alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elton NDREKO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.

No. 03-3475.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 2004.

Decided Jan. 11, 2005.

Patricia G. Mattos, Mattos Law Office, St. Paul, MN, for Petitioner.

Elton Ndreko, Rochester, MN, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Emily Anne Radford, Allen W. Hausman, John M. McAdams, Jr., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Elton Ndreko, a citizen of Albania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which af*494firmed without opinion an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum and related relief.1 On appeal, Ndreko challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on Ndreko’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. *See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft,*360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review). The IJ discredited Ndreko’s testimony because it was vague, meager, and inconsistent with the documentary evidence, and because Ndreko submitted documents whose authenticity was questionable. Because it was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief, we defer to the credibility finding. *See Nyama v. Ashcroft,*357 F.3d 812, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard); *Daiga v. INS,*183 F.3d 797, 798 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (upholding adverse credibility finding where alien offered inconsistent testimony and submitted questionable documents). Ndreko’s request for withholding of removal thus fails as well. *See Kratchmarov v. Heston,*172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir.1999) (withholding-of-removal standard is more difficult to meet than asylum standard).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

1

. The IJ's decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. See *Dominguez*v. *Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 678, 679 n. 1 (8th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004).
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONFURNISHED PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Pliant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph J. Kwederis,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ JOSEPH  J. KWEDERIS   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Joseph J. Kwederis        |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |
|   | * *                  |
|   | August 14, 2006           |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Candace A. Sanders

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03126

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Rentgrow, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 10, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial status hearing set

for 07/08/2020 at 9:30 a.m. If held, the initial status hearing will be held telephonically.

The parties shall provide a contact number to the courtroom deputy

(Michael_Wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov) by 1:00 p.m. on the prior business day The parties

must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report

requirements by 06/29/2020. Plaintiff must still file the report even if Defendant has not

responded to requests to craft a joint report. If not all Defendants have been served, then

Plaintiff must complete the part of the report on the progress of service. Also, counsel (or

the parties, if proceeding pro se) must carefully review Judge Chang's Case Management

Procedures, available online at ilnd.uscourts.gov (navigate to Judges / District Judges /

Judge Edmond E. Chang). Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel (or

the party, if proceeding pro se) must read them anew even if the counsel or the party has

appeared before Judge Chang in other cases. Mailed notice (mw, )

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-03126 Document #: 9 Filed: 06/10/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:32
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Steven Eugene Talbot, II,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Joliet Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-03828 

Judge Manish Shah 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s) 

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ , 

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

 does not include pre–judgment interest.

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

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

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s) 

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

other: This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. 

This action was (check one): 

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

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

decided by Judge Manish Shah. 

Date: 9/14/2020 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court 

/s/Susan McClintic , Deputy Clerk 

Case: 1:20-cv-03828 Document #: 8 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:35
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1998 and the unaudited
consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended December 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           25,022
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,252,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,305,000
<INVENTORY>                                     572,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,962,199
<PP&E>                                          151,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,738,793   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         8,034,890   
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          6,859      
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,738,793
<SALES>                                       8,648,346    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              8,648,346
<CGS>                                         9,252,258    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 9,252,258    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4,008,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (4,008,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0          
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4,008,377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.59)
        


</TABLE>
{"id":3298,"count":16,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-colleges-universities\/nasa-stem-projects\/","name":"NASA STEM Projects","slug":"nasa-stem-projects","taxonomy":"category","parent":2851,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/3298"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2851"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=3298"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=3298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### Jacob Smith *v.*Daniel Scott.

Payment — Receipt—Contract—Illegal Consideration — Confederate Money —Duress.

The admitted receipt of the defendant for one hundred dollars in Confederate money, to go as a credit on notes which the defendant held on plaintiff, imports a contract and was obligatory, unless the consideration was illegal or the execution of the receipt was procured by duress.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

May 8, 1871.

*Apperson & Reid, Brown, for appellant.*

*Auxier, Hawkins, fox appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The admitted receipt of the defendant for one hundred dollars in confederate money to go as a credit on notes which the defendant held on the plaintiff, imports a contract to give the credit for one hundred dollars, and was obligatory, unless the consideration was illegal or the execution of the .receipt was procured by duress, as alleged in the answer.

The transaction occurred during the occupation of the southwestern portion of Kentucky by the confederate armies in September, 1862, and within their military lines, and the ruling of the court as to the legality of the consideration seems to have been strictly in accordance with the decision of this court in the case of *Martin v. Hortin,*1 Bush 629, and recognized in *Rodes v. Partillo,*5 Bush 271. And as we perceive no available ground of objection to the instructions or rulings of the court on the question of duress, no sufficient reason appears for reversing the judgment.

Therefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
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

Jajuan Nile v. City of Chicago, et

al.

20 CV 2922

Defendants Jones, Leano, Nichols, Bolton, Lewis

Allyson L. West

Hale & Monico LLC

53 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 337

Chicago, IL 60604

6310463 312-870-6924

awest@halemonico.com

6/10/2020

✔

✔

✔

✔

Allyson L. West

Case: 1:20-cv-02922 Document #: 16 Filed: 06/10/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:61
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Pliant Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harold
C. Bevis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities 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 for
and as of the end of the periods covered in this Report. /s/ Harold C. BevisHarold C. BevisChief Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2004
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1007 

ELKEM METALS CO., AIMCOR, 

GLOBE METALLURGICAL, INC., and AMERICAN ALLOYS, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

and 

CC METALS & ALLOYS, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

 Defendant, 

and 

FERROATLANTICA DE VENEZUELA, 

CHELIUBINSKI ELECTROMETALURGICAL WORKS, 

and KUZNETSK FERROALLOY WORKS, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ASSOCIAO BRASILEIRA DOS PRODUCTORES DE FERROLIGAS E 

DE SILICO METALICO, NOVA ERA SILICON S/A, 

COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA & COMPANHIA FERROLIGAS, 

ITALMAGNESIO S/A-INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO, 

RIMA INDUSTRIAL S/A, COMPANHIA FERROLIGAS MINAS GERAIS 

– MINASLIGAS, and ABRAFE, 

 Defendants. 
Nancy A. Noonan, Arent Fox, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffappellant. With her on the brief were James H. Hulme and Matthew J. Clark. 

Julie C. Mendoza, Troutman Sanders LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for 

defendants-appellees Ferroatlantica De Venezuela, et al. With her on the brief were 

Donald B. Cameron, Jeffrey S. Grimson, R. Will Planert, Brady W. Mills, and Mary S. 

Hodgins. 

Marc A. Bernstein, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States 

International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee 

United States. With him on the brief were James M. Lyons, General Counsel, and 

Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel. 

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade 

Judge Richard K. Eaton
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1007 

ELKEM METALS CO., AIMCOR, 

GLOBE METALLURGICAL, INC., and AMERICAN ALLOYS, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

and 

CC METALS & ALLOYS, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

 Defendant, 

and 

FERROATLANTICA DE VENEZUELA, 

CHELIUBINSKI ELECTROMETALURGICAL WORKS, 

and KUZNETSK FERROALLOY WORKS, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 
ASSOCIAO BRASILEIRA DOS PRODUCTORES DE FERROLIGAS E 

DE SILICO METALICO, NOVA ERA SILICON S/A, 

COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA & COMPANHIA FERROLIGAS, 

ITALMAGNESIO S/A-INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO, 

RIMA INDUSTRIAL S/A, COMPANHIA FERROLIGAS MINAS GERAIS 

– MINASLIGAS, and ABRAFE, 

 Defendants. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States Court of International Trade 

 

in CASE NO 99-00628. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (BRYSON, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R.36 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED: May 11, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 15.1
                          CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE



November 13, 2000

ESG Re Limited
Skandia International House
16 Church Street
Hamilton, Bermuda


We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of ESG Re Limited and subsidiaries for the periods ended September
30, 2000 and 1999, as indicated in our report dated November 13, 2000; because
we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-40107 on Form S-8
and in Registration Statement No. 333-76983 on Form S-3.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche
----------------------
Deloitte & Touche
Dublin, Ireland
Exhibit 21.1
 ITEM 1.
    
    Subsidiaries of the Company
 Entity
    
    State of IncorporationAcapulco Restaurants, Inc.
    
    DelawareEl Torito Restaurants, Inc.
    
    DelawareEl Torito Franchising Company
    
    DelawareEl Paso Cantina, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaMurray Pacific
    
    CaliforniaTARV, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaALA Design, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaAcapulco Restaurant of Westwood, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaAcapulco Restaurant of Moreno Valley, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaAcapulco Restaurant of Ventura, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaAcapulco Restaurant of Downey, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaAcapulco Mark Corp.
    
    DelawareReal Mex Foods, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaCKR Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawareChevys Restaurants, LLC
    
    Delaware
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350)**





I,
      John
      T. McLaughlin, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(i)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the
      “Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
      of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(ii)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks,
      Inc.





Dated:
      November 14, 2008





/s/
                John T. McLaughlinJohn
                T. McLaughlinChief
                Accounting Officer
1

John T.Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). 

NO. 07-02-0236-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 10, 2003

______________________________

BARRY D. YOUNG, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-475909; HONORABLE LARRY B. “RUSTY” LADD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant BarryD.Youngwas convicted of driving while intoxicated, second offense.

The trial jury assessed his punishment at confinement in the Lubbock County Jail for 365

days and a $1,000 fine. He timely perfected an appeal from his conviction.
2

On February 24, 2001, we received appellant’s motion to withdraw and dismiss his

appeal. His attorney joined in that motion. Because appellant’s motion meets all the

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and because this court has not

delivered its decision before receiving appellant’s motion, the motion must be, and is

hereby, granted.

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motions for rehearing will

be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

John T. Boyd

Senior Justice

Do not publish.
9210.

#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Rollins.

Jenkins, J.

1. Neither the exemption provided by the laws of -this State, nor that provided by the laws of the State of the debtor’s residence, affords protection against process of garnishment to subject in this State wages of non-residents which have been earned within this State. Civil Code (1910), § 5095; *Kile*v. *Montgomery,*73 *Ga.*338 (3); *Harvey v. Thompson,*2 *Ga. App.*569 (5) (60 S. E. 11).

2. The finding of the jury upon the question, as to the debtor’s residence at the time the garnishment proceeding by attachment was instituted can not, under the evidence, though the evidence was -conflicting, be disturbed. ' '

*394Decided May 17, 1918.

Certiorari; from 'Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. September 8, *1917.*

*Maddox, McCamy & Shumate, James J. Copeland,*for plaintiff ifi error.

3. The record does not disclose any written assignment to the plaintiff by his debtor of the latter’s* chose in action against the garnishee such as would effect an immediate change of ownership of the fund, and thus prevent recourse to the process of garnishment. The mere delivery to the plaintiff'by his debtor of certain i “time slips,” with the promise of the latter that he would “get his pay check from the railroad company and turn it over” to the plaintiff, did not constitute such a transaction as could have compelled the railroad company to pay over the fund to the plaintiff as assignee, if forbidden to do so by the person to .whom it was indebted. *Reviere*v. *Chambliss,*120 *Ga.*714, 715, (48 S. E. 122); *Hargett*v. *McCadden,*107 *Ga.*773, 774 (33 S. E. 666).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*.