alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thos. McKinster, etc., *v.*Robert Eastham.

Contracts — Necessity of Parties.

An instrument which does not name an obligor, as well as an obligee, is invalid and unenforceable.

Sheriffs and Constables — Bond—Obligee.

An instrument purporting to be a bond for a deputy sheriff, which does not name one as obligee is invalid.

APPEAL. FROM LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 3, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This action was brought by appellee against appellants on the following writing: .................

“We, Thomas McKinster, principal, and Wm. Hoge, B. Haise and Sinclair Roberts, agree -that we will be- responsible as surety for all the acts of said McKinster as deputy sheriff, for Robert Eastham, sheriff of Lawrence County. Given under our hands this 17th of August, 1857.” The writing was signed by McKinster and the persons named as sureties.

*424
      *L. T. Moore, for appellants.*

*G. N. Brown, for appellee.*

It can.not escape observation that there is no one named as an obligee in the writing, and no one to whom1 there is a direct undertaking to pay, or to account for the failure of McKinster to discharge the duties of deputy sheriff. There can be no contract to which there are no parties; and it is as essential to its validity that there shall be a promise as a promisor, an obligee as an obligor. In this case the persons- who sign the writing undertake to be responsible for all the acts of McKinster as deputy sheriff for Robert East-ham. But the undertaking is not to Eastham directly, nor to him more than any other person. His name is used as descriptive of the business in which McKinster was about to engage, and not as a party to the contract, and appellee does not either in the original or amended petition allege that appellants contracted, or covenanted with him' that McKinster should faithfully discharge the duties of deputy sheriff, etc.

Wherefore we conclude that appellee did not state facts in his petition sufficient to constitute a cause of action against appellants.

That McKinster will be responsible to Eastham, his principal, for a failure to pay over or to account for taxes, etc., collected by him while acting as his deputy need scarcely be stated, which failure may be proved by parol. We only decide in this case that the facts stated in the petition and the writing declared on are not sufficient to make out a cause of action against appellants, and do not decide the question of McKinster’s responsibility in an action on an account stated in the nature of an action of .assumpsit.

But for the reasons herein set forth the judgment is reversed, and the cause is- remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### Hudson *et al. v.*Perry.

No. 6898.

January 18, 1929.

Rehearing denied February 18, 1929.

Gilbert, J.

1. Under express provision of the will, the widow as executrix had full power to sell the property sued for, and to execute valid transfers of title to the purchaser. The power to sell was not limited by any condition such as a “necessity” to sell for support.

2. The majority of the court hold that the evidence did not demand a finding that the sale of the property was bona fide.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J., and Gilbert, J., who dissent from the judgment of reversal.*

*791
      *E. L.*Smith, for plaintiffs.

*Bennet & Peacock,*for defendant.
Method Assessment of
Non-Targeted Analyses

(MANTA) AWA

Through the MANTA Program, NIST is developing new reference
materials and data for the evaluation and comparison of non-targeted
analytical techniques. The goals of the problem are to:
¢ improve between-laboratory comparability of non-targeted
analysis results
* provide performance metrics for the evaluation and
monitoring of non-targeted analysis results

The first interlaboratory study will be focused on the use of a solution-based
material for non-targeted analytical techniques using liquid
chromatography with high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS).
Participants will be provided with multiple test solutions containing a limited
number of compounds, which are to be

analyzed by their typical non-targeted Study Information at a Glance
analysis instrumental method.
Individual participant data will be used
to create a comparison tool in which
participants will visualize how their | !nstrument limitations:

. + Reversed-phase liquid chromatography
method compares to others in the * Electrospray ionization, positive polarity

community. + High resolution mass spectrometry
MS1 or MS1/MS2 possible

Number of samples in first study:
5 solutions (includes replicates)

Any labs from academia, government | Proposed Study Dates:

i i i Samples Shipped: April-May 2018
agencies, industry, and instrument Samples Analyzed: May-August 2018
manufacturers who use LC-HRMS for Data Submitted: | August 2018
non-targeted analysis are encouraged Participant Report: November 2018
to participate.

If your laboratory would be interested in learning more about this
program and/or participating in the first interlaboratory study,
please email manta@nist.gov
10882.

#### Williams *v.*City of Dublin.

Broyles, C. J.

1. One who seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a recorder’s court of any town or city, and who does not file an affidavit in forma pauperis, must, as a condition precedent to obtaining the writ, file such a bond as is required by law; and this fact must be affirmatively shown by the petition, and it is not so shown hy the mere statement in the petition that the bond required by law in such a case has been filed, or words to that effect, such a statement being a mere conclusion of the petitioner. Where a certified copy of the bond is not attached to the petition, *“the petition must set forth all the essential substantive faets which are necessary to enable the judge of the superior court to intelligently decide whether or not the bond given is really such a bond as is demanded by the statute.” Hubert*v. *Thomasville,*18 *Ga. App.*756 (90 S. E. 720).

2. One of the essentials of a bond given by one who seeks to review by certiorari a judgment of a recorder’s court of any city or town is that the bond shall be made payable to the municipal corporation under which the court exists. Park’s Ann. Code, § 5191 (a).

3. In the instant case the petition for the writ of certiorari sought to review a judgment of the recorder’s court of the City of Dublin. No pauper’s affidavit as to the petitioner’s inability to give the required *359bond was filed, and the petition failed to show that the bond given was made payable to the City of Dublin. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing to sanction the writ.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Petition for certiorari; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. July 8, 1919.

*J. A. Merritt, W. A. Dampier,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. A. Evans,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur**
10732, 10748.

#### Ballard *et al. v.*Morgan County *et al.;*and *vice versa.*

Decided November 5, 1919.

Petition to vacate judgment validating bonds; from Morgan superior court—Judge Park. June 26, 1919.

*Samuel H. Sibley, Orrin Roberts,*for plaintiffs.

*Q. L. Williford, Doyle Campbell,*for defendants.

Smith, J.

1. This case, -under the writ of error, was transmitted from the superior court to the Supreme Court, and the latter court by a formal order transferred it to this court. From this order it necessarily follows that in the judgment of the Supreme Court the constitutional question attempted to be raised in the case was not properly presented.

2. Where at a special term of the superior court of Morgan county, held on June 26, 1919, upon a petition duly filed, praying for the validation of certain county bonds, all the proceedings appeared on their face to have been regular, including the notice provided for by law, and the court rendered a judgment validating the bonds, and, 16 days thereafter and after the court had adjourned, certain persons filed a petition merely alleging that they were tax-payers and asking that the order validating the bonds be vacated or reopened, and that they be heard on the question as to the regularity or irregularity of the election held to authorize the bonds, the court did not err in dismissing the petition, on the ground that it came too late.

*Judgment affirmed, on main hill of exceptions; cross-hill dismissed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       1,196,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  393,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    528,327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,290,512
<PP&E>                                       1,521,736
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,080,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,060,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          468,083
<BONDS>                                      1,551,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           365
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,507,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,060,980
<SALES>                                      1,140,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,140,711
<CGS>                                          546,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  546,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,050,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,717,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,122,027)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,122,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,122,027)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
10035.

#### Chapman *v.*Grizzard.

Decided July 17, 1919.

Claim; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. June 20, 1918.

*Winfield P. Jones, Raymond RoMnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Buford Boykin,*contra.

Wade, C, J.

The various exceptions to the charge of the court are without substantial merit, there was evidence to authorize the verdict returned, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,090,330
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         195,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,800,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 13,098,454
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,659,305
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,743,185
<LOANS>                                     78,406,355
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,017,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,956,337
<DEPOSITS>                                  94,085,168
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,146,764
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,081,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             103,956,337
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,004,242
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              709,233
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               171,319
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,884,794
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,737,146
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,745,913
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,138,881
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  560,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (140)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,670,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,401,158
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     848,658
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   843,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    311,038
<LOANS-PAST>                                   446,166
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               918,036
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  467,387
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,904
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,017,553
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,017,553
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### GRAVES *et al. v.*DECATUR *et al.*

No. 6535.

January 18, 1929.

Hill, J.

The exception in this case is to the sustaining of a general demurrer to an intervention which is practically the same as that filed in the case of *Graves*v. Decatur, ante, with an elaborate amendment thereto. When an intervention is filed, the intervenors take the case as they find it; and the foundation of the interventions in both cases is the same, with the same plaintiff and defendants, receiver, etc. The intervention in the instant case does add new parties defendant by amendment; but the controlling questions in the preceding cases, which were ruled on adversely to the contentions of intervenors in the present case, are controlling here; and therefore the judgment sustaining the general demurrer to the petition is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
11066.

#### Davis *v.*The State.

Decided January 27, 1920.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Pike superior court—Judge Searcy. October 13, 1919.

*R. C. Johnson Jr., Cleveland & Goodrich,*for plaintiff'in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

In this case the motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds. There is some evidence authorizing the verdict. The trial judge who sees and hears the witnesses has some discretion in granting or refusing a new trial when the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has the approval of the trial judge, this court is without authority to control the judgment of the trial court. *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and cit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00008-CR

Mario AMAYA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR4153

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 17, 2010

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 
04-10-00008-CR

-2-

Appellant’s counsel has filed written notice with this court that counsel has reviewed the

record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that

appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
**EXHIBIT32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certifications setforth below are hereby submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to, and solely for the purpose of complying with, Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code in connection with the filingon the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of MAIR Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”)for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”).

Each of the undersigned,the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of theCompany, hereby certifies that, as of the end of the period covered by theReport:

1.               Such Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/  PAUL F. FOLEY                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| Paul F. Foley                                          |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                  |   |
| February 8, 2007                                       |   |
|                                                   |   |
| /s/ ROBERT E. WEIL                                     |   |
|                                                   |   |
| Robert E. Weil                                         |   |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and  Treasurer |   |
| February 8, 2007                                       |   |
|                                                        |        |  |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4044 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4044

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 to designate California State Route 99 as a high priority corridor on 
                      the National Highway System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2004

  Mr. Nunes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 to designate California State Route 99 as a high priority corridor on 
                      the National Highway System.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADDITION OF CALIFORNIA ROUTE 99 TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 
              SYSTEM.

    Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 112 Stat. 191; 118 Stat. 293) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(46) The California Farm-to-Market Corridor. California 
        State Route 99 from south of Bakersfield to Sacramento, 
        California.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              67
<SECURITIES>                                         2
<RECEIVABLES>                                      864
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                        432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,418
<PP&E>                                           1,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                     564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,270
<BONDS>                                          1,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       (441)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,445
<SALES>                                          4,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,368
<CGS>                                            3,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (12)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        80
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (92)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (92)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>