text:
Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers About 517A - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Document issued on: July 30, 2014
The draft of this document was issued on May 17, 2013.
For questions regarding this document, contact the Office of the Center Director at 301-796-5900 or contact Ruth Fischer at 301-796-5735 or by electronic mail at email@example.com.
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Office of the Center Director
Public Comment
You may submit electronic comments and suggestions at any time for Agency consideration to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD 20852. Identify all comments with the Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0501. Comments may not be acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or updated.
Additional Copies
Additional copies are available from the Internet. You may also send an e-mail request to email@example.com to receive a copy of the guidance. Please use the document number 1821 to identify the guidance you are requesting.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Background
- Questions about Section 517A
Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers About 517A - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance.
1 Introduction
This guidance document provides the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH or the Center) interpretation of key provisions of section 517A of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which was added by section 603 of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012, as those provisions pertain to requests for documentation of rationales for significant decisions and requests for supervisory review of regulatory decisions and actions taken by CDRH.
FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.
2 Background
Section 517A of the FD&C Act contains provisions for the documentation and review of certain decisions in the premarket review of device submissions. Specifically, this provision states:
(a) DOCUMENTATION OF RATIONALE FOR SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide a substantive summary of the scientific and regulatory rationale for any significant decision of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health regarding submission or review of a report under section 510(k), an application under section 515, or an application for an exemption under section 520(g), including documentation of significant controversies or differences of opinion and the resolution of such controversies or differences of opinion.
(2) PROVISION OF DOCUMENTATION.—Upon request, the Secretary shall furnish such substantive summary to the person who is seeking to submit, or who has submitted, such report or application.
(b) REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS.—
(1) REQUEST FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DECISION.—Any person may request a supervisory review of the significant decision described in subsection (a)(1). Such review may be conducted at the next supervisory level or higher above the individual who made the significant decision.
(2) SUBMISSION OF REQUEST.—A person requesting a supervisory review under paragraph (1) shall submit such request to the Secretary not later than 30 days after such decision and shall indicate in the request whether such person seeks an in-person meeting or a teleconference review.
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall schedule an in-person or teleconference review, if so requested, not later than 30 days after such request is made. The Secretary shall issue a decision to the person requesting a review under this subsection not later than 45 days after the request is made under paragraph (1), or, in the case of a person who requests an in-person meeting or teleconference, 30 days after such meeting or teleconference.
(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in cases that are referred to experts outside of the Food and Drug Administration.
The statutory timeframes for the processing of appeals of significant decisions under section 517A(b)(2) and (3) of the FD&C Act are discussed in a separate guidance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Appeals Processes: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff(May 17, 2013) (Appeals Guidance). Other terms in section 517A of the FD&C Act, however, require interpretation. CDRH has developed this guidance document as a companion to the Appeals Guidance to provide interpretations of several provisions of the new law.
3 Questions about Section 517A
3.1 What is a "Significant Decision"?
The documentation and review procedures required by section 517A of the FD&C Act apply only to "significant decisions" concerning submissions under sections 510(k) (Premarket Notification), 515 (Premarket Approval or "PMA"/Humanitarian Device Exemption or "HDE") or 520(g) (Investigational Device Exemption or "IDE") of the FD&C Act. "Significant decision" is not defined. For purposes of this guidance, we refer to "significant decisions" as "517A decisions." To ensure the enhanced procedural protections and timelines for actions by both CDRH and device applicants are applied to important decisions at the final stage of review, while permitting additional flexibility in decision-making earlier in the review process, CDRH believes 517A decisions should include the following:
- 510(k): Not Substantially Equivalent; Substantially Equivalent
- PMA/HDE: Not Approvable; Approvable; Approval; Denial
- IDE: Disapproval; Approval
- Failure to Reach Agreement on a Protocol under Section 520(g)(7) of the FD&C Act
- "Clinical Hold" Determinations under Section 520(g)(8) of the FD&C Act
CDRH intends that the time frames and procedures specified in section 517A of the FD&C Act for 517A decisions regarding premarket submissions will apply to sequential requests for supervisory review of such decisions within the Center. For example, if a company that requests supervisory review of a 517A decision at the Office level further appeals the Office decision to the Center level, FDA would apply the procedures and timeframes specified in section 517A of the FD&C Act to both of these appeals.
On the other hand, there are regulatory actions that do not constitute 517A decisions, but which remain subject to review under 21 CFR 10.75. CDRH refers to these decisions as "non-517A" decisions. Examples of a request for supervisory review which may be made under 21 CFR 10.75 for non-517A decisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
- 510(k) Requests for Additional Information
- PMA Major Deficiency Letter
- 510(k) and PMA Refuse to Accept Letters
- Postmarket Surveillance Orders under Section 522 of the FD&C Act
- CLIA Waiver Decisions
- Warning Letters
- Response Letter to a Request for Information under Section 513(g) of the FD&C Act
These requests for supervisory review would not trigger the requirements under section 517A of the FD&C Act.
3.2 What is a "substantive summary"?
Section 517A of the FD&C Act requires the Center to provide, upon request of a person who is seeking to submit or who has submitted a 510(k), PMA, IDE, or HDE, a "substantive summary" of the scientific and regulatory rationale for any 517A decision regarding such submission, including documentation of significant controversies or differences of opinion and the resolution thereof. For example, when the submitter of a Premarket Notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act receives a Substantially Equivalent or Not Substantially Equivalent decision from CDRH, the submitter may then request, and CDRH must provide, a substantive summary of the rationale for the decision.
For decisions that are subject to this provision, the substantive summary may be the final version of the review memorandum by the lead reviewer or another summary document that includes the following elements:
- An explanation of the rationale for the regulatory decision;
- Documentation of significant controversies or differences of opinion, i.e., ones the resolution of which had a direct bearing on the regulatory decision; and,
- References to published literature and consensus standards upon which the decision-maker relied.
3.3 Who may request documentation of 517A decisions under section 517A of the FD&C Act, and how does this provision relate to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
FDA interprets section 517A(a)(2) of the FD&C Act to permit persons who have submitted or who are seeking to submit 510(k)s, PMAs, IDEs, or HDEs to request substantive summaries of 517A decisions regarding their own device (not the devices of others) without having to file a request under the FOIA. For example, a sponsor seeking to submit an IDE may request a substantive summary of a decision on a binding protocol agreement under 520(g)(7) of the FD&C Act pertaining to a study of its device.
Since FDA will only be providing these summaries to the owner of any proprietary information contained therein, generally there should not be any need to withhold trade secret or confidential commercial information (CCI) or any other information in the summary. If someone other than the owner of a device wishes to obtain a substantive summary of a 517A decision regarding such device, that person would need to file a FOIA request. Trade secret and CCI would be withheld in FDA's response to such a FOIA request but there would be no information exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).


text:
Unit Level:
Available as a Student Elective: Yes
View timetable
of lectures only for this unit.
View ALL timetable
events for this unit.
Students examine the basic conflicts of principle and practice confronting media producers, journalists, public relations practitioners and other media practitioners across multiple media platforms from traditional newspapers and broadcast to digital and convergent media. Students will be exposed to a broad range of media which may include news media, advertising, public relations, documentary, social media and gaming. Students will engage with ethical practice from the different perspectives of audience, industry and media producer. Students will analyse the competing claims of privacy and the public's right-to-know; the justification of censorship against the demands of freedom of expression; the reporting and representation of minorities; sexism; racism; ageism; and the issue of commercial imperatives and ethical practice in a global media sphere.
One 1,000-word ethical reflection essay (20%); one 2,000-word research essay (40%), two-hour examination (40%)
TEACHING PATTERN: Five hours class contact fortnightly
Note: Class attendance may still be required
Web supported - HOnline access to some part of this unit online is optional
About Flexible Study Options
Hobart Co-op Bookshop Website - Semester (Sem 2)
STAFF: Dr Nicola Goc
Units are offered in attending mode unless otherwise indicated (that is attendance is required at the campus identified). A unit identified as offered by distance, that is there is no requirement for attendance, is identified with a nominal enrolment campus. A unit offered to both attending students and by distance from the same campus is identified as having both modes of study.
Campus - H Hobart, L Launceston, W Burnie. Study Centre - V Sydney, R Rozelle, P Beauty Point. Distance units may also have a campus identifier of I Isolated, N Interstate, O Overseas. Units delivered in Transnational Education (TNE) Programs have a campus identifier of A Hangzhou, F Fuzhou, G Shanghai, K KDU Malaysia, Q Kuwait or Y Hong Kong.
Special approval is required for enrolment into TNE Program units - campuses A, F, G, K, Q and Y click here for more information.
Authorised by the Academic Registrar
© University of Tasmania | ABN 30 764 374 782 | CRICOS Provider Code 00586B
Copyright and Disclaimers | Accessibility | Feedback, Suggestions and Questions
Info Line 1300 363 864

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sanford, ME
Math Instructor of all levels and abilities45/hour
...I believe to have success with geometry it is important to have a firm base in algebra. Also, the student must be able to use deductive reasoning to work their way through proofs. There a many theorems... read moreSee Tutors Like This


text:
I don't normally post on Sunday, but tomorrow is Memorial Day which is a big grilling holiday so I thought I'd get this recipe for Low-Carb Steak and Mushroom Kabobs updated with new photos for the occasion! I find meat so challenging to photograph, but definitely the new photos are a big improvement, and these kabobs were so tasty.
I'll also be adding this recipe to my collection of Kalyn's BEST Low-Carb and Gluten-Free Grilling Recipes for Chicken, Fish, Pork, Beef, and Vegetables, so you should have plenty of options if you're grilling for the holiday! Happy Memorial Day to everyone in the U.S.!
white wine vinegar, Worcestershire sauce, garlic powder, salt, and fresh ground black pepper to make the marinade. Marinate the beef cubes an hour or so. Wash mushrooms and let them drain in the colander while the meat is marinating.
the thick blade type skewers I got in Turkey!) Grill the kabobs to desired doneness, turning once. (See recipe below for more info about cooking time.)
American Greek Salad on the side!
Low-Carb Steak and Mushroom Kabobs
(Makes about 4 servings)
16-20 oz. Top Sirloin, New York Steak, Tri-Tip Steak, or Petite Sirloin
8 oz mushrooms, washed and air-dried (I used brown Cremini mushrooms, but white mushrooms are also fine)
Marinade Ingredients:
1/4 cup olive oil
1/4 cup white wine vinegar
1 T Worcestershire sauce (omit for Paleo; use gluten-free Worcestershire sauce if needed)
1 tsp. garlic powder
1/2 tsp. Vege-Sal or salt
fresh ground black pepper to taste (I like a lot of pepper in this.)
Put steak pieces into large ziploc bag, pour in the marinade mixture, and marinate in refrigerator 1 hour.
While the steak marinates, wash mushrooms and let them air-dry in the colander. After an hour add mushrooms to marinating steak and marinate one hour more.
Grill steak to desired temperature; about 3-4 minutes per side for medium rare. Add 1 more minute per side for medium or 2 more minutes per side for medium-well. (If you like your meat quite rare you might want to make kabobs with just the meat and cook the mushrooms in a Vegetable Basket for the Grill.)
Let meat rest a minute or two before you take it off the skewers. Serve hot and enjoy!
Low-Carb Diet / Low-Glycemic Diet / South Beach Diet Suggestions:
More Ideas with Beef on the Grill:
Grilled Flat Iron Steak with Chimichurri Sauce ~ Kalyn's Kitchen
Spicy Asian Grilled Sesame-Soy Flank Steak ~ The Perfect Pantry
Marinated Flank Steak ~ Kalyn's Kitchen
Grilled Skirt Steak with Chive Yogurt Dressing ~ Comfortably Domestic
Carol's Completely Fabulous Steak Marinade and Grilled Tri-Tip ~ Kalyn's Kitchen
Easy Grilled Flank Steak ~ That Skinny Chick Can Bake
Blogger Disclosure:


text:
All this will be good for an interesting headline or two, but don't hyperventilate about the latest court doings. The NGWS road map that Microsoft unfurls will have more immediate impact on the company's fortunes than whatever penalties the judge metes out. That's because the appeals process will push a final judgment day to a still-undetermined date. Hope someone's been notified in Microsoft food services. Otherwise, it'll be something like "Man, this sushi tastes like it's three weeks old." Want to know more about why NGWS is so crucial to Microsoft? Go to Microsoft: The next generation.
More politicos are set to invade the Bay Area. This time it's the "New Democrat Network" that's coming to powwow during a three-day grin-and-grab with high-tech hotshots. The subject: The New Economy Retreat. And judging from the way dotcoms have been falling by the wayside of late, "retreat" is indeed the perfect word.
Intel is set to debut an IP telephony technology that column contributors say will help improve the quality of Internet phone calls.
Within the comfy confines of Harvard Yard you'll find some of the best and the brightest from the world of the digerati gathering to swap ideas about the interplay between the Internet and society. Something along the lines of, "I e-mail, therefore I am." (Or is that "Cogito ergo IM?")
Speaking of IM, new proposals for a messaging standard are supposed to be submitted to the Internet Engineering Task Force by the middle of next month. Lots of luck. The biggest fish of them all in the messaging market, America Online, still refuses to open its network to rivals Microsoft, Yahoo! and Tribal Voice.
Who are the 12 most promising Internet startups? Beats me, but the vulture, er, venture capitalists participating in the VentureNet 2000 conference have selected a dozen hot prospects to present their plans to a gold-plated audience of money folks. Are these the stars of tomorrow? Even if they fail to live up to advance billing, you can't beat the view (from the Ritz-Carlton Laguna Niguel in Dana Point, Calif.).
A global networking outfit called "First Tuesday" convenes its first event in Washington, D.C. This is a schmooze event on a massive scale -- in conjunction with parallel events in 63 countries and more than 60,000 registrants -- that hooks up cyber-entrepreneurs with investors and Internet service providers.
After repeated disappointments, the FTC has abandoned its wait-and-hope approach to protecting privacy on the Internet. The fact is the industry has done a lousy job policing itself, and now the agency is pushing Congress to enact some kind of basic level of privacy protection legislation. Now the question is: What kind of rules will get set in stone? The last thing you want to do is kill the golden goose that is e-commerce. In the end, it's going to come down to economic opportunity on one hand vs. strict privacy on the other. Promises to be an interesting debate.
The House of Representatives escapes my righteous wrath for at least one week after voting to repeal a century-old 3 percent federal "excise" tax. The upshot is that phone service will become less expensive. It should also expand Internet access to folks who might otherwise not be able to afford it.
Two senior execs resigned from Corel. Unfortunately for Corel shareholders, neither one happened to be CEO Michael Cowpland.
I've listened in on cocktail chatter where certain bloviators hold forth on why RealNetworks is doomed to be the second coming of Netscape. I think the final story line will look a lot different. At a certain point in its competition against Microsoft, Netscape just ran out of gas. Judging from the raft of announcements coming out of the RealNetworks conference this past week, the company has lost none of its technology edge.
Microsoft hotshot (and Johnny Winter dead-ringer) Jim Allchin is going on a two-month vacation. He says he's coming back. Microsoft says he's coming back. The Coop is willing to take that bet: He ain't coming back.
I'll admit that I find it difficult saying much laudatory about AT&T. When it comes to making the right move, this has been a company that has rarely failed to blow a big opportunity. But I like AT&T's big investment in TellMe -- that is, if it's a harbinger of the company's voice portal strategy. By this time next year, voice portals will be a huge deal.
Note to Steve Case: If and when the Time Warner deal gets completed, conduct a psychiatric investigation of certain senior execs. First, Time draws upon itself the wrath of millions of Regis-deprived wannabe millionaires by yanking Disney from its cable channel. Then some nitwits in the company's Texas region hatch a scheme where employees place fake orders for DSL to determine where rival SBC has coverage. Time management played the plausible deniability card, blaming it on a "midlevel employee." No soap.
Chuck D went to Washington to testify before Congress. I was disappointed that nobody called him "Mr. D," an appellation that the Chuckster, renowned basketball fan that he is, might have liked.
Internet music on defensive
Corel gets cash infusion, loses execs
Alpha chip: Not dead by a long shot
Glaser: Keep e-music simple, stupid!
Can Linuxware stay afloat?
GoTo.com, Disney settle patent dispute
E-books -- it's a brave new world
FTC gives up on Internet regulation
Here comes the wireless Web
AT&T invests in TellMe
Shortage: Palms hard to come by
E-music: Chuck D goes to Capitol Hill
Microsoft's Allchin: On permanent vacation?
IBM plots new PowerPC chips
Time Warner faces scrutiny over fake DSL deals
MS lays next-gen Windows cornerstone


text:
record discloses, without contradiction, that a very large amount of lumber was shipped by the plaintiff company from its mill to the defendant company, which was not paid for. The defendant says that the difference is accounted for by unmerchantable lumber, or culls, that it had the right to reject, and did reject. On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that it shipped no culls, and that the poorest of the lumber shipped, whether it consisted of culls or otherwise, was worth at least $5 per 1,000, and that the defendant retained it in its possession, and has paid nothing therefor. The case seems to have been one which was peculiarly appropriate for a jury, and I am opposed to disturbing their verdict, except for substantial errors clearly apparent upon the face of the record, which, in my judgment, do not exist, or at least have not been pointed out.
ANDREWS BROS. CO. v. YOUNGSTOWN COKE CO., Limited. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 11, 1898.) No. 554.
CORPORATION-EsSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE.
The only absolutely 'essential attribute of a corporation Is the capacity to exist and act within tbe powers granted, as a legal entity, apart from the individual or individuals who constitute its members. A "partnership association, limited," or organized under Act June 2, 1874, which is governed by a board of managers, with liability of members limited to the amount of their unpaid capital stock, power to sue and be sued, and to hold and convey real estate, in its associated name, Is a corporation and a citizen of Pennsylvania, within the meaning of the statutes of the United States requiring diversity of citizenship to give federal jurisdiction, though the assignee of the Interest of a member in the capital stock cannot participate in the affairs of the company unless elected to membership therein by a majority of Its members.
Where, in an action for specific performance between the parties to a contract, the same Is declared invalid, it cannot be set up and again litigated In an action brought to recover the value of coke delivered to the defendant thereunder. Where a contract not immoral or against publlc policy is declared Invalid by reason of its improper execution, either party may recover from the other the value of the property delivered by him to, and retained by, the other under the contract.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio.
This is an action by the Youngstown Coke Company, Limited, claiming to be a corporation organized under the law of Pennsylvania, against the Andrews Brothers Company, a corporation of the state of Ohio. to recover $7,967.95, with interest from January 31, 1889, for coke sold and delivered to the defendant by an unauthorized agent of the plaintiff, and used by the defendant corporation. The suit Is to recover the market ",alue as for a conversion. A jury was waived, and the issues of law and fact submitted to the court, which found for the plaintiff, and entered judgment for $9,519.16. This writ of error was sued out by the defendant for the purpose of reversing this judgment.
Thomas W. Sanderson, for plaintiff in erret. John G. White, for defendant in error.
86 FEDEroI.L·nEPoRTER.
'. Before TAFT and LUnrrON,circuit Judges, an.d OLARK, District Judge. . LURTON, OircuIt JUdge, after making the foregoil1gstatement of ' facts, delivered the opinion of the court. . The first and principal question is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction. ,Tb,e is described in its original petition as "a par.tners.hi:r>.. .a ss oeiation, duly organized .. ,existi.ng under limi by vIrtue of the laws of the state of Pennsylvama, of WhICh state It IS a citizen." This perhaps an insufficient statement of its corporate character, under. Chapman v. Barp.ey, 12,9 U. S. 677, 9 Sup. Ct. 426, and Carnegie, Phipps & Co.v. Hblbert, 3 C.C. A. 391, 53 Fed. 10. To me!et this difficulty, an amended petition was filed, in which it was averred that the plaintiff was a corporation under the laws of Pennsyl· vania and a citizen of that state. The defendant in an amended answer, and by 'way ofatiatement, admits that the plaintiff company was created and organized:under the Pennsylvania act of June 2, 1874, but denies that it thereby became, either a corporation or a citizen of said state, within the meaning and.effeet of the statutes of the United states, requiring. diversity qf:<:itizeJ;lShip to jurisdiction to a United states,court. A.Pennsylv.ania act of March 21, 1836,provided for the creation of limited or special partnerships. having one or more eral partners with unlimited liability and special partners with limited liability:. But such associations had none of the attributes or faculties ot'that act and is fully of a corporation:' stated in the opinion of the court in Laflin & RandOo.v. Steytler, 146 Pa. Sf. 434, f3 Att 215. The act of 1874, under which the Youngstowtl:Ooke,CQIripany was organized, an'amendment nor a Qf1$36. In l;l.b'ove, the court, in speaking of this act of 1874, say:
"Theact of 1874,lt willbe not a mere amendmentbrsupplement to :mythirig .that. went before,but,' litre of .1836,a .new' scheme, carefully and a. new kll:1c;IQf person,standing .between a limited partnership as previously known and a corporation, and partaking of the attributes of each. It was, however, a step. forward in the same line of legislative recognition of business' 'demands uniformly pursnedslnce' thestal't; in 183j3." .. , '., i"'" . .' ,.
j ,;
'1 " ';
Theaet of JUne 2,1874;' undeti Whichthl:!defendant in error was organized] is in 17 sections. The first provides that three or morepers6ns desiring:' fooirganize nndevtl1eact may do so by jlreparing, signing, and acknowledging 'a statement in writing which shi:lllset forth the amount of capitalsubscribed:for by each,; the total amount of capitall aDd.. whenandhowto'be'paidii .'the character of the business and.locatioof of' same; . of' t4e, 'asso.cHiti<,).n, tlte worl1 ,saIlle; th,e dU'rationof the 'asE'iociation" .which"!lhai! not exceed 20 ,years;" and the names of, the 'officers selected inconformity with the aot.' . The second section, pr{}vides :that the members of,the assocHitioh'shalli1ot be Hable for the debtsoi' ,ellgagements of the unpaid subscriptions to the calJital. The fourth section provides 'tbnt' interests in irich 'associations shall be personal estateal' and' rhay be transferred, given,be-
queathed, distributed, sold, or assigned under such rules and regula. tions as shall be adopted from time to time"By a vote of a majority of the members in number and value of their interests; and in tbeabsenee of such rules and regulations the transferee of any interest In any sueh association shall not be entitled to any participation in the subsequent business of sucb association, unless elected to membership therein, by a vote of a majority of the members In number and value of their interests. And any change of ownership, whether by sale, death, bankruptcy or otherwise, which occurs In the absence of any rules and regulations of such association regulating such transfer, and which Is not followed by election to membership in such associations, shall entitle the owner, or transferee only to the value of the Interest so acquired at the date of acquiring such Interest, at a price and upon terms to be mutually agreed upon, and in default of such agreement, at a price and upon terms to be fixed by an appraiser to be appointed by the court of common pleas of the proper county, on the petition of either party, which appraisement shall be subject to the approval of said court."
The fifth section provides for a board of managers, who shall be not less than three nor more than five, one of whom shall be chairman, one the treasurer, and one the secretary. This section also provides that:
"No debt shall 00 contracted or liability Incurred for such association, except by one or more of the managers, and no liability greater than five hundred dollars, except against the person incurring It, shall bind the association, unless reduced to writing and signed by at least two managers."
The sixth and seventh sections provide for distribution of profits through dividends, such dividends not to impair capital, and that it shall be unlawful to lend its credit, name, or capital to any member, or to any other person, without consent of a majority in number and value of members in writing. The eighth, ninth, and tenth sections provide how such companies may be dissolved, and how the property shall be distributed. The remaining parts of the act provide-First, that the association may sue and be sued in its associate name, servo ice of process to be made upon one of its officers, or on any agent, clerk, or manager in counties where it may maintain an office; second, that such associations may acquire, hold, and convey real estate in its associated name. This act does not declare these associations to be "corporations," nor are they styled "corporations." They are called "partnership associations." Neither does the act disclaim a purpose to create corpo· rations, as was the case under the English and New York joint-stock acts mentioned and construed in Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566,and People v. Coleman, 133 N. Y. 279,31 N. E. 96. But the fact Of corporation or no corporation must depend upon the existence or nonexistence of those faculties which are of the essence of corporate existence. We need not be too attentive to mere names. The inquiry must go deeper, and a solution be reached upon principle. In the masterly opinion of Chief Justice Nelson in Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9, 7Q, that learned jurist, when engaged in the determination of a like question arising under the New York law providing for bank· ing associations. was confronted with the fact that the act did not de· clare the associations thereby organized to be corporations, or style them such, and said: .
UA corporate body Is known to the law by the powers and faculties bestowed upon It, expressly or:!mpliedly, by tbe charter. The use of the term 'corporation' In 'Its creation Is of Itself unimportant, except as'lt will Imply them."
In the same case, Judge Cowen (22 Wend. 103) said:
lature have constantly avoided to call these associations, or any of their machinery, a corporation. Therefore we cannot adjudge them to be so. If they have the attributes of corporations, if they are so in the nature of things, we can no more refuse to regard them as such than we could refuse to acknowledge John or George to be natural persons, because the legislature may, in making provisions for their benefit, have been pleased to designate them as belonging to some other species. Should the legislature expressly declare each of them to be corporations, without giving them corporate succession or other artificial attributes, the declaration would not make them so. On the other hand, even an express legislative declaration that certain associations are not included in the definition of corporatlollB would not change their character, provided they should In fact be clothed with all the essential powers of corporations."
"It has been impossible for me to see the force of the argument that the legIs-
In Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566-576, in considering the corporate character of the Liverpool Insurance Company, a joint-stock association organized under an English act of parliament, the court said:
"It Is also urged that the several acts of parliament we have mentioned expressly declare that they shall not be held to constitute the body a corporation. But, whatever may be the effect of such a declaration in the courts of that country, It cannot alter the essential nature of a corporation or prevent the courts of another jurisdiction from inquiring Into Its true character, whenever that may come In Issue. It appears to have been the policy of the English law to attach certain consequences to incorporated bodies, which rendered It desirable that such associations as these should not become technically corporations Among these, It would seem from· the provisions of these acts, Is the exemption from individual llablllty of the shareholder for the contracts of the corporation. Such local policy can have no place here In determining whether an association. whose powers are ascertained and. its privileges conferred by law, is an incorporated body. The question before us Is whether an association, such as the one we are considering, In attempting to carryon Its business In a manner which requires corporate powers under legislative sanction, can claim, In a jurisdiction foreign to the one which gave those powers, that It Is only a partnership of individuals. We have no hesitation In holding that, as the law of corporations Is understood In this country, the association Is a corporation, and that the law of Massachusetts, which only permits It to exercise Its corporate function In that state on the condition of payment of a specific tax, Is no violation of the federal constitution or of any treaty protected by said constitution."
Definitions are dangerous. They are most often too narrow, but not infrequently too broad. Many definitions of a corporation have been attempted. Most of them include one or more facuIties which in this country are clearly not essential, or are included within more general powers already catalogued. Kyd defines a corporation thus:
"Though many things be incldent.to a corporation, yet, to form the complete Idea of a corporation aggregate, It is sufficient to suppose It vested with the three following capacities: (1) '1'0 have perpetual succession under a special denomination, and under an artificial form; (2) To take and grant property, to contract obligations, and to sue and be sued by its corporate name in the same manner as an Individual; (3) To receive grants of privileges and immunities, and to enjoy them In common. These alone are sufficient to the essence of a corporation."
Judge Nelson, in Thomas v. Dakin, cited above, says:
"We may, In short, conclude by slI.ying, with the most approved authorltiel" at this date, that the essence of a corporation consists In a capacity to have perpetual succession under a special name, and In an artlficl,al form; (2) to take and grant property, contract obligations, sU,e and be sued by Its corporate name as an and enjoy, In common, grants of. privileges and Individual; and (3) to . . " immunities."
Judge Dillon defines it thus:
"A corporation is a legal institution, devised to confer, upon the Individuals {If which it is composed, p<lwers, privileges, and immunities which they would not otherwise possess, the most important of which are continuous legal identity and perpetual or indefinite succession, under the corporate name, notwithstanding successive changes, by death or otherwise, in the corporators or members of the corporation. It conveys, perhaps, as intelligible an idea as can be given by a brief definition to say that a corporation is a legal person, with a special name, and composed of such members, and endowed with such powers, and such only, as the law prescribes." 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.) § 18.
Angel and Ames, in their work on Corporations, define a corporation as, '"'a body created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same, notwithstanding the change of the individuals who compose it, and is, for certain purposes, considered as a natural person." 1 & A. Corp. §§ 1-30. lt is not essential to the idea of a corporation that it shall have per. petual existence, for limited corporations are a matter of most common occurrence, whether organized under special or general laws. Neither is it essential that it shall have capacity to sue and be sued under its corporate name, for it may be authorized only to sue in the name of one ·of its officers, as was the case under the New York banking law. That it shall have capacity to sue and be sued under some name standing for the collective body is all that is necessary. Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566. In the last analysis, the only absolutely essential attribute of a corporation is the capacity to exist and act within the powers granted, as a legaJ entity, apart from the individual or individuals who constitute its memo bers. Thus, in Green's Brice, Ultra Vires (2d Am. Ed.) §§ 1, 2, it is said that "a corporation is a person which exists in contemplation of law only, and not physically." Again, the same author, in commenting on Kyd's definition, says:
"But sufficient stress is not laid upon that which is its real characteristic in the ·eye of the law, viz. its existence separate and distinct from the individual or individuals composing it. * * * This Is the one Important fact. The members of a corporation aggregate, and the one individual who Is constituted a corporation sole, may, from their connection with SUCh, have rights and privileges, and be under obligations and duties, over and above those affecting them in their private capacity; but they get them by refiection, as it were, from the corporation. They individually are not the corporation,-eannot exercise the corporate powers, enforce the corporate rights, or be responSible for the corporate acts."
A forcible illustration of this distinction between the corporation and its members is found in the case of Button v. Hoffman, 61 Wis., 20, 20 N. W. 667. There one who was the sole owner of all the capital stock of a corporation sought to recover corporate property in an action of replevin in his own name. It was held that he was not the legal owner of the property and could not maintain the action. In the great Dartmouth College Case, Chief Justice Marshall gave a definition which has been frequently quoted. "A corporation," said he, ·"is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in templation of law. Being a mere creature of law, it possesses only rthose properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it,
either expressly or as incidental to its very After consideling those powers usually conferred, he proceeds: "It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object like one material being." 4 Wheat. 518-636; And in Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514-562, the same great judge said: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." The capacity to be is one thing, and of doing, an· other. The latter constitute the franchises, and may be separated both in conception and fact from the former. Thus, in Memphis & L. R. Co. v. Railroad Com'rs, 112 U. S. 609-619, 5 Sup. Ot. 299, in consider· ing that which passed under a foreclosure 'sale under a mortgage of the property and franchises of a railroad company, the court, throug1 Justice Matthews, said:
"The franchise of being a corporation need not be Implied as' necessary to secure to the mortgage bondholders, or the purchasers at a foreclosure sale, the substantlalrigbtslntended to be secured. They acquire the ownership of the railroad" and the property incident to It, and the franchise of maintaining and operating It as such; and the corporate existence Is not essential to Its use and enjoyment. All the franchises necessary and Important to the beneficial use of the railroad could as well be exercised by natural persons. The essential properties of corporate existence are quite distinct from the franchises of the corporation. The franchise of being a corporation belongs to the corporators, while the powers and privileges, vested In and to be exercised by the corporate body as such, are the franchises of the corporation; The latter has no power to dispose of the franchise of its members, which may survive in the mere fact of corporate existence, after the corporation has parted with all Its property and aU its franchises."
But these associations authorized by the Pennsylvania act of 1874 possess every attribute deemed essential to the existence of a corporation under any authoritative definition ofa corporation. They come into being only by the creative power of the sovereign will, as expressed in the statute which authorizes their organization. That act constitutes at once the authority for their existence and the measure of their powers. When organized, they constitute a new artificial person, endowed with the power of suing and being sued, and of acquiring, holdiu,g', and conveying property in its artificial charactf.r. Created by <'I)illvliance with the constating law,they can be dissolved only in the war pointed out by that law. Individual liability for corporate debts, beyond unpaid subscription to the capital stock, does not exist. Coal Co.v. Rogers, 108 Pa. St. 147-150; Stevens v. Ball Club, 142 Pa. St. 52-61, 21 AtI. 797. The members do not act as individuals, or as partners, but through and in the name of the collective or corporate body. HilI v. Stetler, 127 Pa. St. 145-162, 13 AtI. 306, and 17 Atl. 887. The members are not liable individually for the torts of the association, unless they personally partiCipate. Whitney v. Backus, 149Pa. St. 29, 24 AtL 51;· . In alI these respects it would be difficult to distinguish these companies from the ordinary business corporations authorized under general acts inmost, if not all, of the states of the Union. In other respects they are somewhat peculiar, and it is these peculiar features which distinguish them from the ordinal'Y busi·
ness corporations provided for by other Pennsylvania. legislation, and which have led to some confusion in defining their character. Thus, the managers alone may create a debt, and no liability in excess of $5()O is valid, unless the contract be in writing, and signed by two, at least, of the managers. This is a mere limitation upon the usual powers of officers and agents to bind the artificial body, and in no way affects the corporate character of that body. But the most marked peculiarity is found in the provisions of the fourth section of the constitutingact, whereby, in the absence of some other regulation, adopted by the members, the assignee of the interest of a member in the capital stock, by operation of law or otherwise, does not become a member until elected. In default of election, the association must pay the value of the interest as ascertained by agreement, or, in default thereof, by an appraiser, provided for in the statute. This dilectus personarum is a most inviting inducement to the formation of small business corporations, where the personnel of the members is a matter of some importance, and is the only feature which particularly distinguishes these associations from ordinary corporations. This power of selection is similar to that belonging to ordinary co-partnerships. A member may sell his interest, but such sale dissolves the partnership. If the remaining members assent to the admission of the new member, the legal result is a new firm. Under this provision of the act of 1874, the sale of an interest does not operate as a dissolution, but requires that the company shall buy the interest unless the transferee is acceptable. The principle is not new in partnerships where the partners give a preference to the firm or its members by contract in event of sale or other devolution of title. The case of Carter v. Oil Co. (pa. Sup.) 38 Atl. 571, has been much relied upon by the plaintiff in error as a supposed adjudication by the supreme court of Pennsylvania of the noncorporate character of these involved the status of a member who had companies. That bought the interest of another, and who was denied the status of a member in respect of this new interest. The court maintained the a rule of the association refusing toone acquiring the capitalstock of another the rights of a member in respect thereto, unless hesMuld be elected a member. The contention of the plaintiff was that a corporation could not deny to anyone acquiring capital stock the rights and privileges of a member in respectthereto. To this the court· sa.id:.
"We can,not assent to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant company is a corporation. and restricted iIi the adoption ofby-lnws, rules, and regQlations for its government to such as it is witlilnthe power of the latter to prescribe. It may be conceded that the defendant company has some of the qualities of a corporation, but it is, nevertheless, a partnership associll.tion, governed by ,the statutes and articles under which it was organized, and the rules and regulations it may prescribe in execution of the power with which the statutes have invested it. We concur in, and'need·not add anything to, what the learned judge of the court below has so well said on this point." .
What the court below had said was this:
"Whether the partnership· association ought to be classified by the professor of legal science as a species of the genus corporation, or the genus partnership, or whether it llhould be set apart as anew· genus, seems to .meunimportatlt. If a corwration, It is so pi:1cnllar In its features that the general law of corporations
cannot be applied to It without important modifications. If a partnership, it so differs trom the common-law type that the general law of partnerships is but slightly applicable. Both the law of corporations and the law of partnerships are to be resorted to In the absence of statutory regulations, the choice being determined by the nature of the feature under consideration. In the present case we derive little assistance from either. The general rille of corporations invoked by the plaintiff has been laid down to meet the conditions existing In corporations in which the ownership of stock carries with it. ipso facto, membership In the corporate body. If there are corporations In which the conditions are different, it Is manifest that the rule is Inapplicable to the extent of the difference. * * * A partnership association differs from the common type of partnerships in that the members vote, and do not act with the powers of partners, and in that they are subject to no jointliability. It differs from the common type of corporations in that the members have a right to admit or refuse membership in the company to the transferee of the Interest as well as in some other particulars."
The most that can be said of this decision is that the court declined to classify these companies with ordinary corporations, and contented itself by giving it its statutory designation. We have already seen by the Pennsylvania cases cited that that court had time and again held these companies to have the very attributes which enable us to distinguish a corporation from a mere partnership. The fact that these companies were not called "corporations" in the act of 1874, and that they possessed this dilectus personarum, has led to some confusion' of terminology in the effort to describe them. In Coal Co. v. Rogers, 108 Pa. S1. 147-150, where the question was as to whether such company was included within a penal act touching trespasses by any person or corporation, the court said:
"Such an association Is not technically a corporation, yet It has many of the characteristics of one. It can sue and be sued in its associate name only, The longest period of its duration Is fixed by the act which provides for its existence, Like most corporations, its capital (except in certain cases designated by the act) is alone liable for Its debts. The making of any division of profits which shall at the time diminish or Impair the capital of the association Is prohlhlted. * * * The act further provides for a dissolution of the association, for winding up its business, and for the distribution of its property. It may not be Improper to call such an assoclatlon a 'quasi corporation.' If not a corporation, It Is a person. It Is either a natural or an artificial person. There Is no Intermediate place for It to occupy, no other name for It to hear. It cannot claim an existence which exempts It from all liablllties Imposed on either class of persons. In law, the main division of persons Is between natural and artificial persons. The latter -class are corporations."
In Hill v. Stetler, 127 Pa. Sf. 145-161, 17 Atl. 887, the court said of associations organized under the act, that the act provides for the "creation of a new artificial person, to be called a joint-stock association, having some of the characteristics of a partnership, and some of a corporation." In McGeorge v. Manufacturing Co., 141 Pa. St. 575-578,21 Atl. 671. the court said:
"A short comprehensive name or phrase descriptive of the statns, powers, and responsiblllties of associations like the defendant, does not yet appear to be agreed upon. They are called 'partnership associations, limited,' In the statute authorizing their formatlon,-the act of June 2, 1874, p. 271. Mr. Brightly, In his Digest, designates them as 'joint-stock companies.' Chief Justice Mercur, In the case of Coal Co. v. Rogers, 108 Pa. St. 147, says It may not be Improper to call such an association a 'quasi corporation'; and Justice Williams, In Hlll v. Stetler, 127 Pa. St. 161, 17 Atl. B87, calls them 'JoInt-stock associations,'
having some of the characteristics of a partnership, and some of a corporation." "The chief point of difference between them is that, while the corporation cannot refuse to permit a transfer on its books of shares of its stock to any purchaser thereof, a partnership association, limited, can except according to its rules."
In Stevens v. Ball Club, 142 Pa. St. 52-61, 21 AU. 798, the court, in speaking of the Ball Club, said:
"The association was organized under the act of 1874, providing for the creation of limited partnerships. Such associations were referred to in Coal Co. v. Hogers, 108 Pa. St. 147, as quasi corporations. They are certainl;y artificial bodies, not natural persons."
crrhese decisions are not overruled or criticised in Carter v. Oil Co., heretofore cited. We do not therefore agree with counsel for plaintiff in error that the supreme court of Pennsylvania has determined that such associations are not corporations; on the contrary, the corporate character of the organization is most distinctly recognized, though distinguished from the ordinary corporation provided for by other general statutes. "A new artificial person," organized under a statute, and empowered thereby to contract, hold, and convey property, sue and be sued, as such, is a corporation, and can be nothing else. In addition to the recoguition of these associations as corporations of a peculiar character by the Pennsylvania court, we may add the pregnant circumstance that section 13 of article 16 of the state constitution provides as follows:
"The term 'corporations,' as used in this article, shall be construed to Include all joint-stock companies or associations having any of the powers or privileges of corporations not possessed by individuals or partnerships."
Article 16 is devoted to the subject of private corporations and their regulation. But does the existence of the dilectus personarum take from the body possessing it the character of a corporation, if it possesses those attributes which, by general consent, distinguish a corporation from a mere voluntary association? The general and wellsettled rule is that, in the absence of statutory authority, a corporation may not make the transfer of shares dependent upon the discretion of the corporation, its officers or agents. They may by reasonable rule regulate sueh transfer, but they cannot prohibit. Mol'. Priv. Corp. §§ 164, 165. But that this power may be conferred by the charter is equally well settled. Id., and authorities cited; Lowell, Stocks, § 31. This privilege of the dilectus personarum, while unusual in corporations for profit, is a very common provision in the charters of companies not for profits, such as clubs, boards of trade, fraternal societies, educational and charitable associations. Joint-stock companies have no invariable character. Sometimes they are incorporated, and sometimes they are not. The test is the attributes conferred by the statute under which they are organized. Mor. Priv. Corp. § 6. Certain express companies, widely known in this county as joint-stock companies, have been held not to be corporations, within the meaning of local taxing laws. The case of People v. Coleman, 133 N. Y. 279, 31 N. E. 96, is interesting as showing the history and legislative origin of certain of these companies. The case only involved the question as
to' whether there was a legislative or, practical distinction between joint-stock associations and corporations organized under the law 01 Ne"W York; and whether the capital of a joint-stock company was taxable under a New York statute, taxing the capital stock of corporations. The court refers to People v. Wemple, 117 N. Y. 136, 22 N. E. 1046, and says that case "shows very forcibly how almost the full meat"!ure of corporate, attributes has, by legislative enactment, been bestowed upon joint-stock associations until the differance, if be one, is obscure, elusive, and difficult to see and ae8C7'ibe." (The italics are ours.) In eIideavoring to disco'Ver whether any difference remained, the New York court, speaking through Finch, J., said: '
"But I think there was an original and Inherent dlfferencellet'Ween the corporate and joint.stock companies kIiOWn to our law, which leglsIatlonhas somewhat obscured, but has not destroyed, and that difference Is the; one pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, and which b;npresses me as logical and well supported by authority. It is that the creation,' Qf tile corporation merges in the artificial body,' and drowns in it the individual rights and liabilities, ot the members, whlIe the organization of a joint-stock company leaves the individual rights and liabilltle$ unimpaired and In full force. Tbe idea was expressed in Supervisors of Niagara ,v. I'eople,7 Bill, 512, and in Gifford v. Livingston,2 Denio, 380, by the statement that the corporators lost their individuality, and merged their Individual characters Into one artificial existence; and upon these' authorities a corjXJratio!i. is defined on behalf of the respondents to be 'an artificial person, created by the sovereign from natural persons, and In which artificial person the natural persons of. which It is composej'l b,ecome merged l!:nd nonex:i,stent.' r am consclops thaUegal definitions inVite, a,tld provoke criticism, because the Instances arc rare In which they prove to be Petfectly accurate; and yet this one offered to us may be accepted If it successfully bears some sufficient test. In putting It welIlay take the jndividual liability of the corporators on the one hand, and of the associates on the other, for, the debts contracted by their respective organizations, as a sufficient test of the'dlfference between them, and contrast their nature and character. It is an essential and .inherent characteristic of a corporation tha1i It alone Is primarily liable for Its debts, because lia!0Ile,contracts them, flXrrePt as thatnaturaL!'Ind necessary cOnsequence of Its :ls mpdifled In tlJe, Of Its creation llY some explicit comJ,llandof either imposes an 'express liability upon the' corpomtbrs In the nature'of apenaltY,or affirmatively retains and preserves what would have' been the commclll-law liability of :the 'members from the destruction Involv,ed iII tbe corporate creation. In wprds"the individual liability of the p:J,embel's, as. It 'VoukLhave, existed at cOmmon laW, Is lost1lY their creatlonlntd It eorporatlon,arid'exists therellfter only by force of the statute, upon so'me new and modifying co'nctitions, 'to some partial or changed l)Xtent;and.sc far preventing, :byi the intervention' of an express 'command, the total qJ: incUv,ldualllabiIlties otherw!se wOl,lld f;low;frpm the Inherent ef1'e,ct o(thecprporate crep,t;!Qn, , · · · Exactly the oppo!3;ite Is, true of joiut" 'l'helr desh-oysno part orportion'of their la'w liability for the deb'ts Crimrtlcted. Permission to sUe theh.. presldent or treasurer Is only :a convenient: m0de 'of enforcing· that liability" blIt In! ,no; manner 'llte· ·or saves. N?fl lJ1ay'thus; ,seeullpn What 1:Ae,legislal:ive intent 1;0 i preserve theJIlll,S' sepamte,1l.ljld d\stinct)s fou.nded, what ,distinguishing chatacteristics remain, ,lfl1i:dormatlonof the one'Involves the merging and de, strtrctlon of the' cominoD:-Hrw{lhibiltty of members for the debts, and requires tM' snbstitution (If· a: new 'o).netentioll, the old, \lllbility 'by an affirmative enactttlllDt, 'YbicJ;i avoidS effect of,tbe In the Qther the comwon-Iaw lii\blllq and unimPaired, and needing no statutory preserve; or', restore ,It. The debt, 'corporation Is its debt, and not that of its members. The 'debt of the jril!1t-stdck company is the'debt or: the "however. enforced. The creation' of '0 the ., <lorpol'atlon Wllrge#'! !the' ,liAqil.lty)of.its C,orPQrlltors. T\le CfClltiOIl of itbe stock
company leaves unharmed and unchanged the liability of the associates. The one. derives its existence from the contract of individuals; the other from the sovereignty of the state. The two are alike, but not the same. More or less, they crowd upon and overlap each other, but without losing their identity; and so, while we cannot say that the joint-stock company is a corporation, we can say, as we did say in Van Aerman v. Bleistein, 102 N. Y. SGO, 7 N. E. 537, that a joint-stock company is a partnership, with some of the powers of a corporation. Beyond that we do not think it is our duty to go."
If the nonliability of the members for the collection of debts be in fact a test of a corporation, then these Pennsylvania companies are clearly corporations under this authority. But we cannot be supposed to concede this. In Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566-575, the fact of the liability for company debts of the members of the Liverpool Insurance Company was held to be no sufficient test of the corporate character of that joint-stock association. Justice Miller, as to this, said:
''To this view it is objected that the association Is nothing but a partnership, because its members are liable individually for the debts of the company. But, however the law on this subject may be in England, it is quite certain that the principle of personal liability of the shareholders attaches to a very large proportion of the corporations of this country, and it is a principle which has warm advocates for its nniversal application when the organization is for pecuniary gain."
The Massachusetts court is cited as holding that these Pennsylvania associations are not corporations, and could not, therefore, be sued in Massachusetts as such. Edwards v. Gasoline Works, 168 Mass. 564, 47 N. E. 502. The case does so hold. But the decision is expressly rested upon the earlier Massachusetts cases holding that joint-stock companies organized under the law of that state were mere partnerships. Tappan v. Bailey,4 Mete. (Mass.) 529; Tyrrell v. 'Vashburn, 6 Allen, 466. "If," says Lathrop, J., delivering the opinion of the court, "the question were an open one in this commonwealth, it might well be held that such an association could be considered to have so many of the characteristics of a corporation that it might be treated as one." The court in that case express their unwillingness to adopt the views of the supreme court of the United States in Liverpool Ins. Co. v. }iassachusetts, 10 Wall. 566, and say that their own decision, reported in Oliver v. Insurance Co., 100 Mass. 531, and affirmed in that opinion, was rested upon the ground stated by Justice Bradley in his dissenting opinion. We have neither the disposition nor the freedom of the Massachusetts court in respect to the opinion of the supreme court in Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts. The Youngstown Coke Company presents many more of the characteristic features of a corporation than did the Liverpool Insurance Oompany, and that case is an authority most strongly supporting our conClusion that it is a corporation. The same conclusion was reached in regard to another one of these Pennsylvania associations by Judge Lacombe, in Bushnell v. Park Bros. & Co., 46 Fed. 209. That· case was subsequently affirmed by the court of appeals, in 9 C. O. A. 138, 60 Fed. 583, though this question seems to have been abandoned by the plaintiff in error, ag-ainst whose protest the case had been removed'from the state.court. Our conclu-
sion, therefore, is that the Youngstown Coke Company is a cor· poration and a citizen of Pennsylvania, within the meaning of the jurisdictional requirement in respect to diversity of citizenship. The invalidity of the contract which plaintiffs in error undertook to set up as an agreement under which the coke sued for had been received and used was res judicata. The record of the suit between the same parties from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Pennsylvania involved the invalidity of that very contract. It was in that suit decided that a contract not signed by two managers of such partnership association, and which involved a contract exceeding $500 in value, was not enforceable in law or equity, and that all persons dealing with companies organized under the Pennsylvania act of 1874 were bound to take notice of this limitation upon their powers. That suit was one in equity, begun by the plaintiff in error for the purpose of compelling a specific performance of that agreement, or having same so executed by two managers as that it might be enforceable at law. The bill averred that the contract had been signed and delivered by one manager, who was the general manager of the Youngstown Coke Company, and its treasurer, and that he had been duly authorized to make such contracts for the future delivery of coke. It also charged that the said company took the position that it was not bound by the contract in question, and was threatening to discontinue performance. The greater part of the evidence offered and. excluded by the court below was evidence which had been heard on the trial of the former suit. There was no error in the ruling of the court that the validity of that contract could not be again litigated, and in excluding evidence which could not reasonably have any other effect. The opinion of Judge Atchison, who decided the former case, is reported in 39 Fed. 353. But it is said that, if the contract was invalid, no recovery could be had by reason of any coke delivered thereunder. The contract was neither malum in se nor in any wise affected by public policy. It was simply an agreement not executed as required by the charter of the Pennsylvania Company. This action was not upon the contract, but in disaffirmance of it, and for the value of the coke actually received as for a conversion. The averment is that this was an invalid agreement,-a contract not binding upon either party. That, under color of this invalid and unenforceable agreement, the plaintiff had delivered and the defendant received the coke in quantity and at the time shown in the exhibit to the petition. The suit was upon a quantum meruit. It was not a suit upon or in affirmance of the agreement, but for a conversion, and in disaffirmance of a contract which bound neither party. To the extent that one party had received, retained, and used the property of the other, it is equitable and just that there should be compensation. The contract, not having been immoral or contrary to public policy, may be disaffirmed, and suit brought for the value of benefits which the other has received and retained thereunder. This is well settled. Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487-503. 1 Sup. Ct. 442; Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v! Keokuk & H. Bridge Co., 131 U.
S. 371-389, 9 Sup. Ct. 770; Day v. Buggy Co., 57 Mich. 146, 23 N. W. 628; Mol'. Priv. Corp. §§ 714, 715. There being no errol', the judgment must be affirmed.
SUTHERLAND-INNES CO., Limited, v. VILLAGE OF EVART. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 5, 1898.) 1. 2. No. 552.
In the absence of special enabling provisions In the constitution taxation is permissible only for public purposes.
or a state,
Where there Is no special fund for payment of a municipal obligation, a resort to taxation is implied; hence the power of a municipal corporation to contract Is limited by the purposes for which taxes may be levied.
SAME-AsSISTANCE OF PRIVATE BUSINESS.
A contract by a municlpal corporation to encourage the establishment and operation wIthin its limits of a private manufacturing establishment is not for a public purpose, and is therefore beyond the power of such municipality; and legislation authorizing such contracts Is void, in the absence of express constitutional authority.
It is the duty of the federal courts to accept the decisions of the hignest courts of a state upon the construction of a state statute and its conformity to the state constitution, when rights acquired upon the faith of the statute or earlier decisions are not involved.
4. STATE STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITy-FEDERAL COURTS.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.
This is an action at law against defendant In error, a municipal corporation, created under the laws of MIchigan, to recover damages for the breach of a contract in falling and refusing to maintain a fire hydrant, as required by the contract sued on. The contract was between defendant in error and C. E. Fenton, and subsequently assigned by Fenton to plaintiff in error, said Fenton having sold to plaintiff in error the mill property, for the benefit of which the contract was executed. It is agreed that the contract is correctly set out in the declaration, as follows: "'Whereas, Clarence E. Fenton, of Linwood, Bay county, Michigan, is the owner of a mill and the necessary machinery for the manufacture of staves and heading for slack barrels, which he proposes to move to Evart, Osceola county, Michigan, on the Main Muskegon river, and to erect, equip, and operate said mill in the village of Evart, aforesaid, and to employ what would be equal to fifteen men ten months in the year for the term of five years, and to produce timber for the purpose of manufacture in said mill; and whereas, the village of Evart, Osceola, Michigan, being desirous of obtaining the location within its boundaries of a stave and heading mill, for the purpose of giving employment in part to the citizens and creating a market for the sale of timber for the inhabitants of the surrounding county, thereby putting money in circulation by the employment of the labor and purchase of timber, and thus adding to the purchasing pov;er of its and the surrounding country's inhabit· ants, thereby increasing the general prosperity of the village and its citizens: Now, therefore, it is agreed between the village of Evart, Osceola county, Michi· gan, of the first part, and Clarence E. Fenton, of Linwood, Bay county, Michigan, of the second part, as follows: The first agrees that it will place and maintain a fire hydrant within a reasonable distance of a mill building hereafter to be built, and furnish water for the fire protection free during the term of the operation of said mill, and will also give to the aid of said second party to in part reimburse him for the cost of tearing down and removal from Linwood, Mich., to Evart, Mich., and rebuilding and putting up the aforesaid stave and heading mill, and the machinery necessary to successfUlly operate the same,


text:
IMA Europe Chapters
IMA Ireland
IMA Ireland is part of the IMA Europe organisation, which represents the Reward, Recognition & Incentives Industry and Gift Card industry. IMA Ireland provides networking, professional sharing and learning opportunities that promote the Incentive Marketing industry and support its members.
Our objectives:
Why join?
Click here for the full IMA Europe website for more information:


text:
Thank you for your gifts of more than $460,000 to One Great Hour of Sharing "Japan Relief" to help your Japanese brothers and sisters in Christ after the 8.9 earthquake struck on March 11, 2011, followed by a devastating tsunami along the coast.
American Baptist International Ministries (IM) missionaries who have been involved in relief and rebuilding efforts are sharing their reflections and photos of the last 365 days. In these personal accounts, you can read about the successes and surprises, and how God is working to restore lives and hope. To see the first-anniversary collection, go to http://www.internationalministries.org/topics/japan_relief
IM missionary Roberta Stephens recalls, "The first [financial] installments sent soon after the disaster struck were used as initial 'condolence gifts' to Baptist related families who lost loved ones and whose houses were partially or totally destroyed. This was money that helped many to stand on their own feet again."
IM missionary Lee Ann Hwang comments about life today in the disaster-affected areas, "When we visited the temporary housing locations in Minamisanriku, 2 hours north of Sendai… the broken buildings and debris left by the tsunamis have been consolidated into neat mountains of garbage, piles of tires, and neatly stacked ruined cars. The city has been replaced with….nothing. While earthquake survivors were able to rebuild their homes and businesses, tsunami evacuees (and radiation evacuees in other areas) struggle with the big question mark of their future."
"Pastors from Okinawa Baptist churches," recalls IM missionary Leslie Turley, "went on a mission to Northeast Japan in June 2011 to encourage and comfort the survivors of the March 11th disaster." She remembers how an elderly woman in a homeless shelter was comforted by the hymn, "His Eye Is on the Sparrow."
One Great Hour of Sharing is administered by the World Relief Committee of the Board of General Ministries of American Baptist Churches USA. The Committee facilitates American Baptist emergency relief, disaster rehabilitation, refugee work, and development assistance by establishing policy guidelines and overseeing distribution of the annual One Great Hour of Sharing offering received by churches. Learn more: http://www.abc-oghs.org/


text:
By: Motorsport.com, Editorial team
03/10/2012 06:20
Motorsport.com photographers
Welcome to this week's edition of the Big Picture. We hope you enjoy it as much as we did selecting those photos. And remember that you can write your own comments when you click on those photos and bring up the photo viewer page.
Express yourself and let us know what you think!
#8 Ferrari of Ft Lauderdale 458TP
#5 Ferrari of Atlanta 458CS: Jim Booth


text:
Scavenger hunts are the best way to get to know a city, just ahead of spending six months living with the mayor in the city sewers. Hit the streets with this Groupon.
The Deal
- $46 for a scavenger-hunt registration for a team of up to six (a $99 value)
Teams take to the streets of Wichita on Saturday, August 10, to compete in the Urban Goose Chase. Starting from an undisclosed location (organizers will e-mail out the secret starting point closer to the event), the event challenges adventurous competitors to race the clock to finish as many wacky and daring missions as they can throughout the city. Competitors should bring their smartphones and clad themselves in orange—the competition's signature color—to gain bonus points.
Urban Goose Chase
A curious madness has taken hold of average citizens in North America, the UK, and South Africa. Groups of adults rove the city in packs, staring down at their smartphones before impersonating tapanaki chefs at a coffeehouse condiment counter and knitting with plastic bags. This is an Urban Goose Chase.
The taskmasters at Urban Goose Chase turn the notion of a traditional scavenger hunt on its ear by communicating with teams via an Android- and iPhone-compatible app. Event instructions are sent out 48 hours in advance; teams download the app and receive a variety of missions from which they can select. Successfully completed missions earn teams the points they need to gain rank on the leaderboard and win the $300 first prize. During the chase, each team's standings are updated in real time and visible to other teams, creating a sense of urgency, much like wearing an hourglass in place of a wristwatch.


text:
Decompartmentalizing the Mission: What to do and when
In the introduction to this series, I explained how I thought that people today tend to compartmentalize their lives. Because of this, we often compartmentalize what we consider the mission of God as well. In a previous post, I considered proclamation of the gospel as part of the mission of God as demonstrated and taught by Jesus and Paul. Next, I looked at their example of strengthening believers as part of their mission. Then I considered whether or not caring for the least was part of Jesus' and Paul's mission.
After looking at those three aspects of the mission of God, I started putting it all together. Then, I began to consider emphasizing certain aspects without neglecting any of them. Finally, I talked about how we tend to emphasize certain extremes when it comes to the mission of God.
So, the mission of God is proclaiming the gospel AND strengthening believers AND caring for the least all integrated together. This integration should be seen within the life of a follower of Jesus Christ, and it should be seen among a community of believers.
However, there may be times when one aspect or another is emphasized (even though the others should never be neglected). How do we know when to emphasize one aspect or another?
There are times when Jesus is among a crowd of people that he speaks to the entire crowd. At other times, he is in a crowd of people but he pulls only a few of his followers aside to talk with them. At still other times when he is among a large crowd, he stops to speak with one person. How did Jesus know when to speak to the crowd, the disciples, or a single individual?
Sometimes, Jesus proclaims the gospel. Other times, he teaching his disciples. At still other times, he heals people. How did Jesus know when to evangelize, when to disciple, and when to heal?
Jesus gives us the answer to this question, but it may not be the cut-and-dry type of answer that we would like: "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." (John 5:19 ESV)
So, Jesus was, in fact, joining God the Father in his ongoing mission.
How did Jesus know what to do and when? He did whatever he saw the Father doing. Simple.
But, unlike the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Father, our connection with God is not a perfect connection. Even though we have been indwelled by the Spirit of God, we still do not always know exactly what God is doing.
Paul is a good example of this imperfect type of connection. Like us, Paul is indwelled by the Spirit of God, and, like us, Paul does not have a perfect connection to God. Paul himself tells us that he doesn't always do the right thing, even when he knows what the right thing is.
Thus, we seek to understand what God is doing through any means necessary: through the indwelling Spirit, through the opportunities that God brings into our lives, through the counsel and passions of our brothers and sisters in Christ, through reading and meditating on Scripture, through reason and wisdom. Then, we trust that God will redirect us if we begin heading in the wrong direction. (Again, Paul is a great example of this, especially in Acts 16:6-10.)
But, while we are seeking to understand how God wants us to join him in his mission, we must begin by understanding what is included in that mission. This brings us back to the purpose of this series: God's mission is the integration of proclaiming the gospel, strengthening believers, and caring for the least.
We should expect God to be working in all of these areas, and we should expect to join him in all of these aspects of his mission.
Decompartmentalizing the Mission of God Series:
2 Comments
Comments are closed. If you would like to discuss this post, send an email to alan [at] alanknox [dot] net.
I really appreciate this series. For me, the most difficult part of the mission is preaching the gospel- serving the least and encouraging the family are easier.
Perhaps this is restating what you have already said but what helps me to think about this is seeing the example of Jesus in the gospels. I believe that when he looked at the human condition he saw our needs as being integrated. He realized that only addressing only one area of poverty,such as our spiritual deficiency was inadequate.
Humans are complex beings with spiritual, relational, mental and physical attributes and to some degree, are impaired in all areas.


text:
Search Term
Advanced Search
0 Items (Empty)
Store Home
> Labels
Single sided clear sticky labels ideal for folders, presentations, envelopes and general packaging applications
Found a lower price? Tell us and ask about our price beater guarantee!
Self Adhesive Labels Clear 25mm Diameter (2000 Per Roll)
Clear sticky labels ideal for many applications including retail packaging and display
Self Adhesive Labels Clear 40mm Diameter (2000 Per Roll)
New Magnets and Magnetic Products Buying Guide
20/09/2017 12:23:29:Indigo and Polarity Magnets have been supplying Magnets and Magnetic Products for over 20 years. We ...
Unit 3b, Sopwith Crescent, Wickford Business Park Wickford, Essex SS11 8YU UK - England & Wales
01268 768 768
© 2017 Indigo. All rights reserved worldwide.


text:
Pearl's Peril
Relive the adventure of the flirty thirties with beautiful hidden object scenes and gripping storylines in Pearl's Peril.Discover now »
He's utterly adorable, totally unique and 100% yours. Meet Toby, the ultimate in Doggy Design.Discover now »
Jelly Splash
Connect Jellys to win! Plan your moves with no annoying time limits! Can you clear the islands to save the Jellys?Discover now »
Futurama Game of Drones
Help the Planet Express Crew Deliver the Delivery Drones! Travel through 3D Worlds with your favorite characters.Discover now »
Diamond Dash
Enjoy 60 thrilling seconds of arcade puzzle action! Match three or more colorful diamonds in this awesome gem rush.Discover now »
Farm Time
Escape to the countryside in a single tap and bring the sunshine of the farm to your wrist.Discover now »


text:
This star rating is the opinion of the property owner only. A Self-Rated hotel has not been assessed by the AA or Visit Britain, whose official star ratings we use across LateRooms.com.
Porto Del Sol Guesthouse3 Self rated
Xemxija Hill, St. Paul's Bay, Malta,
Price FromView Rooms
This hotel doesn't have any reviews yet.
About the hotel
Porto del Sol offers a selection of 18 spacious holiday units which enjoy clear, unobstructed sea and country views. It is located in the North of the island right in the heart of Xemxija Bay, a small seaside town situated between St. Paul's Bay and Mellieha.
All apartments are self-catering with fully equipped kitchenettes, complete with cooker, refrigerator, sink and all the appliances, cutlery and crockery guests might need. One can opt for a one - bedroom or studio sleeping two persons; or a two - bedroom apartment with spacious living areas, which can sleep up to four persons with extra beds, if required. All rooms have their own bathroom/ shower and private spacious balcony which enjoy clear unobstructed sea and country views. Porto Del Sol apartments are situated on the main coast road, which is frequented by buses every ten to fifteen minutes. It is ideally situated for quick access to the most popular summer bays of Ghadira in Mellieha - Malta's largest beach, and Golden Bay (all just about ten minutes by bus). Nightlife, shops and bars can be found in the villages of St. Paul's Bay, Buibba and Qawra, all within close distance.
Read MoreLess
We currently have no rooms available for this hotel that match what you're looking for. Try changing your search, selecting an alternative hotel, or give us a call on 0333 0146275 where we'll be happy to help.
Facilities Show/hide
- Main
- Disabled Facilities, Cots available, Smoking allowed in bedrooms, Safety Deposit Box, Tea/Coffee making facilities in each room, Telephone In Each Room, Limited Hours Room Service, Interconnecting rooms available, Ground floor bedrooms, Lift to all floors
- Accessibility
- Disabled Access Public Areas, Disabled Access Bedrooms, Wheelchair Access, Wheelchair Access To Reception, Wheelchair Access To Restaurant, Wheelchair Access To Bar
Useful Info Show/hide
- From 12:00 hours
- By 11:00 hours
- Up to 10 years old
- 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2017 - Please see Customer Notification for more information with regards to the key collection on arrival. The price shown is based on the occupancy and dates you have searched for. Prices and availability are subject to change based on the arrival date, number of nights and occupancy searched for. All prices are inclusive of all local taxes.
- Pets are not allowed
Customer Reviews
Our reviews are from genuine LateRooms.com customers. We verify that the customer has stayed before leaving a review.
No reviews yet


text:
Theatre & Arts > Lectures
Life and Artmergencies - The 7 Aspects Of Personal Resiliency
Cost: Free for ACI members, $5 for non-members As an artist, you may be especially sensitive to criticism because you are your work. You may face extraordinarily difficult financial and life circumstances. How do we, as human beings, deal constructively with life's shortcomings and setbacks? Learn 7 ways to be resilient in the face of difficulty with Erin Stewart, Dean at the University of Winnipeg's Division of Continuing Education. Instructor: Erin Stewart Erin Stewart, M.Ad.Ed., an avid lifelong learner, brings 25 years of experience as an instructor, program planner and manager to this workshop. Erin is a skilled facilitator with expertise in the areas of adult education, creative thinking, interpersonal communication, presentation skills, and interview preparation. She is currently Dean of Continuing Education at the University of Winnipeg. Erin is dedicated to making personal progress on the path to resiliency. For more information or to register, contact Lisa at email@example.com or 927-2787.
Millennium Library
251 Donald St.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011 from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM


text:
Wednesday was the 20th annual Miracle on Main Street and the Muskingum County Courthouse was illuminated for the duration of the holiday season.
The lighting ceremony was at 6:30 this evening and featured Christmas music selections performed by the Zanesville High School Blue Knights, The Sweet Adelines and the Broadway Babies. The entire ceremony was fun filled and a great kick off to the holiday season and there were some definite highlights to the evening.
"Obviously the weather made the participation from the crowd a lot better," explained Membership Services Director, Dana Matz. "We had a tremendous turn out tonight and kids of all ages- if you will, because once Santa Claus shows up, I don't care what age you are, it brings back great memories, young kids, old kids all rushing over, to see Santa Claus."
The festivities continued following the ceremony. More than 40 downtown businesses participated in the Holiday Tour.
"We have antique shops, we have title shops, we have the Masonic Temple and the artists that are in there, we have Studio 202, the restaurants, Old Market House Inn, Zak's – they are open for business, and hopefully they are having great nights."
Matz says this was the largest Miracle on Main and the fun continues Thursday and Friday with the Festival of Trees.


text:
QUETTA: Hundreds of people of Shia Hazara community, including women and children, continued to brave sub-zero temperatures on a road here on Saturday as a government team failed to persuade them to call off their protest.
The protesters carrying coffins of 87 victims of Thursday's twin blasts began a sit-in on Alamdar Road at 3pm on Friday. They have refused to bury their loved ones until their demands are accepted. They want removal of the Balochistan government, imposition of governor's rule in the province and deployment of army in Quetta as the city has lately become a killing field for the religious-ethnic minority.
But the government finds it hard to accept the demands, as indicated by Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah in his talks with community elders on Saturday.
It is learnt that Prime Minister Pervez Ashraf might visit Quetta on Sunday to persuade the leaders of the community to call off their protest and burry the bodies.
On the directives of the prime minister, Khursheed Shah along with Governor of Balochistan Nawab Zulfiqar Ali Magsi reached Alamdar Road to hold talks with the leaders of the Qaumi Yakjehti Council.
However, the talks failed as the minister declined to accept the demands of the protesters and the council leaders refused to call off their protest until their demands were accepted.
According to sources, Khursheed Shah argued during the talks that they could not remove the provincial government as it was part of the democratic set-up.
Talking to the media after the talks, Khursheed Shah said that the elected government would not deploy army in the province. "In Quetta, Frontier Corps has been given police powers and asked to help the provincial government in maintaining law and order," he said.
Referring to the demand for imposition of governor rule, he said law and order situation in Balochistan did not call for imposition of governor rule.
Besides, he said, after the passage of 18th Amendment, the federal government could impose governor rule in a province only on the advice of its chief minister.
He said that the government was ready to accept other demands of the protesters and take measures to protect people from terrorism. "Giving police powers to the FC is part of government's efforts to provide protection to people of Quetta."
He said that the government would take stern action against the elements disturbing law and order situation in the city and trying to forcibly impose their school of thought on the people.
He said that President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Ashraf were in touch with the governor of Balochistan on the Quetta situation, and asked Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani to immediately return from abroad.
He said that PPP itself was a victim of terrorism and had lost its leader Benazir Bhutto and a number of activists in terrorist attacks. "The PPP-led government has been making efforts to uproot terrorism," he said.He said that President Zardari gave priority to Balochistan and took keen interest in measures to remove sense of deprivation among the people of the province.
However, Governor Magsi said that the provincial government had lost the right to rule the province after the Alamdar Road incident that had claimed the lives of a large number of innocent people.
He said that general elections were solution to all the issues and added: "Let the elections be held on time."
Provincial ministers Tahir Mehmood and Maulvi Sarwar, Chief Secretary Babar Yaqoob Fateh Mohammad and Home Secretary Capt (retd) Akbar Hussain Durrani were also part of the government's negotiation team.
The sit-in continues in freezing atmosphere as mercury has dropped to minus four degrees Celsius in the city which was also battered by rain on Thursday night.
The protest has been prompted by a suicide attack in a crowded snooker club followed by a car bomb blast, killing 104 people and injuring at least 100. The banned Lashkar-i-Jhangwi has claimed responsibility for the attacks.


text:
David Myatt
Learning From Adversity; A Rejection of Extremism
Questions For DWM (2015)
Questions For DWM
(2015, pdf)
A Rejection of Extremism
Development of The Numinous Way
A Slowful Learning, Perhaps
Blue Reflected Starlight
Collected Works In Print
Good, Evil, Honour, and God
Greek Translations
Just My Fallible Views, Again
Meditations on Extremism
My Error-Prone Self
Toward Humility
A Catholic Still In Spirit?
Aesch. Ag. 67-71
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1015α
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 987β
Corpus Hermeticum
Countering Muslim Extremism
Culture of Pathei-Mathos
Education And Pathei-Mathos
Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis
Facebook and other Social Media
Failure To Understand
Four Poems
From Aeschylus To The Numinous Way
Note On Greek Terms
Gospel According to John
Heraclitus – Enantiodromia
Heraclitus – Fragment 1
Heraclitus – Fragment 62
Heraclitus – Translations of Some Fragments
Homer – The Odyssey (Books 1, 2, 3)
Honour – The Numinous Balance
In Praise Of America
Leaves Are Showering Down
Let Us Then Try What Love Can Do
The Need for Tolerance
Mercvrii Trismegisti Pymander
Numinous Expiation
On Idiosyncratic Capitalization and Spelling
On Translating Ancient Greek
Opposites and Dialectic
Pathei Mathos
Pathei-Mathos: Genesis of My Unknowing
Perhaps Words Are The Problem
Physis, Nature, Concealment, and Natural Change
Questions For DWM (2012)
Questions For DWM (2014)
Questions For DWM (2015)
Questions For DWM (2017)
Sappho: Poetic Fragments
Society, Social Reform, and Pathei-Mathos
Soli Deo Gloria
Some Selected Favourites
Standard Reply To Requests
The Ethos of Extremism – Parts One and Two
Ethos of Extremism – Part Six
A Matter Of Honour
The Sun, The City
Theory of The Acausal
Time and Otherness
Time As Emanation of Being
Towards Understanding Physis
Towards Understanding The Acausal
Tractate XIII
David Myatt – Personal Website
DW Myatt – Greek Translations
Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos
Search for:
Blog at WordPress.com.
Post to


text:
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Port Logistics Group Buys Two SoCal Firms
Venture funded Port Logistics Group, a new rollup focused on the transportation, logistics, and distribution industry, said today that it has acquired Rancho Dominguez-based Transport Express, and City of Industry-based 3rd Party Enterprise/Operon, two logistics providers based in Southern California. The firm--which launched itself today with a undisclosed amount of funding from Austin Ventures--did not disclose financial terms of the buys. The firm also acquired New Jersey-based Distribution Solutions/Jefco in the rollup. Port Logistics Group is based in Houston, Texas, and is being headed up by Robert Stull, former CEO of Roadway Express. The firm said its is launching with $100M in revenues from the acquired firms.


text:
News Wrap: Ukraine president announces week-long cease-fire
[Sorry, the video for this story has expired, but you can still read the transcript below. ]
JUDY WOODRUFF: The president of Ukraine announced a one-week unilateral cease-fire today. Petro Poroshenko ordered government forces to put down their weapons against pro-Russian separatists, but he said, if fired upon, troops could fire back. Rebel leaders immediately dismissed the cease-fire, and so did Russia.
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department said it has information Russia is accumulating tanks and artillery near the border with Ukraine and has redeployed forces there.
The number of people in the world who are living as refugees has passed 50 million, for the first time since World War II. A U.N. report found by the end of last year the number of refugees had jumped by six million over the previous year to 51.2 million. The massive increase was driven largely by the civil war in Syria.
But the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees says conflicts are multiplying around the world, with few solutions in sight.
ANTONIO GUTERRES, UN High Commissioner for Refugees: There is a general sense of impunity. Conflicts emerge, dramatic violations of human rights appear, and the international community has lost much of its capacity to prevent conflict situations.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Afghanistan still accounts for the highest number of refugees in the world, and neighboring Pakistan hosts more refugees than any other country.
Three U.S. troops were killed in a roadside bombing in Afghanistan today. A U.S. defense official said the bomb went off in Southern Afghanistan, and the troops' military dog was also killed.
In Syria today, a truck loaded with about three tons of explosives killed at least 34 civilians. More than 50 others were wounded. The Islamic Front claimed responsibility. The rebel group posted a video online showing a ball of fire rising into the sky overnight near the city of Hama. Daylight revealed a large crater in the ground and damaged buildings.
The latest round of nuclear talks with Iran ended in Vienna today with uncertainty. The leader of the U.S. negotiation team, Wendy Sherman, said there's a working document, but it's heavily bracketed because of outstanding disagreements. Iran's representative, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, told reporters the demands were excessive.
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, Foreign Minister, Iran: We have started putting everything on paper, not agreeing on anything, but at least having in rather black-and-white form what each side believes should be done.
From our perspective, what we have put forward is a resolution, not a repetition of our position. We believe that if other side does the same, we will reach a common position and hopefully resolve this issue by July 20.
JUDY WOODRUFF: July 20 is when an interim agreement with the six world powers expires. Under that deal, Iran scaled back parts of its nuclear program in exchange for fewer economic sanctions.
Heavy flooding and torrential rains paralyzed parts of Bulgaria today. At least 12 people were killed, and an unknown number of others are still missing. In the Black Sea resort town of Varna, cars sat on top of each other and the streets were blanketed with thick mud. The amount of rain that fell in the last 24 hours was roughly what they'd see in a month.
The medical group Doctors Without Borders warned today that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is now — quote — "totally out of control." The epidemic has already claimed more than 300 lives across Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. There is no cure for the deadly virus. Medical officials say they're struggling to meet the high demand for treatment, especially now that the disease has spread to densely populated areas.
Two hundred and nineteen Nigerian schoolgirls are still missing more than two months after being kidnapped by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram. The brigadier general who heads the Nigerian government's investigation gave that update today. The girls were taken from their secondary school in the village of Chibok back in mid-April; 57 others who were taken have been reunited with their families.
In Washington, a congressional hearing with IRS commissioner John Koskinen turned into a shouting match over the issue of thousands of lost e-mails. Last week, the IRS acknowledged that an unknown number were permanently lost due to a series of hard drive crashes. Some were from former IRS executive Lois Lerner, who has been accused of holding up applications from Tea Party and other conservative groups for tax-exempt status.
Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin accused Koskinen of lying in the probe.
REP. PAUL RYAN, Chair, House Budget Committee: Hard drives crashed. You learned about this months ago. You just told us. And we had to ask you on Monday. This is not being forthcoming. This is being misleading again. This is a pattern of abuse, a pattern of behavior that is not giving us any confidence that this agency is being impartial.
JOHN KOSKINEN, IRS Commissioner: I have a long career. That's the first time anybody has said they do not believe me. I am…
REP. PAUL RYAN: I don't believe you.
JOHN KOSKINEN: That's fine. We can have a disagreement. I am willing to stand on our record.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Democrats at the hearing repeatedly objected to Republicans who interrupted the commissioner before he could answer. Some of them gave up their own question time to give Koskinen a chance to respond to the Republicans' accusations.
The Obama administration expanded a range of federal marriage rights to same-sex couples today. The Labor Department announced a new rule that allows eligible employees to take off work to care for their spouses, even in states where their marriages are not recognized. It's the latest in a series of changes since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act last year.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today raised the number of workers who may have been exposed to anthrax. The agency now believes that 84 scientists and staff members in Atlanta could have come in contact with the live anthrax bacteria after it was improperly handled. So far, no illnesses have been reported and more than 50 workers are taking precautionary antibiotics.
There were more milestones for stocks on Wall Street today. The Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 25 points to close at 16,947. The Nasdaq rose more than eight points to close at 4,368. The S&P 500 added three points to close above 1,962. For the week, the Dow gained about a percent. The Nasdaq and S&P rose more than a percent as well.