alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barnard Kimbley, et al., *v.*S. A. Jackson.

Sale of Personal Property — Lien of Purchaser for Advancements — Notice — Practice.

One who advances money on a contract to purchase personal property is entitled to a lien on such property as against the vendor or others purchasing such property with notice of such advancement.

*658Practice — Motion for New Trial.

To aver, in a motion for a new trial, that the judgment is against the law, is not sufficient to> call in question the correctness of instructions.

APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT.

March 31, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The appellee alleged that he purchased the tobacco of Smith and Davis, and subsequently the appellants purchased of them the same tobacco; that hearing of their purchase lie immediately, and before they had paid any part of the purchase money, gave them notice of his purchase and of the amount he had advanced upon it; and that they, after being notified, received the tobacco and refused to refund to him the amount he had paid.

It is not material to decide whether the title passed to the appellee or not; he had, as against his vendors, a lien on the tobacco for his advances made on the faith of his purchase, and appellants having received notice of the lien before they had paid the purchase money, were bound by the lien and were properly adjudged to answer for it.

They are not in a position to‘ claim protection as innocent purchasers. Although it was irregular to instruct the jury to find for the plaintiff, the appellants are not entitled to a reversal. Their grounds for a new trial do not question the correctness of the instruction of the court. They specified but two grounds for a new trial: 1st, that the judgment is against the law, and is not sustained by the evidence; 2nd, that their witness was detained by rain and did not reach the court until the trial was completed.

The first ground relied upon only raises the question whether the judgment is sustained by the evidence. The evidence was clearly sufficient. “That the judgment is against the law” is not sufficient to call in question the correctness of instructions. Grounds for a new trial should indicate the error complained of so as to call it to the attention of the court. But it is impossible from the grounds filed to discover what particular error is complained of. That the judgment is against the law may more properly be regarded as intended to question the sufficiency of the petition than the correctness of instructions.

The second ground is insufficient. The appellants must have known before the trial was commenced that their witness was ab*659sent, and should have moved for a continuance or postponement until they could have him present. This they did not do. They went into trial without objection and cannot have a new trial on the ground that they were not ready.

*Walker & Hubbard, for appellants.*

*McHenry & Hill, for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Elizabeth Smith, et al., *v.*R. C. Eubank, et al.

Insurance Policy — Beneficiary—Creditors of Husband.

Creditors of the busband bave no cause of action against a widow wbo bas received insurance money on a policy made payable to ber, purchased by ber busband.

APPEAL FROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

October 23, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott:

H. W. Smith, in 1869, insured his life for the benefit of appellants, *781his wife and children, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, in the Southern Mutual Life Insurance Co. of this state.

*Russell & Averitt, for appellants.*

*Baker &*Hindman, *for appellees.*

Smith paid the calls due on his policy up to his death in 1874. In 1875 R. C. Eubank, one of the appellees, brought suit, by which he sought to reach the fund received by Smith’s widow and heirs by virtue of said policy, on the ground that said policy so made for the benefit of Smith’s wife and children was a fraud on his creditors. Appellees’ debt was not created till five years after the insurance of Smith’s life was made with the Southern Mutual Life Insurance Co., and how he could have contemplated a fraud on said appellees without even any evidence that he even knew or ever expected to deal with them, is difficult to perceive.

The charter authorized the insurance as made by Smith, and protects the beneficiaries of the policy against creditors of the assured, and even if said act is illegal or even unconstitutional as to Smith’s creditors, when the policy was executed, we are of opinion that appellees are in no condition to make the question, as the beneficiaries of the policy have a better title to the money received thereon than appellees.

It is said that H. W. Smith paid one call on this policy after he incurred the debt to appellees, and it is insisted that the amount of said call ought to be held liable for his debt. We are of a different opinion. Smith became bound for said call in 1869, long before he became indebted to appellees, and paid it in pursuance of his contract. We are of opinion that as to subsequent creditors of Smith, the appellants, the widow Smith and her children, are to be considered as the absolute owners of the fund paid them on the policy in dispute in this suit.

Wherefore the judgment of the lower court is *reversed*and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss appellees’ suits at their cost.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meetings will be held Monday, January 12, 2015 and Tuesday, January 13, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theresa Singleton at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3329.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Monday, January 12, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesday, January 13, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mountain Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Singleton. For more information please contact Ms. Singleton at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3329, TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Otis Simpson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28848 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Commonwealth *v.*G. W. Wainscott.

Criminal Law — Indictment.

A defendant cannot be required to plead to an indictment not indorsed “a true bill” and signed as prescribed by § 118 of the Code.

Indorsements on Indictment.

The names of witnesses are required to be indorsed on an indictment, but where this is not, done before the return by the grand jury, it may be done by the commonwealth’s attorney after that time.

APPEAL PROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 5, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge CofeR :

There can be no indictment without the indorsement and signature required by Code, Sec. 118. That is the evidence, and the only evidence, that the indictment has been found by the grand jury to be a true bill and cannot be dispensed with; and if a writing purporting to be an indictment has no such indorsement upon it, the defendant cannot be required either to plead or move to set it aside. He may stand mute, disregarding it altogether.

Not so, however, of the requirement of Sec. 119. The indictment and the evidence that it has been found “a true bill” are complete without the names of the witnesses on whose testimony it was found. Tire names of the witnesses should be indorsed, and when the proper steps are taken by the defendant they must be indorsed. But the statute does not say when or by whom the indorsement is to be made. The names of the witnesses are required to be indorsed in order to enable the defendant to see upon whose testimony he is charged, that he may be the better enabled to meet the accusation. This would have been as well accomplished by allowing the commonwealth’s attorney to make the indorsement, as he offered to do, as if it had. been done before the indictment was returned into court, and in our opinion the court erred in not permitting him to do so.

*724
      *Moss, ■for appellant. J. D. Lillard, for appellee.*

If, in consequence of not having previously known the names of the witnesses against him, the defendant was not ready for trial, it was in the power of the court to prevent injustice to him by allowing a continuance.

Judgment *reversed,*and cause remanded with directions to allow the attorney to indorse the names, as he offered to do; and if that be done, to overrule the motion to set aside the indictment, and if it be not done, to dismiss the indictment.
#### C. L. Johnson *v.*Board of Trustees of Harrodsburg.

City Councilmen — Liability for Damages — Policeman.

City councilmen who have appointed a policeman are not liable for the damages resulting from an improper arrest made by such officer.

APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

April 18, 1876.

*John B. Major, J. J. McAfee, for .appellant.*

*Kyle & Poston, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The liability of appellees is made to depend alone upon the appointment by them of Gallagher to the position of policeman, and his retention in that position after the alleged wrong had been committed. We know of no principle by which the trustees or the city are to be made responsible for an improper arrest made by a city officer under the general authority given him by virtue of the appointment. They1 did not order the arrest of the party or direct his imprisonment after the arrest was made. Such arrests are often improper, but when made, as in this instance, by the officer upon his own responsibility, we cannot well see how third1 parties are to be held liable. There is no allegation that the trustees were required to take a bond from the policeman in order to insure indemnity for the anticipated wrongs of the latter, nor do we presume that such was their duty under the charter. The petition as amended presenting no cause of action, the judgment must be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         841501
<NAME>                        Owens Mortgage Investment Fund
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          5,302,096
<SECURITIES>                    250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,423,611
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,975,707
<PP&E>                          10,279,982
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  207,827,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,077,099
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      206,750,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    207,827,231
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,881,891
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   640,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 4,241,590
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             4,241,590
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    4,241,590
<EPS-BASIC>                   .021
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .021



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL DATA INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DIGITAL BRIDGE,INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     120,542
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               57,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           209,059
<PP&E>                                      41,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             270,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      801,829
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    22,280
<OTHER-SE>                                 205,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               270,394
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           523,502
<CGS>                                      280,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              280,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           984,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (740,658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (740,658)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.027)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.027)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            Certification Pursuant To
                             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 Netegrity, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barry N. Bycoff, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: January 29, 2004                     /s/ Barry N. Bycoff
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Barry N. Bycoff
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
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 Justice
 On November 17, 2014 the Department of Justice published a notice of the lodging of a proposed Consent Decree in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Linnton Plywood Association,*
                     Civil Action No. 3:14-1772. 
                    *See*79 FR 68484. That notice commenced a thirty (30) day public comment period. By this notice, the United States hereby extends the public comment period by an additional thirty (30) days. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Linnton Plywood Association,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-06787/3 All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By e-mail
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General 
                             U.S. DOJ—ENRD  
                             P.O. Box 7611  
                             Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​Consent_​Decrees.html.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $18.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $8.75. Susan M. Akers, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2014-29926 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

V. ) CR. NO. 09-00174-CG

 ) 

DESIREE M. NORWOOD, )

 )

 Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter came on for a hearing on the defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea

(Doc. 15) on May 20, 2010. Upon due consideration of the parties' briefs and their arguments at

the hearing, the court finds that the motion is well taken. The court finds that there is no factual

basis for a conviction for bank fraud as charged in Count 1; therefore, the defendant's motion to

withdraw her plea as to that count is GRANTED, and Count 1 of the Indictment filed on August

27, 2009 is hereby DISMISSED.

 The court does find that there is a basis for conviction for possession of counterfeit

securities as charged in Count 9, to which the defendant pled guilty on October 20, 2009;

therefore, this action will proceed to sentencing as to Count 9 on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at

1:30 p.m., to be held in Courtroom 2B, United States Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama.

The defendant is ORDERED to appear for said hearing.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00174-CG-B Document 21 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75799-75800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ15-4-000]


Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 2, 2014, Orlando Utilities Commission 
submits tariff filing 35.28(e): Refile Order No. 1000 Compliance with 
Order on Rehearing to be effective 1/1/2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission 
Owning and Operating Public Utilities, 136 FERC ] 61,051 (2011), 
order on reh'g and clarification, 139 FERC ] 61,132 (2012) (Order 
No. 1000-A), order on reh'g and clarification, 141 FERC ] 61,044 
(2012) (Order No. 1000-B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.

[[Page 75800]]

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a6c6f786965444643444f795f5a5a45585e6a4c4f5849044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35737067767a5b595c5b50664045455a474175535047561b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 29, 2014.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29707 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>