alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John M. Hart v. Township of Port Huron.

*Justices’ com'ts*— Suit *Try municipality*— Qertiora/ri—Official *title.*

A justice of the peace can hear a suit brought by a municipal corporation.

The objection that the evidence introduced in support of a claim is not the best evidence cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.

On *certiorari*all objections that are not to the merits must be disregarded. *Comp. L.*§ *5477.*

Omission to sue a municipal officer by his official title is not a substantial objection if his liability is shown.

Error to St. Clair.

Submitted June 22.

Decided June 29.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Phillips & Vance*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles K. Dodge*for defendant in error.

Corporations can sue in all courts: Const, art. xv. § 11; Potter’s Law of Corporations, §§ 83-4; and this includes municipal corporations : Comp. L. § 5296; townships are municipal corporations: Const, art. xi. § 2; and may sue in justice’s court: *Gurney v. Mayor of St. Clair 11*Mich.. 203; where the return to a writ of *eertiorari*raises no law questions the higher court has no right to review the proceedings on the weight of testimony: *McGraw v. Schwab*23 Mich. 13; *Overpack v. Ruggles*27 Mich. 67; *Jackson v. People*9 Mich. 112.

Campbell, J.

Hart was sued before' a justice of the peace of St. Clair county for the amount of a small judgment collected by his deputy (he being sheriff) and not paid over. Having moved to quash for want of jurisdiction of the justice to entertain a suit by a municipal corporation, the motion was denied. He then pleaded, but subsequently got leave to withdraw his plea, and the case was tried, and *429¡judgment rendered for tbe township. Hart made no objection to testimony and allowed tbe case to go to judgment, and tben sued out a *certiorari*to tbe circuit court, where tbe judgment was affirmed. He now brings error.

Tbe objection to jurisdiction is not urged, and is not maintainable. Upon all tbe points in issue there appears to have been evidence, and tbe objection that it was not tbe best evidence can hardly be raised now, when tbe defendant deliberately abstained from objecting. Some technical-points which do not relate to tbe merits we need not notice, as on such writs the statute requires all objections not going to tbe merits to be disregarded. The principal one of these seems, to have been that tbe defendant was not sued by bis name of office. But bis liability being shown this was not a substantial objection.

Tbe judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                        FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.


                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001 AND 2000


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   2001           2000
                                                ----------     ----------
<S>                                             <C>            <C>
Net Investment Loss                             $  (44,097)    $  (69,087)

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners               100%           100%
                                                ----------     ----------

Net Investment Loss Allocable
   to Limited Partners                          $  (44,097)    $  (69,087)
                                                ==========     ==========

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding                   930,725      1,026,273
                                                ==========     ==========

Net Investment Loss Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                             $    (0.04)    $    (0.07)
                                                ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCALES EXPRESS, INC. and LINCOLN )

 GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.: 05-719-BH-B

)

ELBERT R. SMITH, JR., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Motion (Doc. 30)

to be Dismissed from this action. As stated in its pleading, CSX has determined that any claims it

may have resulting from the underlying auto accident have been satisfied. Therefore, it disclaims

any interest in the fund created by this action and should not be properly included in this action.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. be DISMISSED

 as a party in this interpleader suit. 

So ORDERED, this 18th day of January, 2006.

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00719-BH-B Document 33 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Press Printing Co. *v.*J. Soule Smith.

Statute of Frauds.

Where a person is indebted on promissory notes and while still indebted he enters into a contract with appellant whereby for a valuable consideration appellant undertook to pay appellee’s debt, such contract is within the statute of frauds; and such appellee cannot recover against appellant and at the same time hold the evidence of indebtedness of the debtor whose debt appellant agreed to pay.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

November 14, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The substance of the allegations of the petition is that the Observer and Reporter Printing Company being indebted to appellee in the sum named in the petition, and for which he holds its note; that while so indebted, the Observer and Reporter Printing Company-made a contract with appellant, whereby, for a valuable consideration, it undertook and promised to pay appellee’s debt on the first named company; and that subsequently appellant promised him to pay his debt upon the consideration aforesaid; and upon that promise appellee sued. To the petition appellant demurred, and its demurrer having been overruled, and failing to answer, further *225judgment was rendered against it; and froni that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

*T. Waters, for appellant.*

*John Shelby, for appellee.*

It is not alleged that upon the promise of - appellant to pay appellee’s debt, he discharged the Observer and Reporter Printing Company from its liability to páy him. He still retains its note, and may at any time bring suit and coerce payment from the Observer and 'Reporter Printing Company. Nor does it appear that said company has credited appellant by the amount of appellee’s debt. Taking, therefore, the allegations of the petition as true, as is done for the purpose of the demurrer, the debt of the Observer and Reporter Printing Company to appellee is still a subsisting and an enforceable debt. Consequently the promise to pay the debt by appellant is in fact a promise to answer for the debt of another, and is directly within the inhibition of the statute.

Whether or not the petition would have been good if it had alleged that appellant was indebted to the Observer and Reporter Printing Company, and in consideration of said indebtedness it had promised and undertaken to pay the debt of the latter to appellee, ¿nd he had accepted it as his debt and released his debt on the other company, we do not decide. But the reasoning of this court in *Jones v. Walker,*13 B. Mon. 356, and in *Lieber, Griffin & Co. v. Levy,*3 Met. 292, tends strongly to that conclusion..

If the Observer and Reporter Printing Company had united as a plaintiff with appellee, we see no reason' why the suit could not have been prosecuted in their names for the benefit -of appellee. But we cannot avoid the conclusion that the petition is insufficient, and does not state a cause of action against appellant; and the demurrer should have been sustained. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2388

VITO ANTONIO LAERA,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM; PATRICK M. HUNT; JONATHAN GOODMAN; JOAN 

A. LENARD; WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR.; JULIE E. CARNES; UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA; STANLEY MARCUS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00371-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vito Antonio Laera, Appellant Pro Se. Tiffany Mallory Moore, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vito Antonio Laera appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Laera v. Rosenbaum, No. 3:15-cv-00371-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         416
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  267
<ALLOWANCES>                                   34
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               892
<PP&E>                                         600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2724
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       20
<OTHER-SE>                                     3784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6528
<SALES>                                        1020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1020
<CGS>                                          563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4491)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.28)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. BLACK and CLARA 

BLACK,

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0165-CG-C

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Clara Black is dismissed as a plaintiff in this matter, 

the brief (Doc. 14) filed by Clara Black is stricken pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 11(a), and 

the Commissioner’s decision denying Robert L. Black benefits is affirmed. 

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00165-CG-C Document 21 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 1
Form of Common Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.2 
 

 
  
 Exhibit 4.2 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
 CUSIP NO. 46070N 20 6 
 125,000,000 AUTHORIZED SHARES $.001 PAR VALUE NON-ASSESSABLE 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF 
 Shares of INTERSEARCH GROUP, INC. Common Stock transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 
 Countersigned and Registered 
 OTC CORPORATE TRANSFER SERVICE CO. 
 P.O. Box 501 - Hicksville, NY 11802 
 www.transferstock.com 
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 By Authorized Signature 
 Dated: 
 SECRETARY 
 PRESIDENT 







 

 
  
 The following
abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM - as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian 
 TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) 
 JT TEN - as joint
tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common Under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act (State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
 Shares of the capital stock
represented by the within certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney to transfer the said stock
on the books of the wihtin named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated 
 NOTICE: SIGNATURE MUST CORRESPOND TO THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR
ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER, AND MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A BANK, BROKER OR ANY OTHER ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION THAT IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO UNDER THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (STAMP) UNDER RULES PROMULGATED BY THE U.S.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | (2) The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                          |     |                                                                               
|------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: December
 10, 2009 | By: | /s/ Barry Weiner                                                              
|                          |     |                                                                               
|                          |     | Barry Weiner                                                                  
|                          |     | Chief Financial
 Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director

---
SCPR-22-0000600

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE BARBARA JEAN WONG,

ALSO KNOWN AS BARBARA UPHOUSE WONG,

 Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the 

practice law in the State of Hawai#i, filed by attorney 

Barbara Uphouse Wong,1 pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), but to retain the

paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b),

and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that

Petitioner Wong has fully complied with the requirements of 

RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

1 We note that, according to materials in the record at Docket

1:5-6, attorney Wong changed her name on February 17, 2016 to Barbara

Uphouse Wong, from other iterations of her name, including Barbara

Jean Wong, the name employed in the caption. Barbara Uphouse Wong is

the name which appears on her license to practice law, so we grant the

petition using that name.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-22-0000600

27-OCT-2022

02:09 PM

Dkt. 4 OGP
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is

granted. Petitioner Wong may retain the paper license as a

memento. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Wong, attorney number 8004, from the roll of

attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the filing of

this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 27, 2022. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1858 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Offices of 

the Secretaries for the Majority and Minority for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Offices of the Secretaries for the Majority and Minority for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 SENATE, OFFICES OF THE SECRETARIES FOR 

5 THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Senate, Offices of the Secretaries for the Majority 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1858 IH

1 and Minority for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $1,900,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          42,598
<SECURITIES>                                   614,448
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          16,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,130,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        155,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,125
<OTHER-SE>                                     147,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,130,521
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,073
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,333
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
        

</TABLE>