alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11387.

#### Fruit Dispatch Co. *v.*Petropol.

Decided November 2, 1920.

Complaint; from Clarke superior court — Judge Cobb. February 24, 1920.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. An offer to purchase which contemplates acceptance *by*shipment of the goods affords the basis of a binding contract only when the proposal is accepted *during*the time in which it remains outstanding. *Sheffield*v. *Whitfield,*6 *Ga. App.*762 (2), (65 S. E. 807); *Sivell*v. *Hogan,*119 *Ga.*167, 172 (46 S. E. 67). In this case the jury were authorized to find, from the evidence, that the defendant’s offer to buy was withdrawn prior to the time that the plaintiff performed any act which would amount to an acceptance on its part.

2. The “uniform conditions governing sales” by the plaintiff as contained in its “ trade code ” book, which are set forth in the petition, and to which, it is shown, the defendant had previously given his assent in writing, relate to contracts of purchase and sale, and have no reference to mere offers withdrawn previous to any words or acts amounting to an acceptance.

3. While it is a recognized principle of law that “where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching' anything involved in the controversy he cannot, after litigation has begun, change his ground and put his conduct upon another and different consideration” *(Fenn*v. *Ware,*100 *Ga.*563, 28 S. E. 238; *Cowdery*v. *Greenlee,*126 *Ga.*786, 56 S. E. 918, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 137; *Bedingfield*v. *Bates Advertising Co.,*2 *Ga. App.*107, 111, 58 S. E. 320; *Tuggle*v. *Green,*ante, 647, 104 S. E. 85), and while it appears that when the goods were rejected by the defendant he wired to the plaintiff as follows: “ Cannot handle car of bananas, too ripe. Here subject to your order,” and while the meaning and effect of this message could be taken to import the recognition of a contract of purchase and sale, and a rejection of the goods by the defendant on account of a breach by the plaintiff of the terms of such an agreement, still since the message does not necessarily carry such an import, the language can be taken and construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time. This language, according to the defendant’s evidence, was but the substantial repetition of his previous statement, made at the time he was notified by the plaintiff-that the shipment was in bad order and when he distinctly withdrew his offer to purchase prior to any form of acceptance by the plaintiff. The message, viewed in the light of this .testimony, could reasonably be taken either as a rejection of an independent tender or as a mere repetition of tlie grounds of his withdrawal previously communicated.

4. The exceptions pendente lite are without merit, since the amendment to the plea was permissible for the purpose of showing that the shipment, after being rejected, was handled by defendant only under direct coercion of the food administrator acting under war powers.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*

*840*Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein, John J. Strickland,*for plaintiff.

*Erwin, Erwin & Nix,*for defendant.
11112.

#### Monk *v.*Jackson.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The petition in trover, when legally construed, and as admitted by counsel for the plaintiff in error, was brought by the plaintiff in his own name, and yet it showed the title to the property sued for in another person, and failed to show any right of possession in the plaintiff. The petition was therefore fatally defective, and the court did not err in dismissing it on an oral motion by the defendant.

2. Although the bill of exceptions shows that before the motion to dismiss was made, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to show a right of possession in him, and, further, that he had a special property right in the property sued for, the bill of exceptions and the record clearly show that no nonsuit was granted, but that the motion to dismiss the petition was made “ on account of fatal defects therein,” and that this motion was granted and the petition dismissed. It follows that this court can not consider the evidence introduced.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*26Trover; from city court of Tifton—Judge Price. November 13, 1919.

*Ridgdill & Mitchell,*for plaintiff.

*Fulwood & Hargrett,*for defendant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         183,993
<SECURITIES>                                 5,034,240
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,501,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                   161,064
<INVENTORY>                                  1,733,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,994,488
<PP&E>                                       2,626,832
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,644,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,822,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,444,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       642,422
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,735,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,822,015
<SALES>                                     12,595,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,595,297
<CGS>                                        4,074,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,074,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,286,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,234,871
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,445,335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,789,536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,789,536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43



</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 

**- 1934** 

EDITA MAGDIRILA BAUA, a/k/a Edita Magdirila

,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General
,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : March 28, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Dalin R. Holyoak, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Edita Magdirila Baua, a native and citizen of the

Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider.

We have reviewed the administrative record and Baua’s

contentions and conclude that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in denying reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a) , (b)(1) (2013). Accordingly, we deny the petition

for review for the reasons sta ted by the Board. See In re : Baua

(B .I. A

. June 27, 2013). 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.

PETITION DENIE D
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0                   1,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                   1,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                    (59)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                   4,612
<PP&E>                                               0                   3,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                 (2,310)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                  12,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                     824
<BONDS>                                              0                  10,556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   3,770
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 (4,241)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                  12,000
<SALES>                                          2,224                   9,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,228                   9,170
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,779                   7,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   165                     656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19                     155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  75                     299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (410)                     130
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (50)                   (629)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (460)                     759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (460)                     759
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.70)                    0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)                    0.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Woolsworth Handle Works *v.*S. Littlefield.

Principal and Agent — Evidence.

The statement of an agent that he is acting as such is not competent to prove the agency unless brought home to the principal.

*368APPEAL FROM LIVINGSTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1875.

*W. D.*Greer, *for appellant.*

■ Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The evidence before the jury did not authorize the verdict. There is no proof showing that either Hogg or Wanimer had authority from appellant to assume the debt due or owing appellee by Hogg. The statement made by Hogg that he was the agent of appellant is incompetent as against the latter, and so in relation to Wanimer. The power, if given to Wanimer, conferred upon him no authority from the company to settle this debt; and although it is shown that he exhibited another letter of attorney more comprehensive than the one found in the record, still there is no evidence that appellant ever executed it. The statement of an agent that he is acting as such is not competent to prove the agency unless brought home to the principal. The evidence of Chester is that the agent had no such 'authority, either verbal or in writing; and the only evidence before the jury was the statements of parties who preferred to be agents, with an entire absence of proof showing that any such agency existed, except such as is to be found in the paper made part of the record. The judgment is *reversed,*and cause remanded with direction to award the appellant a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
**EXHIBIT 31.B****CERTIFICATION**I, John R. Sult, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ANR Pipeline Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.       Date:February 21, 2007                 */s/ John R. Sult*       John R. Sult      Senior Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Controller      (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)      ANR Pipeline Company
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. AD14-14-000]

As announced in Notices issued October 10, 2014, and November 20, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a workshop on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 to commence a discussion with industry on operator actions in energy and ancillary service markets operated by the Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs).

                    A report on operator actions in RTO/ISO markets has been posted to the Commission Web site at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​legal/​staff-reports/​2014/​AD14-14-operator-actions.pdf.*

      ( print page 73574)    
Dated: December 4, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-29048 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Hezekiah J. Howe, George H. Richards and John DeArmond v. Mary Jane Lemon and Henry Lemon.

Discontinuance— *Writ of assistance*— Entitling,

A discontinuance as to a deceased party is needless.

Matter set up in defense to a motion for a writ of assistance cannot be received to affect the decree determining the defendants’ rights.

Where proceedings by writ of assistance were taken on the foot of a foreclosure decree against a wife, leave being given to discontinue as against the husband, the objection that the papers were wrongly entitled in the names of both defendants was held a mere technicality. especially where it was not clear from the record whether the order of discontinuance had been entered.

Appeal from Berrien.

Submitted January 12.

Decided January 25.

Foreclosure. Defendant appeals from order allowing writ of assistance.

Affirmed.

*O. W. Goolidge*and *E. M. Plimpton*for complainants.

*Ed/wa/rd Bacon*for defendant appellant.

An affidavit-for a writ of assistance is void if entitled in the name of the defendants in the original suit after one of them has died : *Whipple v. Williams*1 Mich. 115; *Arnold v. Nye*11 Mich. 456.

Campbell, J.

This is an appeal from an order allowing a writ of assistance against Mary Jane Lemon. A decree was made in the circuit court for the county of Berrien for the enforcement against her of a contract adjudged to have •the effect of a mortgage, and for a sale on default. This-decree was affirmed by this court in all respects excej>t as to personal liability for any deficiency. *Howe v. Lemon 37*Mich. 164. It'was there intimated that she was the only party interested, and that there was no need of making *545Henry Lemon a party, and leave was granted to discontinue against him. It may be gathered that he has been dead for some time, so that in fact no discontinuance was necessary j and we cannot tell from the record whether this has been formally entered or not.

A sale was made and upon a confirmation of the report,, and demand of possession with the proper evidences of right, Mrs. Lemon refused to give it up, and a writ of assistance was asked for and granted. The objection that the papers-are no longer properly entitled in the name of both defendants is a mere technicality. It serves sufficiently to identify the case; and it is at least questionable under the record which she has brought here and presented for our consideration, whether the case has any other title as yet. The appeal papers are all entitled in the same substantial way,, and we do not think the objection deserves attention.

The objection that the filing and confirmation of the report does not appear is contradicted by the record.

The matter set up in defence to the motion cannot be received to affect the decree which determined her rights and obligations.

The order must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,473
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,343
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                37,195
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    142,558
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          89,923
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            94,399
<LOANS>                                        192,219
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 512,078
<DEPOSITS>                                     447,656
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,459
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,073
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,684
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 512,078
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,632
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,845
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,586
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,063
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,568
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 347
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,148
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      232
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,885
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,344
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,344
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.72
<LOANS-NON>                                        899
<LOANS-PAST>                                       311
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,076
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,458
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      290
<RECOVERIES>                                       269
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,670
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,670
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,592
        

</TABLE>