alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wm. P. Calvert *v.*Louisville Journal Co.

Accounts — Acknowledgment of Indebtedness.

Where from the evidence, it is shown that an account made out and presented to one member of a firm, was objected to in one item only, which he directed to be corrected, held sufifitóent to justify an action for an indebtedness due at that time.

APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.

September 30, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

Tbe accounts are not presented in this record in an intelligent and satisfactory manner, if account *“A No. If’*made out by *430Lynch and. referred to in his deposition, is copied in the record, the court has failed to see it:

*MuncLy, for appellant.*

*Thompson, for appellee.*

This witness states that the account *A No. 1*was shown to Mr. Osborne, the business partner of the concern, and he made but one objection to it, the account was then corrected to conform to his view, that account showed a balance in favor of appellant, but what that balance was this record fails to show. And Mr. Osborne says when appellant’s account was shown to him he saw the mistake in the last item, which he directed Mr. Lynch to correct; he made the correction, and until then he says he did not know his firm owed Oalvert anything. This was certainly an acknowledgment of an indebtedness to the amount of the balance of the account thus corrected.

Mr. Osborne establishes the faithful and skillful discharge of the duties of Lynch, Perrin and appellant. Perrin succeeded Lynch as bookkeeper and cashier of the concern, and he states the books show correctly the amounts collected by appellant, as well as what he retained out of those collections. He also proves that Mr. Osborne made a memorandum on the last account (which we understand to be the account on ledger No. 2, page 68), in pencil after Oalvert left to settle the account, which he did by entering a credit to Oalvert of $100 per month.

A part of the time at least appellees were paying appellant $100 per month and at no time less than $1,000 per year, unless it be in 1861 and 1862, but how long the reduction in his salary was continued does not appear. Enough, however, appears in the record to show that some amount was due appellant which could be manifested by inspecting the books of the firm with the explanations of Lynch and Perrin. The controversy certainly could be easily correctly settled if the case could be referred to an intelligent master. But as it appears from Osborne’s statement that a balance is due to appellant his petition was improperly dismissed.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Travis B. Sims,

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-17-04397-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: February 1, 2018 /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 9952 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
#### WILSON v. DIAS et al.

Civ. A. No. 6959.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 13, 1947.

*199Saul C. Waldbaum, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for moving defendants.

BARD, District Judge.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted for the following reasons:

1. Jurisdiction of this action is purportedly based upon diversity of citizenship. However, the complaint contains no allegation as to the citizenship of the following defendants: James L. Hill, Robert Walkinshaw, Kensington National Bank, Joseph P. Cattie and Brothers, Enterprise Galvanizing Company, General Smelting Company, Ajax Metal, Superior Zinc Company, American Nickeloid Company, White Brothers Smelting Company, and Pennsylvania Smelting Company.

2. The cause of action alleged presents a “labor dispute” within the meaning of § 13 of the Act of March 23, 1932,1 in that the dispute is “between' one or more employees or associations of employees and one or more employees or associations of employees”, and the controversy concerns the “representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment.”

Under the provisions of the Act of March 23, 1932, the complaint is defective because it does not allege facts from which the Court could make the findings which, under § 7 of the Act,2 are a prerequisite to injunctive relief; furthermore, § 4(c) of the Act 3 prohibits the granting of the relief requested in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, and 12 of the prayer of the complaint.

1

47 Stat. 70, 73, 29 U.S.C.A. § 113.

2

47 Stat. 70, 71, 29 U.S.C.A. § 107. This section provides, among other things, in subsection (c) that the Court must find “That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will bo inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief,”

3

47 Stat. 70, 71, 29 U.S.C.A. § 104(e). Section 4(c) denies to the Court jurisdiction to enjoin “Paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person participating or interested in such labor dispute, any strike or unemployment benefits or insurance, or other moneys or things of value.”
##### 



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
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ William J. SimsWilliam J. SimsChief Executive Officer /s/ David K. JohnsonDavid K. JohnsonChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C Section 1350

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ares Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), R. Kipp deVeer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Penni F. Roll, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.     The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:
February 26, 2015

/s/ R. KIPP DEVEER R. Kipp deVeer Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)/s/ PENNI F. ROLL Penni F. Roll Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ares Capital Corporation and will be retained by Ares Capital Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
9476.

#### Young *v.*The State.

Decided April 2, 1918.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the faóts of the case the court did not err in admitting in evidence ' the alleged confession.

2. Tlie instruction complained of, that “As a general rule, where the husband and wife live together, whatever is found at the place where they live is presumed to be that of the husband, but this is only true as a. general rule,” does not aptly or correctly express the law upon the subject in question. In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of his family, and, where he and his wife reside together, the legal *presumption*is always, and not génerally,* tliat the house and all the household effects belong to the husband as the head of the family. *Broome*v. *Davis,*87 *Ga.*584 (13 S. E. 749); *Smith*v. *Berman,*8 *Ga. App.*262 (68 S. E. 1014). This presumption, however, like all presumptions, may be rebutted. *Smith*v. *Berman,*supra. The error in the charge, however, does not require a new trial in this case, since there was evidence that the defendant, who was charged with manufacturing intoxicating liquors, made a direct confession that she had been making the same; and if this confession was true (and the jury found that it was), it was immaterial whether the house and the household effects, including the liquor itself, belonged to her or to her husband.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*

*112Indictment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; from Camden superior court—Judge Highsmith. December 8, 1917.

' *James T. Vocelle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alvin V. Sellers, solicitor-general,*contra.
**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 XFormity Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), we,
      Christopher Ball, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jack Rabin, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
      Christopher
      Ball






Christopher
      Ball, Chief Executive Officer






February
      14, 2007






/s/
      Jack
      Rabin






Jack
      Rabin, Chief Financial Officer






February
      14, 2007
9220.

#### Sutton *et al. v.*Griner *et al.*

Wade, C. J.

1. While, in this suit on the bond of a deputy sheriff for failure to execute final process, the presumption was that the plaintiffs were damaged, and the burden was upon the defendants to mitigate the damages or show that the plaintiffs were not injured by the breach of official duty, the burden might be shifted and the presumption be rebutted “by proof of facts mitigating the plaintiff’s damages, or by showing that,the money could not have been collected on the fi.. fa. by the exercise- of reasonable diligence.” *Beck & Gregg Co.*v. *Knight,*121 *Ga.*287, 290 (48 S. E. 930, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 420, 2 Ann. Cas. 9), and cases there cited.

2. In a rule against a sheriff for failure to levy executions on property • shown to have been in the possession of the defendant, and so likewise in a suit against him and his bondsmen for a like dereliction of duty, it may be shown by way of defense, as rebutting the presumption of injury sustained by the plaintiff, “that the property in the possession of the defendant .belonged to some one else.” *Cowart,*v. *Dunbar,*56 *Ga.*418. It is likewise “competent for a sheriff, in defense to a rule brought against Mm for neglect, to show that the property levied *308upon was not subject to the execution.” *Brannon*v. *Barnes,*111 *Ga.*850 (2) (36 S. E. 689). See also *Wilkin*v. *American Freehold &c. Co.,*106 *Ga.*182 (32 S. E. 135); *Smith*v. *West,*134 *Ga.*11, 13 (67 S. E. 405).

Decided May 15, 1918.

Action upon bond; from Berrien superior court—Judge Thomas. September 10, 1917.

*Hendricks, Mills & Hendricks,*for plaintiffs.

*W. D. Buie, J.,0. Smith, G. A. Christian,*for defendants.

4. In the light/of the entire record, there- is not such merit in any of the special assignments of error as to require a reversal; and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. ’

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
**Exhibit99.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food & Brewery Ltd. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Monica A. Underwood, Interim Chief Financial Officer andCorporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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. |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toGranite City Food & Brewery Ltd. and will be retained by Granite City Food& Brewery Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 
| **Dated:   May  13, 2003** |   | By     | /s/ Monica  A. Underwood |                                                       |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |   |                     | Monica A.  Underwood                                       |
|                                 |   |   |                     | Interim  Chief Financial Officer and  Corporate Controller |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,901                  26,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,401                  31,191
<PP&E>                                          13,415                  11,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,023                   1,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,792                  46,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          515,487                 237,543
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,008                   1,802
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,792                  46,478
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,777                  71,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (16)                   5,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,322                   1,620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (92,083)                (78,609)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (92,083)                (78,609)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (92,083)                (78,609)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.005)                 (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.005)                 (0.004)
        

</TABLE>
9868.

#### Phillips *v.*Suber.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Certiorari; from 'Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. ■ May 34, 1918. ,

*Don K. Johnston,*for plaintiff in error. *T. J. Ripley,*contra.

Luke, J.

The issues presented in this case are simply questions of fact, which have been passed upon by a jury. There was evidence to. authorize the verdict. Eor none of the reasons, assigned did the court err .in overruling the certiorari.

*'Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, 'j'., eoneur.*
#### Charles Seal *v.*James A. Ragland, &c.

Pleadings — Exhibits—Former Judgment — Failure To Impeach Genuineness— Burden of r-roof.

The answer fails to impeach the genuineness, of the judgment exhibited with the amended petition, which declares the deed to. appellant void and vacates and sets it aside. The facts thus appearing by the exhibit being uneontroverted, the burden was not on the plaintiff to produce other evidence of the facts the judgment purports to prove.

APPEAL PROM BATH CIRCUIT OOURT.

April 8, 1871.

OPINION op the Court bt

Judge Hardin:

The facts alleged in the petition and amended petition were sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to the judgment which was rendered, unless the answer of Charles S'eal presented a valid defense and was such as to devolve on the plaintiffs the burden ■of proof. And in our opinion, the answer was not sufficient for that purpose. It is true, releasing his own claim on the deed of Ewing, and others which constituted his only ground for interposing to litigate the plaintiff’s claim, or the remedy sought, he denied that the attached lot belonged to John .Seal, or was in his possession, or that the deed to himself was fraudulent and was or had been set aside; but he failed to controvert the fact that the judgment of February 6, 1869, exhibited with the amended petition, was rendered, as it purports to have been in the suits of Wells and Nesbitt against Seal, &c. and which expressly declares the deed to the appellant void and vacates and sets it aside. The fact thus appearing, by'the exhibits being virtually uncontroverted and the answer failing to allege any facts in avoidance of the judgment, or to impeach its genuineness or validity, it was not sufficient to impose on the plaintiffs the burden of producing other evidence of the facts the judgment exhibited purports to prove, nor to constitute a bar to the action.

*336*Nesbitt & G,udgell for appellant.*

Stone, Lacy, *for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed..
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Xponential, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert W. Schleizer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 27, 2004 | /s/ Robert W. Schleizer            |   |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Robert W. Schleizer                |
|                       | Executive Vice President and Chief |
|                       | Financial Officer                  |

 

----