alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wm. Clayton *v.*Geo. Hamilton.

Pleading — Action for Tort — Misjoinder.

A petition was filed, setting out both an action on the case for consequential damages, and against the bond, for a wrongful levy, after attachment issued. • An amended petition was filed, asking judgment on the bond alone. Held, That as the original petition sued for the tort as well as for the breach of contract, the filing of the amended petition some time afterwards, was not the commencement of the action for tort, and limitations did not apply.

APPEAL ER,OM BATH CIRCUIT COURT;

August 18, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The sale of the pig iron under an execution issued, after the appellant’s attachment was levied on it was illegal; and consequently, the attachment having been afterwards sustained, the appellee, as mover of the execution and purchaser under it became liable to the appellant for the wrongful conversion of the iron to his own use. And the court sustaining the attachment might have enforced it. But that liability might be also enforced by either an action on the appellant’s bond to the sheriff or by a special action on the case for consequential damages. The appellant’s original petition may be construed as combining both forms of action and, according to section 113 Code of Practice, .the answer waived the misjoinder of contract and tort. An amended petition claims judgment on the bond alone; and on a" rule requiring the appellant to elect whether he'would proceed either for tort or a breach of contract, he elected to prosecute the action for the tort alone. And thereupon the circuit court, adjudging that the action for the tort was barred by. limitation, dismissed it.

As the original petition sued for the tort as well as for a breach of contract, the filing of the amended petition long after-wards was not as erroneously adjudged, the commencement of the action for the tort, and the original petition having been filed within the statutory time, the action, as prosecuted was not bound. *511Nor is it material whether the appellant’s title or possession would have sustained the technical action of trover and conversion.

*Stone, Lacy, for appellant.*

*Apperson & Nesbitt, Young, for appellee.*

The facts alleged are sufficient to maintain a special action for a tortious act.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, with leave to the • appellant to amend and thereby re-elect to proceed on the bond or for the tort alone.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"NASA Selects Contractors for Ground Support Equipment Fabrication","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UDkWXxNb5a\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-selects-contractors-for-ground-support-equipment-fabrication\/\">NASA Selects Contractors for Ground Support Equipment Fabrication<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-selects-contractors-for-ground-support-equipment-fabrication\/embed\/#?secret=UDkWXxNb5a\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Selects Contractors for Ground Support Equipment Fabrication” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UDkWXxNb5a\" 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\/09\/nasa-meaball-logo-1.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, R. Steven Hamner, certify that:



|1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3) | Based on my knowledge, the other financial information included in this report is fairly presented in all material respects as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                  
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 21, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ R. Steven Hamner                                                                                                             
|                         |  |  |  | R. Steven Hamner                                                                                                                 
|                         |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Sole Member of the General Partner of MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Gordon F. Dugan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Gramercy Property Trust Inc. (the “registrant”);                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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: April 30, 2015



| | /s/ GORDON F. DUGAN           
| | ------------------------------
| | Name: Gordon F. DuGan         
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 of Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Fanelli III, Senior Vice President and 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), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                                   
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:                 |  | /S/    JOHN FANELLI
III                                           
|                    |  | John Fanelli III Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                   
|Date: April 6, 2010
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

1

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)

KENT LAW OFFICES

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

Of Counsel to:

Michigan Consumer Credit Lawyers

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Leslie Belsanti

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leslie Belsanti,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, a 

Georgia corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-08001-DGC

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AS TO 

DEFENDANT EXPERIAN 

INFORMAITON SERVICES, LLC, 

ONLY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff and Defendant, Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc., in the above-captioned case have reached a settlement. 

The parties anticipate filing a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant 

Case 3:16-cv-08001-DGC Document 76 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., ONLY, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) within 

60 days.

DATED: August 30, 2016 KENT LAW OFFICES

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Leslie Belsanti

Case 3:16-cv-08001-DGC Document 76 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Jacob Lemmon *v.*S. A. Theobald, Admr. of L. Bennett.

Vendor and Purchaser — Lien in Deed — Non-Production of Notes.

Though a lien be reserved in a deed for unpaid purchase money, the non-production of notes, or showing as to their existence, for more than 20 years, held sufficient to authorize cancellation of lien.

APPEAL EROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

January 22, 1870.

Trimble, *for appellant.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

Although a reserved lien is provided in the deed of Lemmon to his son-in-law, the decedent, Bennett, for the deferred payments, which deed was executed in the year 1850, yet it does not show whether notes were or not executed therefor, but it is made to appear by appellant’s witness, the surviving widow of the decedent and appellant’s daughter that her husband had executed notes.

The non-production of these notes and the great lapse of time, together with the other evidence establishing that Lemmon said he had given the farm to his son-in-law, connected with the non-presentation of his claims and his direction to the administrator ■to appropriate the personal assets to the payment of 'the decedent’s debts and if these were not sufficient he would pay the remainder, so as to save the land left by decedent to his family, are sufficient to sustain the correcteness of the judgment disallowing appellant’s claim, hence the judgment is affirmed.
#### Montgomery *v.*Weir and Another, in Chancery.

THE surety in an administration bond, being indebted to the administrator in the sum of 300 dollars, gave him a note for the payment. On a settlement of the estate in the Probate Court, the administrator was found in arrears to the amount of 1,100 dollars. The surety, fearing a loss on account of his suretiship, refused to pay the note, and gave public notice of the circumstances for the purpose of preventing its assignment. The administrator, however, assigned the note; and the assignees obtained a judgment at law against the maker.

On a bill filed by the judgment debtor, the proceedings against him at law were enjoined, until he should be secured against his liability as surety of the administrator, the payee of the note.
9164.

#### Small *v.*American National Bank.

Decided July 30, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Macon—Judge Mathews presiding. July 13, 1917.

*W. B. McNeil,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hardeman, Jones, Parle & Johnston, H. 8. Btrozier,*contra..

Bloodworth, J.

The court did not err either in refusing to grant a non-suit or in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Broyles, P. *J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONSI, James W. Stryker, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie Callender’s Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 16, 2007
[785 NYS2d 648]

#### Martine Associates LLC, Respondent, v Lynn Minck, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 29, 2004

*62APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Westchester/Putnam Legal Services,*White Plains *(Barbara Finkelstein, Judith B. Studebaker*and *Mihaela Petrescu*of counsel), for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously reversed with $10 costs, tenant’s motion to vacate the default final judgment and warrant granted, and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.

A default final judgment may not be granted on facially insufficient papers. A statutory rent demand (RPAPL 711 [2]) is one of “the facts upon which the special proceeding is based” *(see Kentpark Realty Corp. v Lasertone Corp.,*3 Misc 3d 28, 31 [App Term, 2d Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; RPAPL 741 [4]). The petition herein stated only that the rent “has been duly demanded personally from tenants [sic] as same became due and/or 3 day notice has been served on tenant.” In the absence of proof of a written demand or an unequivocal oral demand allegation, landlord failed to establish a “predicate requirement ] of a summary proceeding” *(Matter of Pepe v Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries,*221 AD2d 545, 546 [1995]; *see Fitzgerald v Washington,*80 Misc 2d 861 [Civ Ct, NY County 1975]), a facial insufficiency that precludes entry of a default final judgment. Moreover, the affidavit of service of the notice of petition and petition alleged a single attempt at personal service, at 1:30 p.m. on August 5, 2003, before the process server resorted to affix and mail service. As a rule, at least two attempts at personal service, one during normal working hours and one attempt when a person working normal hours could reasonably be expected to be home, are required to satisfy the “reasonable application” standard (RPAPL 735 [1]; *see Eight Assoc. v Hynes,*102 AD2d 746, 748 [1984], *affd*65 NY2d 739, 740 [1985]; *Hynes v Buchbinder,*147 AD2d 371 [1989]). In this respect also, the pleadings fail to set forth landlord’s entitlement to a default final judgment prima facie.

The default final judgment, in any event, should be vacated upon tenant’s proof of excusable default and meritorious defenses. In addition to the foregoing, tenant’s proof of a prior Department of Social Services rent payment, purporting to *63satisfy a portion of the rent alleged due in the petition, creates a colorable defense. Moreover, tenant’s claim that landlord served the rent demand and notice of petition and petition when tenant was in Arizona established an excusable default.

We note that the inadequate affidavit of service of the petition could warrant the petition’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. However, at this juncture, dismissal is inappropriate as tenant’s failure specifically to raise such defense in support of her motion did not afford an opportunity to litigate the defense’s merits.

McCabe, EJ., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
CELSION      -------------------------------------------------------------------
             CELSION CORPORATION             T 410.290.5390  www.celsion.com
             10220-I, Old Columbia Road      T 800.262.0394  celsion@celsion.com
             Columbia MD 21046-1785          F 410.290.5394



December 1, 2002

Dr. Kaijun Wu

President and Professor of Urology
First affiliated Hospital Guangzhou Medical College
No.1 Kang Da Road
Guangzhou, China

Dear Dr. Wu:

Further our conversation, I am happy to inform you that Celsion Corporation will
retain your service as medical consultant for 2003. A retainer of US$1,000 per
month will be offered as compensation. It is my understanding that you will be
willing to receive the compensation in form of Celsion Corporation restricted
common stock in lieu of cash. Your stipend will be paid quarterly and the number
of shares to be issued to you will be calculated using the closing stock price
of each calendar quarter.

Thank you for your assistance,


/s/Augustine Y. Cheung
Augustine Y. Cheung
President & CEO
#### National Bank of Lebanon, &c. *v.*Campbell & Irvin.

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors — Deed of Vendor.

A deed is attacked as fraudulent, and is sought to be made an assignment for the benefit of creditors; the vendor was not made a party, but the vendee only. Held, on a claim that as the the legal grantor not being before the court, there was no such action for subjecting the property as contemplated by statute, that the deed vested nothing in the vendee and was merely a preference.

Same — Parties.

The vendee could be brought before the court for the purpose of passing the legal title at any time.

APPEAL EROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

March 19, 1872.

*523*W. B.*Samson, *for appellants.*

*B. & F., for appellees.*

Opinion ok the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The facts disclosed in the record satisfy ns that Mitchell made the deed to Spalding in violation of the provisions of the act of March 10, 1856, and that it operated as an assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors; but as by the second section of that act suit should have been brought to subject the property within six months, and Spalding was not sued at all, • but only the bank and other beneficiaries under the deed, it is contended that for this cause the judgment must be reversed on two grounds; first, for a defect of parties, .Spalding not being sued; and second, he as the legal grantor not being before the court there was in fact no such action for subjecting the property as contemplated by the statute. The first ground of objection was, no doubt a cause of special demurrer, but the advantage not being so taken, it was waived. (Civil Code, sections 120, 121 and 123.)

Nor can we regard the other objection, taken to the'judgment, an available one for reversing the judgment. The deed vested nothing in Spalding, being the naked legal title; its plain and manifest, meaning and effect being to secure the bank as the beneficiary. We must regard this suit against that corporation, brought in apt time, as it was, as substantially an action under the statute for having the deed construed to operate as an assignment ; and if Spalding should be brought before the court for the purpose of passing the legal title to purchasers or others, it is not, as supposed in the argument, too late to do so yet.

The judgment is affirmed.