilizer &c. Co.*v. *Dickerson,*12 *Ga. App.*149 (76 S. E. 1040); *Swearingen*v. *Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.,*19 *Ga. App.*658 (91 S. E. 1050). The verdict in favor of the defendant was therefore contrary to. law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.4

Eastern Division

Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02133

Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

Jennifer Taylor, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, March 10, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Fidelity's motion for leave

to file a second amended complaint [109] is taken under advisement and will be addressed

at the March 23 status hearing. Mailed notice(air, )

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-02133 Document #: 110 Filed: 03/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2634
#### CHRISTIANSEN v. CHRISTIANSEN et al.

No. 1727.

District Court, N. D. Texas, Dallas Division.

July 9, 1947.

James F. Gray and John N. Harris, Jr., both of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.

W. H. Reid, of Dallas, Tex., for defendants.

ATWELL, District Judge.

The opinion printed in, D.C., 62 F.Supp. 341, and the opinion in 5 Cir., 159 F.2d 366, 371, correctly portray the parties and the issues and it is doubtful that an apology could be found for a restatement.

The Circuit Court opinion was rendered by two of the Judges; Circuit Judge Sibley dissented. An application for certiorari, I am informed, was refused by the Supreme Court on the ground that “no federal issue was involved.”

The mandate having arrived from the Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree upon a judgment. The judgment of that court directed that “the judgment of the Court (this court) is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.”

Judge Sibley’s strong dissent and masterful presentation of his views is most compelling, but, as I conceive it, it is the duty of this court to follow the direction of the majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

When counsel informed the court that they were unable to agree, I asked each to prepare a judgment which each considered as applicable; that I would then gladly hear anything that either side had to say in open court.

That course has been followed, and it seems to me that plaintiff has made it unnecessary for any further accounting or the taking of any additional testimony since he agrees to figures and estimates presented by the defendants. Such figures reflect descriptions, profits, expenses, and appropriate legal divisions within the terms of the majority opinion.

The judgment so prepared is accepted as the present judgment of the court.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

James Smith v. GreatBanc Trust

Company, et al.

1:20-cv-02350

James Smith, Plaintiff

Paul J Lukas

Nichols Kaster, PLLP

4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth St.

Minneapolis, MN 55402

MN Bar No. 22084X (612) 256-3200

lukas@nka.com

April 21, 2020

✔

✔

✔

✔

Paul J Lukas

Case: 1:20-cv-02350 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/21/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:63