alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Duncan *v.*Travelers’ Building & Loan Association.

Opinion delivered October 15, 1928.

*J. A. Eades,*for appellant.

*J. H. Reynolds,*for appellee.

Smith, J.

This appeal involves the question of priority of. liens, it being insisted by appellant that his lien as a materialman is superior to that of appellee as a mortgagee.

On June 14, 1926, W. J. Vance, for the recited consideration of a thousand dollars, conveyed to J. W. Isaacs three lots in the city of Morrilton, and this deed was duly recorded June 20,1926. On June 17,1926, Isaacs executed a mortgage on this property ;to the Travelers’ Building & Loan Association for $1,600, which instrument was filed for record June 26,1926. This loan was obtained for the purpose of paying Vance the purchase price of the lots and to rebuild a house on said lots.

On September 18, 1926, appellant, Duncan, filed a claim for a materialman’s lien, pursuant to § 69'22, C. & M.‘ Digest. It appears, from the account filed pursuant to this section, as well as from the testimony offered at the trial, that the materials for the value of which appellant claims the lien were furnished June 28, 1926, which was two days after the mortgage had been filed for record.

Under these facts the lien of the mortgage is. superior to that of the materialman.

In the case of *Shaw*v. *Rackensack Apartment Corporation,*174 Ark. 492, 295 S. W. 966, it was held that a *18mortgage for the purpose of raising money to erect a building, which was filed prior to the commencement of work by a lien claimant, was superior to a lien for material and labor furnished, notwithstanding that some of the loan for which the mortgage was given was used for clearing the title.

The court below decreed that the lien of the mortgage was superior to that of the materialman, and this appeal is from that decree.

Appellant insists that Isaacs did not take title under his deed from Vance prior to July 20, for the reason that the possession of the deed was not delivered to him until that time. But filing the deed for record, which was done June 20,1926, was a delivery to Isaacs.

The decree of the court below is therefore correct, and it is affirmed.
#### John Brennan v. Henry Tietsort.

*Payment*— Plea *or notice of set-off,*

la assumpsit tlie defence of payment can always be made under'the general issue.

The object of a plea or notice of set-off is to enable defendant to set up any independent cause of action which he has against plaintiff and might otherwise sue upon, as a counter' claim, and obtain its allowance in the case in which it is pleaded.

One cannot ordinarily sue to recover money back which he has voluntarily paid upon a debt, and he cannot therefore make such a claim a ground of set-off to an action of assumpsit brought against him by the creditor, but he may prove the payment under the general issue.

Case made from Cass.

Submitted October 11.

Decided October 31.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

[Reversed.

*398
      *Harsen D. Smith*for appellant.

Defendant in assumpsit is not confined to the items of his bill of set-off in proving payment: *Olcott v. Hanson*12 Mich. 452.

*Howell c& Ga/rr*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

Brennan sued Tietsort under the common: counts and filed a bill of particulars of work and labor and a few items of cash, and a steel hammer. Defendant, under the general issue, gave notice and particulars of set-off.

On the trial the court refused to allow defendant to prove any payments on plaintiff’s demand, except such items as were contained in his particulars of set-off. The case comes up chiefly on this ground.

The rule is well established that payment can always be shown under the general issue in *assumpsit,*although in some other forms of action it was required at common law to be pleaded. 2 Stark. Ev. 79, 594; *Huntoon v. Russell*41 Mich. 316.

The purpose of a plea or notice of set-off, is to set up by way of counter-claim, and to obtain allowance in one action for, such independent causes of action as would be capable of being sued upon directly against plaintiff had they not been thus pleaded. But money voluntarily paid upon a debt can never, unless on some very peculiar equity, be sued for at all. If less than the whole debt, it reduces the amount of the indebtedness, but having been once paid it ceases to belong to the debtor, and can form no basis for action or cross-action on his behalf. The doctrine is elementary and need not be discussed. Some objections to the charge are left obscure by the record, and we pass them for that reason.

The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.
#### THE STATE v. OWENS, Appellant.

Division Two,

May 10, 1904.

NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Record Free From Error. Where defendant files no bill of exceptions, there is nothing for review except the record proper, and if that is free from error, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court. — How. *Jas. E. II as ell,*Judge.

AjTIllMED.

*Edward G. Crow,*Attorney-General, and *G. D. Gorum*for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

At the April term, 1902, the grand jury of Morgan county preferred an indictment for murder in the first degree against the defendant Henry Owens for the murder of James M. Lawrence on the eleventh day of January, 1902, in said county.

On the twenty-fourth of April, 1902, defendant was arraigned and his plea of not guilty entered.

On his application defendant obtained a continuance until the August term, 1902.

*358At the August term, 1902, defendant was put on trial and convicted of murder in the second degree on August 20, 1902.

A motion for a new trial was filed in due time and was heard and overruled on the twenty-seventh of September, 1902, and defendant sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years, and appeal was taken to this court and a transcript was ordered to be furnished him at the expense of the State.

The time for filing a bill of exceptions was extended by the court until the second day of the December term, 1902.

On the first day of the December term, or December 8,1902, the time for filing- the bill of exceptions was again extended for sixty days from that date. After-wards, in vacation, the time for filing his bill of exceptions was extended until March 14, 1903. And on March 14, 1903, the time was again extended until the third Monday in April, 1903, and on April 20, 1903, the time was ¿gain extended for thirty days from that date.

Notwithstanding that the transcript of the evidence and record was ordered furnished at the cost of the State and the time for filing the bill of exceptions had been extended for nearly eight months, no bill of exceptions was filed, so far as this record shows, and the cause is before us on the record proper alone. The indictment is in all respects sufficient and there is no error in the record and none suggested.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:382
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:383
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:384
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:385
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:386
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:387
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:388
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:389
Case: 1:20-cv-04267 Document #: 77 Filed: 09/30/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:390
10031.

#### Wyatt *v.*The State.

Decided November 7, 1918.

' Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of .Carrollton-— Judge Beall, June 27, 1918. -

*H. C. Strickland, Buford Boykin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Willis Smith, solicitor,*contra.

Harwell, *J.*

*The*defendant was convicted of having, controlling, and possessing intoxicating liquor. No error of law on the trial is complained of; the evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles,*P. *J., and Bloodworfh, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.  333-         ) and related Prospectus
of Source Media, Inc. for the registration of 2,773,500 shares of its common
stock and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated
February 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Source Media, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 21, 1998
Letter Agreement between Registrant and Pfizer Inc.



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
  

			
	 


	 	 Groton Laboratories
 Pfizer
Inc
 Eastern Point Road    MS 8200-30
 Groton, CT 06340
 Tel 860 441 1991 Fax 860 441 1738
 Email mark_della_porta@groton.pfizer.com

	 	  
 Global Research & Development

		
	December 7, 2004	 	 Mark P. DellaPorta
 Senior Director Site Head,
Groton
 Strategic Alliances


  
 Dr. Stephen J. McAndrew 
 Xenogen Biosciences 
 5 Cedar Brook Drive 
 Cranbury, New Jersey 08512 
  
 Dear
Dr. McAndrew, 
  
 Pursuant to Section 3.1(c) of the Collaborative
Research Agreement dated September 30, 2001 (“2001 Agreement”) and the Amending Letter dated December 26, 2003 (“Amending Letter”) between Pfizer Inc (“Pfizer”) and Xenogen Biosciences (“Xenogen
Cranbury”), Pfizer hereby exercises it’s option to extend the 2001 Agreement for one additional year. This Letter serves as notice of Pfizer’s exercise of the first extension while noting that there are two additional extension
options available to Pfizer to exercise in subsequent years. 
  
 All other terms and conditions of the 2001 Agreement and the Amending Letter shall remain unchanged and in full force. 
  
 Please have the appropriate official of Xenogen Cranbury sign both copies of this Agreement and return one original to Kelly P. Longo at the above address. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Mark P. DellaPorta


	Mark P. DellaPorta
	Site Director
	Strategic Alliances

  
 Agreed: 
  
 Xenogen Biosciences, Inc. 
  

							
	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen J. McAndrew

	  	

	  	 
	Date:	 	12/10/04
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JESSICA RYAN, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-133

LT Case No. 2021-308467-MMDB

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed May 9, 2023

Appeal from the County Court 

for Volusia County, 

David Cromartie, Judge. 

Eric A. Morgan, of Morgan Law, P.A., 

Melbourne, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10(o)(vi)

           [Excerpt for Registrant's Corporate Governance Guidelines]

Director Compensation

Directors who are not employees of the Company are compensated for their
services by fees in cash and stock. All directors are reimbursed for expenses
incurred in connection with such services. In addition, the Company provides
travel and liability insurance to all directors.

Currently, directors fees are as follows:

Annual retainer:

Commencing January 1, 2006, directors receive a $90,000 annual retainer. $20,000
of the annual retainer is received in shares of Class A Common Stock of the
Company pursuant to the Directors Retainer Plan approved by the shareholders of
the Company in 2004. If the shareholders approve a proposed amendment of the
Directors Retainer Plan at the 2006 Annual Meeting, the stock portion of the
annual retainer will be increased to $50,000.

Meeting fees:

Commencing January 1, 2006, directors receive $1,500 for each normal meeting of
the Board and $1,000 for each normal meeting of a committee that they attend in
person or by telephone. Directors receive $750 for their participation in each
meeting of the Board or a committee that is designated as a telephone meeting,
The meeting fees received by a director for any one day may not exceed $2,500.

Other fees:

The Chairman of each standing committee, other than the Audit Committee,
receives an annual fee of $5,000 for such service. The Chairman of the Audit
Committee receives an annual fee of $10,000 for such service. The Lead Director,
who presides at meetings of the non-management directors and acts as liaison
between the members of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, receives an
annual fee of $5,000 for such service. Directors receive $1,000 for each day
that they are engaged in Company business (other than attendance at Board or
committee meetings) at the request of the Chairman of the Board or the Chief
Executive Officer.

Pension:

Each person who was a member of the Board of Directors on January 12, 2005, who
was elected as a director prior to August 9, 2000 and who is not eligible to
receive a pension under any other Company retirement program, shall, following
(i) the termination of his or her service as a director and (ii) the attainment
of age 65, be entitled to receive an annual pension in the amount of $20,000,
payable in equal quarterly installments until the earlier of (a) the expiration
of a period equal to the number of full years that such person served as a
director prior to May 31, 2001 or (b) the death of such person.

The Board of Directors is empowered to change the fees and benefits of
directors. The Board seeks to provide fees and emoluments for directors that
fairly compensate the directors for the time commitment and level of
responsibility they assume and that are comparable to those customarily provided
by other corporations similarly situated.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**VITRIX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARYCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Vitrix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Thomas S.Bednarik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Craig J.Smith, Vice President - Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 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.

 
| By:    | /s/ Thomas S. Bednarik                                                  |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas S. Bednarik                                                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer                                   |
|   | November 14, 2003                                                  |
|   |                                                                    |
| By:    | /s/ Craig J. Smith                                                      |   |
|   | Craig J. Smith                                                          |
|   | Vice President - Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | November 14, 2003                                                  |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTWAINE TACOMA JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:08-cr-00024-FL-1; 4:12-cv-00080-FL)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwaine Tacoma Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Scott Meyers, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Augustus D. Willis, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antwaine Tacoma Johnson appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Johnson, Nos. 4:08-cr-00024-FL-1; 4:12-cv-00080-FL (E.D.N.C. 

Jan. 21, 2014). We deny Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3806 

_____________________________

DONNIE CARTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

February 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Donnie Carter, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael L. Schaub, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE MATTER OF

BARRY JAY BERAN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2480 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Board File No. C1-18-198

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, 

D-72 September Term 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 35896

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2018, having failed to respond to a Notice and 

Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline, 

Barry Jay Beran is suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania for three months. He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
**EXHIBIT      33.2**

**ASSERTION      OF      COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING**

**CRITERIA**

| ·   |                   The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the                Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   |                   The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing                Criteria. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   |                   As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material                compliance with the Applicable Servicing                Criteria. |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| The                Bank of                New York                                   |   | The                Bank of                New York                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The                Bank of                New York TrustCompany,                N.A. |   | The                Bank of                New York TrustCompany,                N.A. |
| The                Bank of                New York (Delaware)                        |   |                                                                                 |
|                                                                                 |   |                                                                                 |
|                                                                                 |   |                                                                                 |
| /s/                Robert L.                Griffin                                  |   | /s/                Patrick J.                Tadie                                   |
| Robert                L.                Griffin                                      |   | Patrick                J.                Tadie                                       |
| Authorized                Signer                                                     |   | Authorized                Signer                                                     |
|                                                                                 |   |                                                                                 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT JULY 2, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 2, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                         307,665
<SECURITIES>                                    75,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  268,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,717
<INVENTORY>                                    223,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               907,286
<PP&E>                                         301,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                 116,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,226,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,946
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,002,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,226,722
<SALES>                                        675,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               675,158
<CGS>                                          364,788
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  572,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (12,804)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,582
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,219
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>