alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elton S. Botsford v. Andrew J. Murphy and John Heath.

*Oom&rsion by seizure under chattel mortgage.*

Under a clause in. a chattel mortgage empowering the mortgagee to take possession whenever he should deem himself insecure, he would have good cause for doing so if he had reason to think and did think that he had been overreached in regard to the value of the property; and there would be no conversion in taking it if the mortgagee’s interest exceeded the value, as the mortgager would have no valuable interest.

Seizure under an execution cannot aid a seizure under a mortgage if the execution is against a stranger to the mortgager’s interest.

Error to Allegan.

Submitted Jan. 11.

Decided Jan. *25.*

Trover. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Padgham, c& Padgham*for plaintiff in error.

*Jacob V. Rogers*for defendant in error.

Trover will lie for seizure of property under a chattel mortgage only to the extent of the excess in their value over the amount of the mortgage debt: *Brink v. Freoff*40 Mich. 610: 44 Mich. 69.

Campbell, J.

Botsford sued defendants in trover for taking and removing certain mortgaged property prematurely. The mortgage was given by him to Murphy, and contained a clause authorizing the assumption of possession whenever Murphy should deem himself insecure. Heath, who was a deputy sheriff, took the property as Murphy’s agent, and there was testimony tending to show that at the same time he acted or pretended to act on two executions against a third person, one Negley. It also appeared from plaintiff’s own showing that the property was worth much less than the mortgage.

*537Several errors are assigned which *related*— first, to an alleged trespass in the taking under color of process, to which plaintiff felt obliged to yield when otherwise he would have resisted; and *second,*to taking when there had been no breach of condition.

There was testimony tending to show that Murphy had reason to regal’d himself as having been overreached in regard to the value of the property, and if so there was cause enough for his regarding himself insecure. If he did he had a right to seize the property.

Upon the other questions, they all relate to supposed errors in allowing a seizure under the mortgage to stand, when aided by a seizure under execution. If these executions had been against Botsford himself, and used for fraudulent purposes, the questions presented might arise. But inasmuch as they were against a stranger the officer would have no more protection under them than under the mortgage, and could be as lawfully resisted on the one as on the •other. No force was used, and we do not see that these writs were of the least consequence as the case went to the jury. The court below charged quite as favorably for plaintiff as he had a right to ask.

But inasmuch as by his own showing the interest of Murphy was larger than any sum which the property was worth, there could have been no conversion where there was no valuable interest.

There was no error and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DWIGHT BOYKIN, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CA 09-0747-WS-C 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 : 

 Defendant. 

ORDER

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

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 2, 2010 is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

DONE this 24th day of August, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00747-WS-C Document 23 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2)   the information contained in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/JEFF T. WILSON
    Jeff T. Wilson.
    Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 3, 2008

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARIO ANDJUAN PEEPLES, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00657-WS-B

MOBILE COUNTY SHERIFF'S :

DEPARTMENT,

:

Defendant.

 :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DONE this 4th of January, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00657-WS-B Document 5 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1
# United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 21

- 1909

TOGETHER EMPLOYEES, by individual representatives ; ROBERTA

LANCIONE ; JOYCE MILLER ; MARIA DIFRONZO ; MICHAEL SACCOCCIO ;

ELIZABETH BIGGER ; NATASHA DICICCO ; NICHOLAS ARNO ; RUBEN ALMEIDA,

Plaintiffs, Appellants

,

v.

MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INC.

,

Defendant, Appellee

.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on November 18 , 202 1 , is

amended as follows:

On page 4 , line 5 , replace " was " with " were. "

On page 16, line 8, replace "MBG's" with "MGB's."
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00310-CV

IN RE AMOS JACKSON, SR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator petitioned for a writ of mandamus from this Court ordering the trial court 

to set a pre-trial hearing in the underlying case and issue a bench warrant for relator’s 

presence at the hearing. We requested a response from the respondent and the real party 

in interest. The respondent informed the Court that a pre-trial hearing has been set for 

November 14, 2018 and a bench warrant has been issued. Documentary evidence was 

attached to the response in support of the respondent’s assertions.

Accordingly, because relator’s complaints have been addressed, relator’s Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus, filed on October 9, 2018, is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
In re Jackson Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 7, 2018

[OT06]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4815 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 

prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2004 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by 

vinegar or acetic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PIMIENTOS, PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 
2 

•HR 4815 IH 

‘‘ 9902.20.02 Pimientos (capsicum 

anuum), prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 

acid, not frozen, in containers holding over 227 g. 

(provided for in subheading 

2005.90.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 24

                               MOBIL CORPORATION


     I, G. G. GARNEY, Senior Assistant Secretary of MOBIL CORPORATION, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that at a duly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors of
MOBIL CORPORATION held on February 27, 1998, at which meeting a quorum was
present, the following resolution was approved:


        RESOLVED, that the Corporation's 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K in
        substantially the form presented at this meeting, be and the same hereby
        is approved, and that the officers of the Corporation be and they and
        each of them hereby are authorized to sign and file such Report,
        including any amendments to such annual report on Form 10-K, on behalf
        of the Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New
        York Stock Exchange and such other exchanges as may be necessary and
        appropriate, with such changes or amendments therein, if any, as may be
        approved by the officer or officers signing the same, which changes or
        amendments are hereby expressly approved.


     I further certify that the foregoing resolution is still in full force and
effect.

     IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed my name and affixed the Corporate Seal
at Fairfax, VA this 16th day of March, 1998.


                                       /s/ G. G. Garney
                                       _________________________________
                                       G. G. Garney
                                       Senior Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8
(File Nos. 333-125701, 333-104724 and 333-152732) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-129784, 333-114258,
333-134992 and 333-148069) of Mines Management, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated March 12, 2008 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Mines Management, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Mines Management, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/S/ LEMASTER & DANIELS PLLC


Spokane,
Washington
March 16, 2009

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         238,872
<SECURITIES>                                 1,673,521
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,920,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          884,983
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,730
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,001,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,920,256
<SALES>                                         42,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,436
<CGS>                                           23,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,473,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (95,720)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,358,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,358,767)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Mosley *v.*Thos. Mosley.

Appeal — Bill of Exceptions — Instructions.

A bill of exceptions must contain all the instructions given, otherwise the Court of Appeals can not review the action of the trial court in giving or refusing instructions.

APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1873.

Opinion bv

Judge Lindsay:

The motion for a new trial of this action was based upon three grounds.

1. That the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

2. That it was contrary to law, and

3. That the court erred in giving to the jury instructions Nos. 5 and 6, asked by appellee.

As to the first ground, it is sufficient to- say that the verdict is not so flagrantly against the weight of the evidence as to authorize the interposition of this court.

The 2nd and 3rd grounds must be considered together. Appellant does not complain that any proper instructions asked by himself were refused. The bill of exceptions does not show instructions given upon motion of appellee. It does state that he moved the court to give the jury instructions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, all of which except No. 3 were given; that the plaintiff objected to Nos. 1, 5 ánd 6; that his objections were overruled, but these instructions are not embodied in the bill. *'*

Following the signature of the circuit judge, are copied certain papers purporting to be instructions, but we have no legal means by *360which t» determine whether or not these are the instructions that were given in this case at the instance of the appellees. The bill of exceptions must show all the instructions given, otherwise this court cannot review the action' of the court below in giving and refusing instructions.

*Huston, J. M. Turner, for appellant.*

*A. J. & D. James, for appellee.*

From the record before us we cannot adjudge that the circuit judge should have granted a new trial for either of the reasons assigned on the motion.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Whitehall Limited,Inc. certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based onsuch evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

Date: September 11, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01


                               NASHUA CORPORATION
         COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE


(In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                                                             ------------------------------------------
                                                                2000            1999             1998
                                                                ----            ----             ----
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>              <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations                     $  5,386        $   (420)        $ (7,229)
Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes                    --          (4,001)          (6,687)
Gain on sale of discontinued operation, net of taxes               --              --            1,052
                                                             ------------------------------------------
Net income (loss)                                            $  5,386        $ (4,421)        $(12,864)
                                                             ==========================================
Shares:

  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding during the period                               5,649           5,718            6,320

  Weighted average common and potential common shares
    Outstanding during the period                               5,667           5,718            6,320

Basic and diluted earnings per share:
   Income (loss) from continuing operations                  $    .95        $   (.07)        $  (1.15)
   Loss from discontinued operations                               --            (.70)           (1.06)
   Gain on disposal of discontinued operations                     --              --              .17
                                                             ------------------------------------------

   Net income (loss)                                         $    .95        $   (.77)        $  (2.04)
                                                             ==========================================
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT NO. 10.36

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
                               DATED JULY 8, 1997



ERB Acquisition Group, L.L.C. ("Lender") and Consolidated Capital of North
America, Inc. ("Borrower") hereby agree to amend the terms of the Promissory
Note (the "Note") dated July 8, 1997 in the principal amount of $50,000, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Lender and Borrower hereby agree that both the principal and the interest due on
the Note will be due and payable in full on December 15, 1997.

Lender and Borrower also hereby agree that in the section of the Note entitled
"Security Interest - Collateral": the date of September 30, 1997 shall be
changed to December 15, 1997.

This Amendment is agreed to and accepted as of September 30, 1997


                                   Consolidated Capital of North America, Inc.

                                   By: /s/ Thompson H. Rogers
                                      --------------------------
                                      Thompson H. Rogers, Chairman



                                   ERB Acquisition Group, L.L.C.

                                   By: /s/ Paul Bagley
                                      --------------------------
                                       Paul Bagley, Manager



<PAGE>   2














                                    EXHIBIT A



           See Exhibit No. 10.35 - Promissory Note dated July 8, 1997
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on FormS-8 (File Nos.2-91432, 2-72124, 2-85698, 2-97280, 33-37319, 33-37323, 33-11790, 333-134387, 333-134384, 333-103844, 333-30918, 333-90127, 333-79227, 333-10801, 33-59005, and 33-55613), Form S-3 (File Nos. 2-84252, 33-9706, 33-22196,33-47213, 333-136451, 333-80781, 333-23025), and Form S-4 (File No. 33-58117, 33-48960, and 33-47213) of Millipore Corporation of our report dated February 28, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 28, 2008
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1432 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the deductibility of charitable contributions to certain 

organizations for members of the Armed Forces. 

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

•HR 1432 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘VSO Equal Tax Treat3 ment Act’’ or as the ‘‘VETT Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS 

5 TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS FOR MEMBERS 

6 OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(c) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after para9 graph (5) the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(6) An organization described in section 

11 501(c)(19) that is a federally chartered corpora12 tion.’’. 

13 (b) PERCENTAGE LIMITATION.—Section 

14 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

15 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (viii), by 

16 adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ix), and by inserting 

17 after clause (ix) the following new clause: 

18 ‘‘(x) an organization described in sec19 tion 501(c)(19) that is a federally char20 tered corporation,’’. 
3 

•HR 1432 EH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1432 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

of the Armed Forces. tributions to certain organizations for members provide for the deductibility of charitable con-