alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McConnell *v.*Brown.

Motion to Dismiss.—Attorney.—A motion to dismiss an action was made by the defendant, because an order had been received from the plaintiff, directing his attorney to dismiss the suit at the defendant’s costs; and the defendant declared himself ready to pay the costs. The plaintiff, by his attorney, objected, and the motion was overruled.

*Held,*that, as against the defendant, the attorney for the plaintifi; in the absence of the plaintiff, had the right to control the case and refuse to dismiss the action, and such refusal was not error.

APPEAL from the Steuben Common Pleas.

Osborn, J.

This was a complaint for the foreclosure of a mortgage, filed by the appellee against the appellant. At the proper time, the appellant appeared in open court and filed a motion to dismiss the action, because an order had been received from the plaintiff) directing his attorney to dismiss the suit at the defendant’s costs. The defendant declared himself ready to pay the costs, and prayed that the cause might be dismissed; to which the plaintiff) by his attorney, objected. The objection was sustained, and the *385motion to dismiss overruled. The appellant excepted to the action of the court in overruling his motion to dismiss, and, after filing a bill of exceptions, withdrew his appearance, was defaulted, and a final judgment of foreclosure was regularly entered against him.

*W. B. McConnell,*for appellant.

J. *A. Woodhull,*for appellee.

The only error assigned is the refusal of the court to dismiss the action.

As against the appellant, the attorney for the appellee had the right to refuse to dismiss the action, and such refusal was not error. He could fix the terms upon which the action could be dismissed, and it would be optional with the appellant whether he would comply with the terms or not.

We cannot say that the attorney for the appellee did not have special instructions from his client, and that he did not follow them. At all events, with or without instructions, so far as the rights of the appellant are concerned, he had a right to control the case in the absence of the appellee, and the appellant cannot complain of it. He could not compel the appellee to dismiss the cause, on payment of costs or otherwise, even if he had agreed to do so, except upon payment of the debt and costs, and then he would have to plead it in bar of the action or of its further prosecution.

The appellant has failed to cite any authority, and we do not consider it necessary to search for any.

The judgment of the said Court of Common Pleas of Steuben county is affirmed, with two per cent, damages and costs.
10912.

#### Lester *v.*Bank of Adrian.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Misrepresentations as to an existing and material fact, amounting to fraud, when made either by a principal or through his agent, whereby another is induced to enter upon an obligation in writing, may, as between the parties, be alleged and proved, if not inconsistent with the writing, not as being an attempt to add to or vary the terms of the written instrument, but as a means of showing its in*117validity. *Loyless*v. *Hesse Envelope & Lithographing Co.,*10 *Ga. App.*660 (74 S. E. 90) ; Civil Code (1910), § 4623; Clark on Contracts, 2d ed.), paragraphs 227-8.

Decided April 7, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Dublin-—-Judge Flynt. September 10, 1919.

' Tbe Bank of Adrian, for the use of the payees, sued the maker on the last of a series of five promissory notes. The contention that the holder of the note was a bona fide purchaser was admittedly not made. The consideration of the note was for the part purchase of a certain tract of timber described in a contemporaneous written instrument of sale. The defendant pleaded fraud in the procurement of the note, in that the plaintiff had guaranteed that the premises contained at least 200,000 feet of available timber, whereas not more than 25,000 feet existed; and that in order to effect the sale and induce the signing of the notes, the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented that the land was ordinarily dry swamp land, and that, although it was then temporarily covered with water, such condition was unusual and would not continue longer than a period of two or three days, whereas in fact, as the plaintiff then knew, the land was not dry swamp land temporarily overflowed, but stood continually under water, so as to prevent the removal of the timber bargained for. There was no demurrer to the plea. The trial judge refused to admit testimony offered in support of the allegations of fraud, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

*S. P. New,*for plaintiff in error.

2. The court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the testimony offered under the plea whereby it was sought to establish fraud in the procurement of the note, and in thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

See *Daniel*v. *Burson,*16 *Ga. App.*39, 41 (84 S. E. 490).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,508
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             570
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,259
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         178,596
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           180,254
<LOANS>                                        307,078
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 581,660
<DEPOSITS>                                     477,943
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,102
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,936
<LONG-TERM>                                     59,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           260
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 581,660
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,809
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,282
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                30,091
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,216
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,254
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,837
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      140
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,581
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,199
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.78
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,620
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,444
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,782
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,912
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,912
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,655
        

</TABLE>
#### Peter Henry *v.*Rezin Davis.

Interest — Increase of Rate on Renewal.

Where a note, as originally executed, called for six per cent, interest, and on renewal, and before the law increasing the rate of conventional interest went into effect, the maker, in consideration of the renewal, agreed to pay ten per cent, interest, recovery can only be had for six per cent, interest.

*316APPEAL PROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT.

December 3, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

On the 25tb of January, 1866, appellee contracted to sell to appellant the tract of land described in the petition and represented to contain 181% acres, for $1,500, of which sum $300 were paid in hand, a note executed for $400 due the 1st day of April, 1866, and a second note for $750 due and payable five years from date; but $300 thereof were to bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the 1st day of April, 1866. On the 1st day of April, 1871, after the maturity of the last named note, it appears that the parties had a settlement; and it was ascertained that appellant was indebted to appellee in the sum of $600, for which he then executed his note payable six months thereafter, to bear interest at the rate of 10 per centum' per annum' from date till paid.

In March, 1873, suit was brought by appellee on said note to enforce its collection by a sale of the land. At the answering term, appellant filed an answer in which several grounds of defense are relied on, among which is the plea of usury, and as that was the only' available plea as a partial defense, no further notice will be given to the other grounds. The court below rendered judgment for the debt with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum from date till paid, and for a' sale of so much of the land as should be required to pay the debt.

This promise to pay interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum was made before the law increasing the rate of conventional interest went into effect, and the facts herein set forth show that the promise to pay the ten per cent, constituted no part of the original contract for the sale of the land, and no part of the consideration. The interest stipulated for by the terms of that contract was six per cent.; and ten per cent, was not promised until after the note matured, and terms were agreed upon for its renewal, and the promise to pay ten per cent, interest was for the forbearance; consequently this case is not within the principle recognized in the case of Tousey v. Robinson, 1 Met. 663, but in violation of the statute.

*317
      *■Montague, for appellant.*

*Mitchell, Hord, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to render judgment for $600 with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum from the 1st day of April, 1871, till paid, subject to the credits as allowed in the judgment appealed from an for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                         103,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,468,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,944,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,270,109
<PP&E>                                         294,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,725,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,328,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           356
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,725,650
<SALES>                                      4,096,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,096,221
<CGS>                                        2,846,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (400,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (172,345)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (228,458)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44312, 33-45651, 33-49775, 33-55851, 333-64193,
333-01723, 333-01121, 333-01121-01, 333-15079, 333-15079-01 through 04,
333-20427, 333-20427-01 through 03, 333-37315, 333-40447, 333-38633,
333-38633-01,333-47753, 333-51961, and 333-85283) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8, as amended, (Nos. 33-61167, 33-61181, 33-65065,
33-49267, 33-32659, 33-49419, and 33-63659) of our report dated January 12, 2000
appearing on page 57 of the J. P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated Annual Report, which
is included as Exhibit 13 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
March 8, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the Association of American Railroads (WB463-17—11/21/14) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2012-2013 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Jeffrey Herzig,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2014-28931 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors and Shareholders of Aquila, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference into the company's previously filed registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-88280 and
333-67822) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92294, 333-68042, 333-68040, 333-68044, 333-67820,
333-66233, 033-45525, 033-50260, 333-19671, 333-91305, 333-94955, 333-30742 and 333-77703) of our
reports dated March 3, 2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Aquila, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income,
common shareholders' equity, comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and all related financial statement
schedules, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aquila, Inc.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Kansas
City, Missouri
March 3, 2006

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0987]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document entitled “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Data on Tobacco Products and Communications” that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 1, 2014. The document announced the generic clearance for the collection of qualitative data on tobacco products and communications. The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,                         *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2014-18195, appearing on page 44779 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44779), FDA is making the following correction:                

1. On page 44779, in the second column, in the Docket No. heading, “FDA-2014-N-0005” is corrected to read “FDA-2014-N-0987.”

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Leslie Kux,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-28714 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4847 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, as the ‘‘Lieutenant 

General James V. Edmundson Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2004 

Ms. HARRIS (for herself, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BOYD, Ms. CORRINE

BROWN of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. MICA, Mr. KELLER, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. YOUNG

of Florida, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. GOSS, Mr. WELDON

of Florida, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. ROSLEHTINEN, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. 

SHAW, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. FEENEY, and Mr. MARIO DIAZBALART of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Lieutenant General James V. Edmundson Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4847 IH 

1 SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES V. EDMUNDSON 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat 

5 Key, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lieu6 tenant General James V. Edmundson Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the Lieutenant General 

12 James V. Edmundson Post Office Building. 

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BETTY SHINN, : 

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0444-CG-N

CITY OF MOBILE, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

court. The court certifies that the petitioner’s appeal is not taken in good faith; therefore, the

petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 69) is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 24th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00444-CG-N Document 73 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29043]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, 
and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 28433) published on page 
71785 of the issue for Wednesday, December 3, 2014.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis heading, the entry for 
Bryon B. Webb, III, Emden, Missouri, as trustee of the Byron B. Webb, 
III Separate Property Revocable Trust, dated April 26, 2004, and 
Victoria Webb Sack, Del Mar, California, as trustee of the Victoria 
Webb Sack Separate Property Revocable Trust, dated June 12, 2008, is 
revised to read as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community 
Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Bryon B. Webb, III, Emden, Missouri, as trustee of the Byron B. 
Webb, III Separate Property Revocable Trust, dated April 26, 2004, and 
Victoria Webb Sack, Del Mar, California, as trustee of the Victoria 
Webb Sack Separate Property Revocable Trust, dated June 12, 2008, 
individually and as members of a family control group; to retain and 
acquire additional voting shares of Byron B. Webb, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly retain and acquire additional voting shares of Homebank, 
both in Palmyra, Missouri.
    Comments on this application must be received by December 15, 2014.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 8, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-29043 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P