alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. K. Weir *v.*Elizabethtown & Paducah R. Co.

Principal and Agent — Authority of Railroad Engineer.

General authority conferred by a railroad company upon its chief engineer to make contracts for its construction gives such agent no power to contract with the owners of mines- to construct switches or branch roads to such mines.

Proof to Establish Agency.

Statements and letters of the agent are not admissible in evidence to establish the agency.

'APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

May 11, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

It is admitted by the answer that McLeod is or was the chief engineer of defendant’s road, and as such had the general authority to superintend and control its construction. Numerous witnesses were *706introduced showing that this engineer made contracts for its construction, and was no doubt authorized to do so by reason of his superior skill in the construction of such improvements. This general authority of the road to' make contracts for its construction conferred upon him no power to make contracts with the owners of mines, to contract switches or branch roads to their mines. His agency, so far as this record shows, extended to the construction of the road, and from it is not to be implied a power to contract for, or contribute to branch roads owned by others, although it may appear beneficial to the company. Such authority must be shown. The fact that one such contract had been made by this engineer or some other officer that had been approved by the company was no evidence from which the existence of a general authority in such matters was to be inferred; and the court should have excluded it from the jury. Nor were the statements or letters of the engineer competent evidence to establish the agency.

*M. Mundy, J. C.*Walker, *W. Whitaker, for appellant.*

*H. C. Plndell, for appellee.*

This fact must be brought home to the company, and when established, the declarations and conduct of the ag'ent in the discharge of the duties of his employment would .be competent. The engineer was a competent witness, and by him the agency, if it existed, could have been shown; certainly his declarations were incompetent to establish that fact.

The company was not compelled to bring its books or private correspondence into court to enable the appellant to make out his case. The rule was, therefore, properly refused. It is unnecessary to notice the other questions used by counsel for the appellee in the case.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### L. F. Boulware, et al., *v.*J. H. Louden, et al. Willis Henderson *v.*S. F. Boulware. Eli Louden, et al., *v.*S. F. Boulware, et al.

Attachment — Priority—Pleading Conclusion.

Where plaintiff begins attachment proceedings against a defendant under a wrong name and had to begin over again, his first action does not give him priority over those filing attachment proceedings after his first suit was begun.

Pleading Conclusion.

A pleading must set forth facts, and no issue of fact is raised where conclusions are pleaded.

APPEAL PROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT.

September 28, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Henderson’s attachment was six days the junior of that of Boulware, and even if it be true that the necessary amendment to their affidavits affected the question of priority, the fact that Henderson had been proceeding against James S. instead of James H. Louden up to the time of the correction made by these amended affidavits, and that he had then to commence his action *de novo,*prevents him from claiming anything on this account. Hence, on Henderson’s appeal against Boulware the judgment is *affirmed.*

The proof shows beyond all doubt that before Mrs. Louden consented for her husband to receive her estate, he agreed to invest at least a portion of it in the fifty-four acre tract of land that the court refused to subject to the payment of her husband’s debts. *94She fails, however, to show that the agreement related to the remainder of the attached land.

*John Rodman, William Cornell, George C. Drane, for appellants.*

*J. M. Harlan, for appellees.*

On the appeal of *Boulware and Henderson v. Mrs. Louden and her children,*and on their cross-appeal against Boulware and Henderson, the judgment is also affirmed. The petition of Eli Louden shows no right of action in him. He says that “James Louden being indebted to the government of the United States for internal revenue tax, in the sum of $-, that the land in controversy was seize4 and sold,” etc. The averment that James Louden was so indebted is but the statement of a conclusion of law. He should have stated the facts from which the deduction was drawn. If Lou-den pursued any calling or vocation, or owned any property specifically taxed by the general government, these facts should have been stated; as it is, no issue of fact could be raised in the most material averment in his petition. His claim was properly disregarded. On his appeal the judgment is also *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          52,847
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,740
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    141,325
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          37,402
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            37,861
<LOANS>                                        666,382
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 935,172
<DEPOSITS>                                     478,650
<SHORT-TERM>                                   246,698
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,897
<LONG-TERM>                                     67,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,139
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 935,172
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 66,110
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,440
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,450
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                79,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,281
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,291
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,709
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,134
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 28,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,700
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      14,964
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.18
<LOANS-NON>                                        491
<LOANS-PAST>                                       703
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 19,164
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,511
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,106
<RECOVERIES>                                       532
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,071
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,650
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 95
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          8,326
        


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OF OPINION ON EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of J.J.G., L.K.G., H.A.G., and A.G.G 

Appellate case number: 01-16-00104-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-00610J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 2, 2017

Party filing motion: M.G., appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ ___Evelyn v. Keyes________________________________________ 

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

The en banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey. Justice Jennings voted to grant the motion for the 

reasons expressed in his dissenting opinion.

Date: November 14, 2017
#### Ben A. Carrico, et al., *v.*Charles Greenwell.

Liens — Enforcement of Liens on Real Estate.

Where there are senior and junior liens on the same real estate, and the senior lien holder sues to foreclose, the junior lien holders are entitled to he made parties if they ask to he and may file cross-petitions to recover on their own liens, hut they are not entitled to file answers to the petition of the senior lien holder and defend his suit.

APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

January 12, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Greenwell was proceeding to enforce a vendor’s lien. Appellants held, or claim to hold, junior liens on the same property. They can interpose no defense to Greenwell’s action. They had the right to set up their liens, by making themselves parties to his action, and it would have beep proper for the chancellor to delay proceedings in Greenwell’s favor until they could, by reasonable diligence, prepare-their cross-actions for trial. The only ground, however, upon which they could demand such delay, was that they were proceeding to prepare their said cross-actions with legal diligence. Such is not-*294the case here. They proposed to file answers to Greenwell’s petition, but they did not make them cross-petitions against their debtor, Carrico, nor against the parties to whom Carrico had sold portions of the land. If the court had permitted their. answers to be filed, the result would have been to impede Greenwell, and yet appellants would not, without further pleadings, have been in condition to proceed to obtain any relief whatever.

*R. H. Field, for appellants.*

*W. Wilson, for appellee.*

In view of these facts the chancellor did not abuse a sound discretion in refusing to make them parties. As they are not parties they have no right on this appeal to question the sufficiency of the service of process.

Judgment *affirmed.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1728 

To establish the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2023 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself and Mr. COURTNEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To establish the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agent Orange Service 

5 Medal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AGENT ORANGE VET7 ERANS SERVICE MEDAL. 

8 (a) SERVICE MEDAL REQUIRED.—The Secretary of 

9 Defense shall design and produce a commemorative mili10 tary service medal, to be known as the ‘‘Agent Orange 

11 Veterans Service Medal’’, to honor veterans who receive 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1728 IH

1 compensation under section 1116 or 1116A of title 38, 

2 United States Code. 

3 (b) DISTRIBUTION OF MEDAL.— 

4 (1) ISSUANCE TO CERTAIN VETERANS.—At the 

5 request of a veteran described in subsection (a), the 

6 Secretary of Defense shall issue the Agent Orange 

7 Veterans Service Medal to the veteran. 

8 (2) ISSUANCE TO NEXT-OF-KIN.—In the case of 

9 a veteran described in subsection (a) who is de10 ceased, the Secretary may provide for issuance of 

11 the Agent Orange Veterans Service Medal to the 

12 next-of-kin of the veteran. 

13 (3) APPLICATION.—The Secretary shall prepare 

14 and disseminate as appropriate an application by 

15 which veterans described in subsection (a) and their 

16 next-of-kin may apply to receive the Agent Orange 

17 Veterans Service Medal. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAGNITUDE  INFORMATION SYSTEMS,  INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000838796
<NAME>                        Magnitude Information Systems, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                             2,588
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    157,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                      61,777
<INVENTORY>                                        8,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 614,597
<PP&E>                                           267,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   156,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,959,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,498,048
<BONDS>                                          175,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             903
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,744,666)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,959,124
<SALES>                                          162,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 162,430
<CGS>                                            127,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    567,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,433,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               187,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,124,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,124,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,124,599)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.26)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANN P. WILSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00490-CG-N

)

MARY D. BROWN, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

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

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1) and dated

January 20, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00490-CG-N Document 18 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1
<page>					      EXHIBIT 31.01



CERTIFICATIONS


I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

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

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

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

a)	Designed such 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 known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer 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 of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or 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 financial reporting.









Date:   May 17, 2004          /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                 Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                 President,
                                 Demeter Management Corporation,
#### F. J. Staton, et al., *v.*J. W. Christian, et al.

Sale of Real Estate — Cancellation of Deed.

If the grantor of real estate has no title and knows it and this fact was unknown to the grantee at the time of the execution of the deed and was fraudulently concealed from him by the grantor, such grantee is entitled to have the deed canceled.

Insolvency and Fraud.

Insolvency and fraud when properly pleaded is a complete defense to an executed contract, and the party who by the fraud of a grantor has been induced to accept a deed when the grantor had no title and knew he had none and the grantee was in ignorance of such facts at the time the deed was executed, is not compelled to rely on his warranty.

APPEAL FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 27, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The court acted properly in permitting the appellees to prosecute their cross-action against the appellants. They had been regularly brought into court and required to enforce their lien, and the compromise between the original parties to the action could not affect their rights. They were made defendants to the cross-petition of Clark, and their answer to this was as required, and the cross-petition by them against the appellants, as authorized by Chap. 4 of the Civil Code, and the amendments thereto.

The answer of the appellants presented a good defense to the action. It is expressly alleged that the appellees have no title, that this fact was unknown to the appellants and known to the appellees *786at the time of the execution of the deed, and fraudulently concealed by them from the defendants. If the appellees have no title they should not be permitted to recover. Fraud vitiates the contract, whether executory or executed, and if the appellees are without title, and knew it when they sold, and concealed the fact from the defendants, they are entitled to a cancelment of the deed. Insolvency, non-residency and fraud, all or either, when properly pleaded, make a complete defense to an executed contract like this. The party is not compelled to rely on his warranty. *Gale v.*Conn, 3 J. J. Marsh. 538; *Vance v. House's*Heirs, 5 B. Mon. 540.

*King & Gilbert, for appellants. Bigger & Reid, for appellees.*

The fact that the parties only conveyed their interest is immaterial. The language of the deed imports that they had an interest, and it is hardly to be supposed that the appellants would undertake to pay to the appellees several hundred dollars without any consideration. The burden of showing fraud is on the appellants, and that must be established in a case like this. The appellants should be permitted to present their defense.

The judgment is, therefore, *reversed*and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The vendors and appellees being the owners of all the notes, there was no error in subjecting the land to the payment of the notes due.
# Exhibit 32

Certifications of Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

---

# Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
               with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  March 16, 2004 |  | /s/  R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                      |  | R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.     
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer   

|Date:  March 16, 2004 |  | /s/  James M. Austin, III
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                      |  | James M. Austin, III     
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer