text:
Q: iOS14: no UIControl working anymore in a UIKit Modal ViewController Using iOS14.0.1, Swift5.3, Xcode12.0.1,
I am desperate with this problem:
With iOS12 and iOS13, my App was working nicely.
But now with iOS14, no UIButton, no UISwitch, no segue - nothing is working in my Modal ViewController.
I have no idea what Apple changed in UIKit for this problem to occur ???? !!!!
Please help!
My Modal ViewController is presented as follows:
@objc func settingsBtnPressed(_ sender: UIButton) {

    let settingsVC = SettingsViewController()
    settingsVC.backDelegate = self

    let navController = UINavigationController(rootViewController: settingsVC)
    navController.navigationBar.barStyle = .black
    navController.navigationBar.tintColor = .white
    navController.navigationBar.prefersLargeTitles = true
    navController.navigationBar.backgroundColor = UIColor.clear
    navController.presentationController?.delegate = self

    self.present(navController, animated: true)
}

class SettingsViewController: UICollectionViewController, UICollectionViewDelegateFlowLayout {

    let cellId = "cellID"

    init() {
        let collectionViewFlowLayout = UICollectionViewFlowLayout()
        collectionViewFlowLayout.estimatedItemSize = CGSize(width: UIScreen.main.bounds.width, height: 1)
        super.init(collectionViewLayout: collectionViewFlowLayout)
    }

    required init?(coder: NSCoder) {
        fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented")
    }

    override func viewDidLoad() {
        super.viewDidLoad()
        // ...
        collectionView.register(SettingsCollectionViewCell.self, forCellWithReuseIdentifier: cellId)
    }

    override func collectionView(_ collectionView: UICollectionView, numberOfItemsInSection section: Int) -> Int {
        return 1
    }

    override func collectionView(_ collectionView: UICollectionView, cellForItemAt indexPath: IndexPath) -> UICollectionViewCell {

        let cell = collectionView.dequeueReusableCell(withReuseIdentifier: cellId, for: indexPath) as! SettingsCollectionViewCell
        cell.setup(titlesFirstSection: titlesFirstSection, iconsFirstSection: iconsFirstSection, onStatesFirstSection: onStatesFirstSection, )
        return cell
    }
}

class SettingsCollectionViewCell: UICollectionViewCell {

    var SettingsStackView = UIStackView()
    var attries: UICollectionViewLayoutAttributes!
    var myContentHeight: CGFloat = 0.0

    var firstSettingsSectionView: MenuSwitchListSectionView?

    let elementHeight: CGFloat = 44.0
    let separatorLineThickness: CGFloat = 1.0
    let sectionViewBackgroundColor = ImageConverter.UIColorFromRGB(0x2C2C2E, alpha: 1.0)

    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
    }

    required init?(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) {
        fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented")
    }

    func setup(titlesFirstSection: [String],
                iconsFirstSection: [UIImage?]?,
             onStatesFirstSection: [Bool]) {

        myContentHeight = UIScreen.main.bounds.height - 120

        initFirstSettingsSectionView(titles: titlesFirstSection, icons: iconsFirstSection, onStates: onStatesFirstSection)

        SettingsStackView = VerticalStackView(arrangedSubviews: [
            UIView(),
            firstSettingsSectionView! as UIView,
            UIView()
        ], spacing: 10.0, alignment: .center )

        contentView.addSubview(SettingsStackView)
        contentView.isUserInteractionEnabled = true

        setConstraints(nrOfItemsFirstSection: titlesFirstSection.count)
    }

    fileprivate func initFirstSettingsSectionView(titles: [String], icons: [UIImage?]?, onStates: [Bool]) {

        firstSettingsSectionView = MenuSwitchListSectionView(frame: .zero,
                                  elementHeight: elementHeight,
                         separatorLineThickness: separatorLineThickness,
                                backgroundColor: sectionViewBackgroundColor,
                                         titles: titles,
                                          icons: icons,
                                       onStates: onStates
        )
        firstSettingsSectionView?.switchMutatedDelegate = self
        firstSettingsSectionView?.assignDelegate()
    }

    fileprivate func setConstraints(nrOfItemsFirstSection: Int) {

        contentView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        SettingsStackView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        firstSettingsSectionView?.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false

        SettingsStackView.anchor(top: safeAreaLayoutGuide.topAnchor, leading: contentView.leadingAnchor, bottom: nil, trailing: contentView.trailingAnchor)

        let totalHeightFirstSection: CGFloat = elementHeight * CGFloat(nrOfItemsFirstSection) + separatorLineThickness * CGFloat(nrOfItemsFirstSection - 1)
        firstSettingsSectionView?.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: contentView.leadingAnchor, constant: 8.0).isActive = true
        firstSettingsSectionView?.heightAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: totalHeightFirstSection).isActive = true
        firstSettingsSectionView?.widthAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: contentView.bounds.width - 16.0).isActive = true
    }

class MenuSwitchElementStackView: UIStackView {

    weak var switchMutatedDelegate: SwitchMutatedDelegate?

    let imgViewWidth: CGFloat = 23.0

    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
    }

    convenience init(frame: CGRect, text: String, icon: UIImage?, onState: Bool, switchID: Int) {
        self.init(frame: frame)
        composeStackView(text: text, icon: icon, onState: onState, switchID: switchID)
    }

    required init(coder: NSCoder) {
        fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented")
    }

    fileprivate func composeStackView(text: String, icon: UIImage?, onState: Bool, switchID: Int) {

        // StackView properties
        axis = .horizontal
        alignment = .center
        spacing = 23.0

        var iconImgView: UIImageView?

        // create Icon
        if let icon = icon {
            iconImgView = UIImageView()
            iconImgView?.image = icon
            iconImgView?.contentMode = .scaleAspectFit
        }

        // create Title
        let titleLabel = UILabel()
        titleLabel.font = AppConstants.Font.ListSectionElementTitleFont
        titleLabel.text = text
        titleLabel.textColor = .white
        titleLabel.tintColor = .white
        titleLabel.heightAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: 19.0).isActive = true

        // create choice TextLbl
        let mySwitch = UISwitch()
        mySwitch.tag = switchID
        mySwitch.setOn(onState, animated: false)
        mySwitch.addTarget(self, action: #selector(MenuSwitchElementStackView.switchChanged(_:)), for: UIControl.Event.valueChanged)

        // text stackView creation
        if let iconImgView = iconImgView {
            addArrangedSubview(iconImgView)
        }
        addArrangedSubview(titleLabel)
        addArrangedSubview(mySwitch)
        // set Constraints
        setConstraints(iconImgView, titleLabel, mySwitch)
    }

    @objc func switchChanged(_ mySwitch: UISwitch) {
        switchMutatedDelegate?.switchChanged(isOn: mySwitch.isOn, switchID: mySwitch.tag)
    }

    fileprivate func setConstraints(_ iconImgView: UIImageView?, _ titleLabel: UILabel, _ mySwitch: UISwitch) {

        translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        iconImgView?.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        titleLabel.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        mySwitch.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false

        iconImgView?.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: leadingAnchor, constant: 0.0).isActive = true
        iconImgView?.widthAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: 24.0).isActive = true
        iconImgView?.centerYAnchor.constraint(equalTo: centerYAnchor).isActive = true

        titleLabel.centerYAnchor.constraint(equalTo: centerYAnchor).isActive = true

        mySwitch.centerYAnchor.constraint(equalTo: centerYAnchor).isActive = true
        mySwitch.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: trailingAnchor, constant: -64.0).isActive = true
    }
}

class MenuSwitchListSectionView: UIView {

    var sectionElementsStackView: MenuSwitchListSectionWithElementsStackView?
    weak var switchMutatedDelegate: SwitchMutatedDelegate?

    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
    }

    convenience init(frame: CGRect,
             elementHeight: CGFloat,
    separatorLineThickness: CGFloat,
           backgroundColor: UIColor,
                    titles: [String],
                     icons: [UIImage?]?,
                  onStates: [Bool]) {
        self.init(frame: frame)
        composeView(elementHeight: elementHeight, separatorLineThickness: separatorLineThickness, backgroundColor: backgroundColor, titles: titles, icons: icons, onStates: onStates)
    }

    required init(coder: NSCoder) {
        fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented")
    }

    func assignDelegate() {
        self.sectionElementsStackView?.switchMutatedDelegate = switchMutatedDelegate
        sectionElementsStackView?.assignDelegate()
    }

    fileprivate func composeView(elementHeight: CGFloat, separatorLineThickness: CGFloat, backgroundColor: UIColor, titles: [String], icons: [UIImage?]?, onStates: [Bool]) {

        // create background View
        let totalHeight: CGFloat = elementHeight * CGFloat(titles.count) + separatorLineThickness * CGFloat(titles.count - 1)
        let backGroundView = ListSectionBackgroundView(frame: .zero, height: totalHeight, backgroundColor: backgroundColor)

        // create stackView
        sectionElementsStackView = MenuSwitchListSectionWithElementsStackView(frame: CGRect(x: 0.0, y: 0.0, width: UIScreen.main.bounds.width, height: totalHeight), elementHeight: elementHeight, separatorLineThickness: separatorLineThickness, titles: titles, icons: icons, onStates: onStates)

        // add background and stackView to self
        addSubview(backGroundView)
        addSubview(sectionElementsStackView!)

        // set Constraints
        translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        backGroundView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        sectionElementsStackView?.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false

        backGroundView.centerYAnchor.constraint(equalTo: centerYAnchor).isActive = true
        backGroundView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: leadingAnchor).isActive = true
        backGroundView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: trailingAnchor).isActive = true
        backGroundView.heightAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: totalHeight).isActive = true
        sectionElementsStackView?.centerYAnchor.constraint(equalTo: centerYAnchor).isActive = true
        sectionElementsStackView?.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: leadingAnchor, constant: 16.0).isActive = true
        sectionElementsStackView?.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: trailingAnchor, constant: -10.0).isActive = true
    }
}

class MenuSwitchListSectionWithElementsStackView: UIStackView {

    weak var switchMutatedDelegate: SwitchMutatedDelegate?
    var elementStackView: MenuSwitchElementStackView?
    var elements: [MenuSwitchElementStackView]?
    var titles: [String]? // needed for gesture callback

    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
    }

    convenience init(frame: CGRect,
             elementHeight: CGFloat,
    separatorLineThickness: CGFloat,
                    titles: [String],
                     icons: [UIImage?]?,
                  onStates: [Bool]) {
        self.init(frame: frame)
        self.titles = titles // needed for gesture callback
        composeStackView(elementHeight: elementHeight, separatorLineThickness: separatorLineThickness, titles: titles, icons: icons, onStates: onStates)
    }

    required init(coder: NSCoder) {
        fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented")
    }

    func assignDelegate() {
        if let elements = elements {
            for element in elements {
                element.switchMutatedDelegate = switchMutatedDelegate
            }
        }
    }

    fileprivate func composeStackView(elementHeight: CGFloat, separatorLineThickness: CGFloat, titles: [String], icons: [UIImage?]?, onStates: [Bool]) {

        // stackView properties
        axis = .vertical
        alignment = .leading
        spacing = 0.0

        // create stackView elements
        elements = (0..<titles.count).map { (idx) -> MenuSwitchElementStackView in
            if icons?.count ?? 0 > 0 {
                elementStackView = MenuSwitchElementStackView(frame: .zero, text: titles[idx], icon: icons?[idx], onState: onStates[idx], switchID: idx)
            } else {
                elementStackView = MenuSwitchElementStackView(frame: .zero, text: titles[idx], icon: nil, onState: onStates[idx], switchID: idx)
            }
            elementStackView?.isUserInteractionEnabled = true
            elementStackView?.tag = idx
            return elementStackView!
        }

        var singleLines = [UIView]()
        let lineThickness: CGFloat = separatorLineThickness

        // compose the stackView
        if let elements = elements {
            for (idx, view) in elements.enumerated() {

                // add element to stackView
                addArrangedSubview(view)

                if idx < titles.count - 1 {
                    // add single Line to stackView
                    let singleLineView = UIView(frame: CGRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: UIScreen.main.bounds.width, height: lineThickness))
                    singleLineView.backgroundColor = ImageConverter.UIColorFromRGB(0x606060, alpha: 1.0)
                    singleLines.append(singleLineView)

                    addArrangedSubview(singleLineView)
                }
            }
        }

        // set constraints
        translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false

        if let elements = elements {
            for (idx, element) in elements.enumerated() {
                element.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
                element.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: leadingAnchor).isActive = true
                element.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: trailingAnchor).isActive = true
                element.heightAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: elementHeight).isActive = true
                if idx < titles.count - 1 {
                    singleLines[idx].translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
                    singleLines[idx].topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: element.bottomAnchor).isActive = true
                    singleLines[idx].heightAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: lineThickness).isActive = true
                    if icons?.count ?? 0 > 0 {
                        if let _ = icons?[idx] {
                            singleLines[idx].leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: leadingAnchor, constant: 39.0).isActive = true
                        }
                    } else {
                        singleLines[idx].leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: leadingAnchor).isActive = true
                    }
                    singleLines[idx].trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: trailingAnchor, constant: 9.0).isActive = true
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

class ListSectionBackgroundView: UIView {

    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
    }

    convenience init(frame: CGRect, height: CGFloat = 60.0, backgroundColor: UIColor) {
        self.init(frame: frame)
        composeView(height: height, backgroundColor: backgroundColor)
    }

    required init?(coder: NSCoder) {
        fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented")
    }

    fileprivate func composeView(height: CGFloat, backgroundColor: UIColor) {

        // View properties
        self.backgroundColor = backgroundColor
        self.layer.cornerRadius = 10.0
        self.layer.masksToBounds = true
        self.clipsToBounds = true

        // set Constraints
        setConstraints(height)
    }

    fileprivate func setConstraints(_ height: CGFloat) {
        self.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
        self.heightAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: height).isActive = true
    }
}

A: I finally found a solution.
It was the UIView-extension "anchor" in my code that no longer works under iOS14 for some reason.
Here I describe the problem more precisely...
Therefore, if I use the extension and do the following - then any UIControls in my ViewHierarchy do not work (i.e. no target-actions, switch-didChanges, etc will no longer kick-in)
SettingsStackView.anchor(top: safeAreaLayoutGuide.topAnchor, leading: contentView.leadingAnchor, bottom: contentView.bottomAnchor, trailing: contentView.trailingAnchor)

However, if I do it without the UIView-extension, then everything works fine:
SettingsStackView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
SettingsStackView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: contentView.safeAreaLayoutGuide.topAnchor).isActive = true
SettingsStackView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: contentView.leadingAnchor).isActive = true
SettingsStackView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: contentView.bottomAnchor).isActive = true
SettingsStackView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: contentView.trailingAnchor).isActive = true

Maybe somebody can tell me why this new behaviour came up with iOS14 ???


text:
'use strict';

describe('Constants File: Constants', function () {

  // load the service's module
  beforeEach(module('sportsStoreApp'));

  // instantiate service
  var maxItemsPerPage;
  beforeEach(inject(function (_maxItemsPerPage_) {
    maxItemsPerPage = _maxItemsPerPage_;
  }));

  it('maxItemsPerPage should exist', function () {
    expect(!!maxItemsPerPage).toBe(true);
  });

});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
KIRK 11. WII·TJAMB.
437 Ex'r, etc.
KIRK,
Trustee, etc., v.
WILLIAMS,
'Circuit (Jourt, W. D. Tennessee. April 10,1885.)
S;rATUTE OF FRAUDS-SALE OF LANDS-PROMISE TO PAY PURCHASE MONEYWRITTEN PROMISE NOT REQUIHED.
In Tennessee the statute of frauds is fully answered by the grantor's deed for the land, and the grantee's promise to pay the purchase money need not be in writing, but may be proved by parol.
SAME SUBJECT-AcnoN ON THE DEED-EvIDENCE.
It has not been decided in Tennessee whether an action for the purchase money will lie upon the deed itself against a grantee who has DOt signed but has accepted it and the estate conveyed, but, in an action on the case for the money, the deed, its acceptance, and possession under it, are evidence of a promise to pay the consideratiun; and from those facts such a promise will be implied.
SAME SUBJECT-LIEN RESERVED-EFFECT AS EVIDENCE.
Where the grantor reserves a lien for the purchase money, it is in effect as if the grantee had signed a mortgage or deed of trust; and while it is not settled in Tennessee that an action will lie upon such implied mortgage, as it would upon one actually signed by the dehtur, in an action for the consideration not founded on the deed, the facts· that the lien is reserved and that the grantee has accepted the estate are conclusive proof of a promise to pay the money.
SAME SUBJECT-UNSIGNED MEMORANDUM-LETTERS.
Where a grantee, at the request of the grantor, has given, in his own handwriting, an unsilrned memorandum relating the facts of the transaction, but con taining in itself no explicit promise to pay the money due, this memorandum is competent and relevant as evidence of the grantee's admissions of facts from which the law implies the promise to pay, although it might not be sufficient to answer the statute of frauds if a written promise were required. The same is true of a letter written by the grantee, importing by its language a recognition of the debt, though not an express promise to pay it.
PLEADING-AcTIO:"l 0:"1 FAcTs-PnoFEUT-DItED.
Although a declaration may make profert of a deed, if it appear that the plaintiff has a cause of action on the facts of the case, one of which is the execution of the deed, the statement of it will be taken, under the Tennessee Code, only as an inducement, and not as implying that the deed is the foundation of the action.
STATUTE OF LTMITATIONS-ACK:'iIOWLEDGMENT-PAUTIAL PAYMENTS AS EVIDENCE, EFFECT
While, in Tennessee, partial payments, either of principal or interest, standing alone, are not such an acknowledgment of the debt as will save the bar of the statute of limitations, they are taken in connection with other circumstances as potential there as elsewhere to prove such an acknowledgment. Held, therefore, where it appears that the debt was intended by the parties as a permanent investment of a trust fund; that the interest was paid quarterly in advance before and for many years after the time limited by the statute had expired; that these payments were accompanied by letters of remittance and receipts to be signed; that the debtor, at t4e request of the beneficiary for some evidence of the transaction, prepared the memorandum and letter above referred to after the bar attached,-that these circumstances were evidence of an acknOWledgment of the debt, from which the law implies a to pay within six years before the suit was brought.
SAME SUBJECT-SUFFICIENCY OF LETTERS.
The writings above mentioned contain no explicit promise to pay the debt after bar. attached; but since no such promise is required in Tennessee, but may be Imphed from an acknOWledgment of a subsisting liability, they furnish evidence of that acknOWledgment in this case.
FEDERALREPonTER.
The defendant's testator, Joseph R. Williams, sold a lot in Memphis to C. M.Fackler, taking a deed of trust to secure the purchase money. Fackler settled the property on his wife and children by a deed of settlement, making the plaintiff and another trustees. The purchase money remaining unpaid, and interest having accumulated, the settlement trustees, to avoid a sale for the purchase money, reconveyed to Williams, by a deed dated February 28, 1866, and signed by them and Mrs. Fackler, whose husband had died leaving children. It is not signed by Williams, but contains the clause quoted by him in the paper to be hereinafter inserted as a part of this statement of facts·. He accepted the deed and went into possession, remaining until his death, in February, 1881, and paid the interest quarterly, in advance, during this time. For reasons given in the subsequent correspondence he withheld the deed from record, and it was not registered nntil after his death. His widow and devisee remained in possession until, by a proceeding in the equity courts of the state, the lien reserved in the deed was foreclosed. This is an action of assumpsit for the balance of the purchase money, amounting now to $6,508.08. The defendant pleads the statute of frauds, the statute of limitations, and plene administravit. From an agreement of parties filed, and from other proof, it appears, in addition to the foregoing facts, that wl;J.en Williams would pay the interest, by draft or otherwise, he sent to Mrs. Fackler a written receipt, which she signed, some of which are mentioned in nine letters filed and proved in the record, covering remittances of interest on the $10,000 from July 15, 1878, to December 4, 1880, all in his handwriting. One of the receipts written wholly by him, which was not signed but retained by her, is produced. It reads as follows:
"Received of Joseph R. Williams three hundred dollars, in full of interest up to dnt July, 1877, on the sum of $10,000, specified and secured to be paid in deed of J. J. Fackler and E. C. Kirk, trustees, and myself, (then Anna R. Fackler,) to Joseph R. Williams. $150 of this $300 was invested in sight draft on Paris, France, and remitted to me from New York in Dacember, 1876, for interest up to April I, 1877; and $150, being in full of the interest as stated up to first July, 1877, was invested in sight draft on Paris, France, in New York, and remitted to me and received by me, as shown by this receipt."
"No. 67 UNION STREET. "Joseph R. Williams' deed to C. M. Fackler, November 9,1857. Conveyance in trust by Fackler to Shepherd and Jones, as trnstees, to secure purchase money. Deed of C. M. Fackler to J. J. Fackler and E. C. Kirk. trustees. tenth August, 1859. conveys subject to lien created by deed to Shepherd and Jon es, trllstees.( purchase money) in trust 'for the use and benefit of Anna Kirk Fackler, wife of said Calvin M. ]j'ackler. that the same shall not be SUbject
Some time in 1877, Blount, the present husband of Mrs. Fackler, at her reqnest, applied to Williams for some evidence of the contract of purchase, because he had withheld the deed from registration, and received from him a paper wholly in his handwriting, but not signed, which reads as follows:
KIRK 'V. WILLIAMS.
to his control in any way, or liable for hiB debts or contracts in any form;' also, . that whenever, in the opinion of said trustees, or the survivor of them, it may be thought to the interest of said Anna K. to sell or dispose of the premises, the same may be sold, upon condition (1) that the said Anna K:, of her own frel." will, consent to the same; and (2) that the proceeds therl."of shall be invested for her separate use and benefit under the same provisions which guard the conveyance to her; that whenever the said Anna K. shall be capable, under the law, of holding this property in her own name free from the debts or contracts of said U. M. Fackler, that it shall be the duty 'Of saict.trustees, or survivors of them, to convey it to her during her natural life, and after her death to her children by the said C. M. Fackler; that. in the event of a sale or change of occupancy, the right is hereby reserved to Joseph H. 'Williams, in preference to all others, of purchasing the premises at a fair price;' also' in the event of the death of the said Anna Kirk Fackler, the said trustees will hold the premises hereby conveyed for the benefit of her children by the said C. M. Fackler.' The deeds mentioned are all of record. The trust deed to Fackler and Kirk was originally written so as to give the property to the wife absolutely, upon extinguishment of lien for purchase money, but Mr. C. M. Fackler would not sign in that way, and the remainder over to her children by him had to be and was added. "On the twenty-eighth of February. 1866, after the death of C. M. ler, thfl property was sold to Joseph It. Williams for $23,000. $13,000 was due on it, and it was liable to be sold to pay that sum by the trustees, Shepherd and Jones. The lien created by this trust was extinguished by the sale, and there was left of the purchase money $10,000, specified in and secured to be paid by the deed which was then made to Joseph R. Williams by John J. Fackler and Edwd. C. Kirk, trustees, and Anna K. Fackler. This cor.veyance sets forth the preceding deeds, the situation of the property, the facts and reasons which make the sale a proper one, particularly so far as the interests of the children (remainder-men, are concerned, the consent of 'her own free will' of Mrs. F. to the sale, and closes as follows: · The purchase money due said Williams, with interest to this date, is thirteen thousand dollars, and forms part of the consideration of this sale, and satisfies and extinguishes the same to that extent. The residue, being ten thousand dollars, is to become due and payable in two yearf! from this date, and is to bear interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable quarterly. But the priVilege of paying the principal sooner than the time named abov is reserved by said ' Williams, should he desire to do so. The balance is by expl'ess agreement to constitute a lien upon said property until it is satisfied, and stands subject to the trusts of the settlement in favor of Mrs. Fackler and children, and to be rein vested, as prOVided by the trust deed, when it can be ad vantageously dOlle.' This deed was duly witnes.'ed, but has not yet been placed on record. There were some good reasons influencing me in the interest of Mrs. Fackler and the children to withhold it from registration. I do not know that they now exist, and if they do not, upon my carefully consiuering the matter, which I have not done for a long time, I will cause it to be put on record. I am rather of opinion, however, that it may be best not to do so, as the children will spon be of age. In keeping it from record. I, of course, only jeopardize my own interest, as the deed is my only title to the property. As the records now stand, the purchase money and lien for its paympnt, as shown in the trust deed to Shepherd and Jones, being extinguished and inoperative, thfl property, by the record, is absolute in Fackler and Kirk, trustees, for benefit of Anna K. during life, and her children of C. M. F. after her death, so that she and the chiluren are not in danger of luss. but the contrary should the deed to me not be recorded. Howeyer, if I find no objection. considering the 1 will put it on record. The interest on the $lO,OOU has been paid up to first January, 1874."
In Yay, 1877, Kirk, the plaintiff here, BS surviving trustee, wrote to Williams, "demanding and requiring" that he should place the deed upon record in the register's office of Shelby county. This letter he had delivered to him by a mutual friend. Williams replied to it by the following letter, which also mentions incidentally another parcel of real estate in this city, as to which he was himself the trustee for Mrs. Blount:
· "MElIIPHIS, May 28, 1877. "E. O. Kirk, Esq., New York-DEAR SIR: I wish you would advise with some legal friend in New York, or with some clear-headed business man, as to the propriety of putting the deed on record. I do not think it is to Anna's interests, as she is now situated. The youngest of the children will be of age in less than two years, and then it can be done, if thought 'best. You are aware that there was no marriage coutract with Col. Blount. I have received a very abusive letter from him. He seelllS to have taken offense at my requesting Anna to send me her direct address, as I wished to consult with her as to my answer to Gippie's bill in chancery about the Main street lot conveyed by you to Col. which is still in suit. I stated to Anna that I wanted to know her wishes and feelings, and not Col. Blount's; that he could be consulted on law points involved, but not otherwise. You know, and Col. Blount knows, that my appointment as trustee was to stand between her and her first husband; and, if so, certainly as to the second husband; and that it was my duty to make all my communications as trustee to her in person. or, if by letter, in such mode as would be sure to reach her, and not her husband. I know that this was my duty, as it is yours. Col. Blount is not a proper adviser for either you or me. He is anxious to get hold of this trust fund, and is in a position to improperly influence Anna. There are several reasons why this deed should not go on record, and not a single one Why it should. Anna will tell you that I have never failed to pay her the interest quarterly in ad/vance. It is now paid up to first JUly, with $25 over, which I sent Christmas to Turner, and did not take out of the January or April remittance. There could not possibly be any investment on which interest has been and will he more promptly paid. If I paid over the money, it would have to be loaned out here on real estate, by the terms of the deed. It could not be loaned at more than legal interest, which is six per cent. No court here would permit it to be disturbed or changed so long as I was willing to keep it, because it could not be more safely invested, as you well know, and as has been shown by the prompt payment of interest in advance. I thinl, the friends you may consult with will agree with me, and you surely will, that nothing could be worse for Anna in her present situation than to part with this small but regular income for the comparatively trifling sum for which her life-inte1'est in it conld be sold, and which would be at once absorbed in paying Col. Blount's debts and expenses. Now, as long as this deed is kept off the records, Col. Blount finds difficulty in selling Anna's life-estate for what it might bring, and putting it in his pocket; and it is your duty and mine to render such a sale difficult, and even to regard Anna as improperly influenced if she shonld wish it. You surely agree with me in this. Your clear-headed friends will agree with me. You cannot doubt my friendship for Anna, and you know, or if you don't you can easily find out, that I am not getting six per cent. on my money, and I certainly would not keep this a day except on Anna's account. My keeping it has insured the re,qular payment of interest, and that with her was, and is, bread and meat, as she writes me. These are siJme of the reasons why the deed should not be recorded, which must govern you and me. If you will consider that this deed is the only evidence I have to the lot,-in fact, gives me my title,-you will see that I am
KIRK V. WILLIAMS.
the party to be anxious about the record of it, and that Anna's interest is not jeopardized in any way by not recording it. Col. Blount's sale of Anna's life-estate is made difficult; that is all. Now, Ed., I wish you to reconsider this matter; to look after Anna's interest; to understand that neither you nor I are to consult with Col. Blount, or be influenced by him; and write to me. And I wish you to consider this communication confidential so far as Col. monnt is concerned. He is out with me because I have baffled him. Don't write Anna what I have written. It is not necessary to write to Col. Blount, or to write to Anna what I have written. You can think for yourself. You are in fact bound as a trustee to do so. Consult with any of your friends, and see if all do not agree with methat, to protect Anna's interest, it is best this deed should not be recorded at present. "Yours, trUly, JOB. R. WILLIAMS."
To this letter Kirk replied, insisting on the registration of the deed, which, however, was not done for more than 11 year after Williams' death. No verbal or written promise to pay the $10,000, except such as can be implied from or based on the facts above stated, has been proved in the case. ·It is agreed that defendant has fully administered the personal assets coming into his hands. Clapp fi Beard, for plaintiff. Craft If Cooper, for defendant. HAMMOND, J. The defendant insists that no promise to pay for the land has been proved by any memorandum thereof in writing, signed by the party sought to be charged, and that the statute of frauds, therefore, is a complete protection. Code Tenn. (T. & S.) § 1758. Counsel argues that, Williams not having signed the deed, the plaintiff's only remedy is against the land itself, in the absence of some separate note, bond, covenant, or other like security containing a promise, signed by him, to pay the purchase money; that, although a vendor may proceed to enforce a technical vendor's lien, some mortgage that has been given, or a reserved lien like that contained in this deed, as the case may be, he can thus subject the land only because there has been attached to the grant a limitation or condiUon, which the grantee has accepted or created, that he shall not hold the land without paying the consideration for the grant; but that, whether he gives a :mortgage, a lien is implied by the law, or is reserved by the grantor, this does not operate to bind him further than the land goes; and, to hold otherwise, is to violate the statute of frauds. There certainly seems to be some rule like this as to a for the mortgagor, although he signs the mortgage deed, is not bound beyond the land, unless there is an express stipulation or covenant in the deed to that effect, or some separate bond or other promise to pay the money. And so much favored is the doctrine that no sUAh promise shall be implied from the mortgage, that some states have ena.cted statutes forbidding the implication. 4 Kent, (12th Ed.) 145, and notes; 1 Jones, l\fortg. §§ 677, 678; Scott v. Fields, 7 360. But this rule does not arise out of the statute of frauds at all, but from the peculiar nature of a mortgage, which was the conveyance of an estate upon condition, which not being performed, the be··
came absolute; and it may be doubtful if the rule prevails in Tennessee, as we shall presently see. n is difficult to determine or define the precise character of a lien reserved in the face of a deed, like that we have here, but it seems in Tennessee to be settled that it is substantially a mortgage; that is to say, it stands as if the vendee had executed a mortgage to the vendor for the purchase money, and "creates an express lien by contract or agreement of the parties." Lincoln v. Purcell, 2 lIead, 142; Thompson v. Pyland, 3 Head, 537; Hines v. Perkins, 2 Heisk. 395; Chit. wood v. Trimble, 2 Baxt. 78; Miskclley v. Pitts, 1 Tenn. Leg. Rep. 207; Gudger v. Ba1'llCs, 4 Heisk. 570. In last case the court was considering the position of a purchase under a title bond, the ,endor reserving the legal title as a security for the purchase money, and this too was likened to a mortgage. Because of the confusion that has grown up on the question, the court takes the pains to review the relation of vendor and vendee, in such cases, for the very purpose of refuting the notion that the vendee holds the land on any condition upon a breach of which the vendor's rights attach, and decides that it is solely by the contract of the parties that the lien exists; the vendee being in possession under its stipUlations, one of which is that he agrees to the lien for the purchase money as if upon his own contract. If this be so where the legal title is reserved to the vendor a fortiori, must it be so where that passes to the vendee, and only a lien is reserved on the face of the deed, as in the other cases cited? Of course, it must be observed that while the court assimilates all these liens to that of a mortgage, it does not mean the old commonlaw mortgage, in its technical sense, but the modern signification of that term, as one applied to any lien created by express contract of the parties as a security for a debt. These cases, therefore, seem to militate against the argument of the defendant construing this deed, particularly since, within itself, there is a recital that the $10,000 is, "by express agreement; to constitute a lien upon said property." The circumstance of giving a note for the purchase money cannot be material, because that is a wholly independent contract, and the agreement of the vendee that the vendor shall have the lien provided for -whatever be its characteristics-rests alone on an implication from his acceptance of tho deed reserving t.he lien, for he has never signed it. And in one of the above caseH the court even held the lien efficacious to secure the notes of strangers to the original contract, which were substituted for the notes of the vendee. Hines v. Pe'rkins, supra. 'Ihis agreement for a lien is as much within the statute of frauds as a promise to pay the purchase money could be, and if one can be implied from a hare acceptance of the deed, without a violation of that statute, it is difficult to conceive why the other may not be. '1'rue, the defense was not suggested in these cases, but so important a matter could scarcely have been overlooked by counsel anJ the court. Our court seems to treat a transaction like this as a contract by the vendee
KIRK 'iI. WILLIAMS.
to secure the vendor; as if, in fact, he had formally executed It deed of trust or mortgage; and these adjudications will show that, in many respects quite as important as the statute of frauds in its relation to the contract, this estimate of the transaction has a formidable bearing on the rights of the parties. Moreover, in Gmlger v. Lancaster, 6 Yerg. 476, it was held that an action of debt would lie upon the mortgage itself, without any express stipulation to pay the money, the same as if a separate bond or note had been given. It was, in fact, a deed of trust, called by the court a mortgage, but it contained no other stipulation as to the debt than the ordinary condition of such instruments that, if the amount secured should not be paid by a given time, the trustee might sell. This seems to be somewhat contrary to the general rule on this subject, that if there be no express covenant to pay the money contained in the mortgage, the creditor has no other remedy than a foreclosure, and is confined to the land, unless he has some separate note or bond on which to bring his action; but, taken with the other cases, it shows the tendency of our state court to treat the mortgage itself as sufficient evidence of in· debtedness without a separate bond or note. Whether this applies as well to that implied mortgage arising on a lien reserved in a deed not signed by the debtor, it is unnecessary to determine, but it is difficult to see why it should not be so applied, and it may be mentioned here that, while the cases cited speak of separate bonds or notes as necessary, this is somewhat misleading, for the reason that, outside of those cases governed by the statute of frauds, a debt may rest in parol, and a mortgage or like security may be given for it, it being none the less a debt for which an action would lie; as if, for example, a deed of trust or mortgage should be given to secure an open account. It will be found, I think, that the real inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, there was a debt due which is secured, or only a transaction from which no more can be implied than that the security given should be the full extent of the liability; and this inquiry may arise on a proceeding to foreclose the lien, for, in modern practice, either by statute or rule of court, it is competent for the foreclosing court to give judgment for that part of the debt which remains after the lien is exhausted, or it may arise on an independent action for that balance. It is, after all, an inquiry for the intention of the parties, and that intention should prevail when it is reached by that which is competent proof of it. The defendant files, in support of his argument, an unreported opinion of the supreme court of Mississippi, of date March 17, 1884, in the case of Vicksburg R. Go. v. Oates, and a printed brief upon an application for rehearing, in which the whole doctrine of the effect of the acceptance of a deed-poll by the grantee is considered in relation to the covenants thereof as against him. It was the case of a grant to a railroad company, imp03ing certain obligations upon the grantee as to the keeping up of stations, use of cars, etc. The bill alleged non-compliance with the
obligations by the company, and asked that it be compelled to perform or to surrender the premises, or for an account of damages, etc. There was a which the court below overruled, and an appeal, upon which the decree below was affirmed. The statute of frauds, among other things, was relied on by the demurrer. The court held that the proper construction of the deed was that the stipulations were imposed as conditions and not as promises or assumptions of personal obligations by the grantees; that the estate was forfeited by a breach of the conditions; and that the grantor had a right to re-enter; but that, while this was the technical situation, it was apparent from the nature of the contract that the parties did not intend, in fact, that there should be a forfeiture and re-entry, because it was not expected that a railroad, with its iron rails, ties, etc., should be torn up and the land returned in a less valuable condition to its former uses, to the detriment of the grantor and injury of the grantee; and, as no specific performance could be decreed for want of a promise binding on the grantee, the only relief possible was compensation or damages. This seems to me to sustain the idea that on a proper proceeding, where there is no violation of a positive rule of law, like the statute of frauds, the court will enforce the actual intention in spite of the technical attitude of the estate as conveyed by the deed; so that, if the defendant should be right in his contention here as to the construction of this deed, it would not aid him as against his actual intention to pay for the land, if that can be proven by a parol promise to do so. This opinion and brief are full of authorities that might be useful in determining the question so much argued as to the rem· edies at law and in equity which a grantor has to compel compliance with the stipulations of his deed made for his own benefit, and imposed on the grantee solely by his acceptance thereof; but I do not see that any of them deal with the obligation to pay the purchase money, but only with those stipulations that concern the use of the land and the like, providing for easements, etc. The court says:
" The doctrine that, by accepting an estate conveyed by deed-poll, the grantee binds himself to the performance of the covenants contained therein as fully as though he had signed and sealed the instrument, though recognized in many cases, was never satisfactory to some of the most learned judges, and, without regard to the statute of frauds, has been repudiated by many courts." Platt, Cov. 16; Lock v. Wright, 1 Strange, 571; Sutherland v. Lishnan, 3 Esp. 42; Kimpton v. Eve. 2 Ves. & B. 353; v. Weaver, 7 Pa. St. 329.
I am informed by the clerk of the court that, since this case was submitted, the opinion was, on reargument, withdrawn, and the court contented itself with overruling the demurrer, and reserving these questions until a final hearing of the case. I cite it merely to show the force of defendant's position, and to say that an examination of many of the cases cited by the court and in the brief leads mr, to the conclusion that the apparent conflict of cases may be reconciled by attention to the distinction between using the deed as a foundation
of the aclion, and as mere evidence of facts which will support an action aliunde the deed itself. Locke v. Homer, 131 Mass. 102; Lee v. Newman, 55 Miss. 372; Bishop v. Douglass, 25 Wis. 696; Newell v. Hill, 2 Metc. 180; Finley v. Simpson, 2 Zab. 311; Cooper v. Louanstein, 37 N. J. Eq. 284; S. U. 22 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 738, and notes; Browne, Frauds, 7,124; 2 Sugd. Vend. 238, and notes; Abb. Tr. Ev. 385; Rawle, COy. 462. The case of Cooper v. Louanstein is a very recent and elaborate consideration of the subject, and in one of the opinions the very distinction above adverted to was taken, namely, that while the covenant might not establish an easement, and be binding as such on the grantee, yet "the statement in the deed, it being accepted by Louanstein, was a circumstance of evidence, more or less strong, as the case may be, tending to show a parol agreement for such easement." And as there had been a part performance it could be enforced, notwithstanding the statute of frauds. The dissenting opinion maintains with force that even at common law the deed became, by its acceptance, ipso facto, the deed of the grantee, and he might be sued in covenant upon it. Now, this suit is not an action on the deed, but on a promise to pay the consideration for the land. It is true, the declaration makes profert of the deed, and is susceptible of that construction, but under our peculiar mode of pleading in Tennessee, where all forms are abolished, and the pleader may sue upon "the facts of the case," it must be treated as a statement of the facts and maintained as a good pleading, if, on the facts, it contains a sufficient cause of action in any view of them. The construction placed on the declaration by plaintiff's counsel, that the deed is stated merely as an inducement, and as one of the facts of the case, must therefore prevail, if he is, on that construction, entitled to a cause of action, whether he would be entitled to sue on the deed itself as a foundation for the action or not. Whittenton Manuf'g Co. v. Memphis ct Ohio River Packet Co. 21 FED. REP. 896. So treating it, the question is whether the statute of frauds requires the promise to pay for lands, for which the grantee has accepted a deed, to be in writing; and if not, what effect the deed and its acceptance may have as evidence of the promise, and what effect the other writings relied on in this case may have as evidence of that promise, and not whether the deed may be a foundation for the action, or whether it and the other writings are sufficient in themselves to answer the statute of frauds. If the statute of frauds requires that promise to be in writing, in view of the conflict of authorities already noticed, while I am inclined to think the deed itself might, in Termessee, be a foundation of the action, I am not prepared to say that our court hal.! so, precisely, decided; nor am I satisfied that the unsigned paper written wholly by Williams would answer the statute of frauds as a memorandum of that promise. It seems to be a kind of chronological or historical statement of the facts, in which his name appears,
written by himself, but it is not clear that he intended it as a signature which was to be as efficacious as if he had formally signed the paper. Thi8 intention seems to be necessary. Browne, St. Frauds, §§ 354-357; 1 Sugd. Vend. 212; Barry v. Coombe, 1 Pet. 640; S. C. Lawv. Pub. Co. Ed. and notes. But, however the law may be elsewhere, it is established in Tennessee that the promise to pay the consideration need not be in writing; that the execution of the deed by the grantor satisfies the statute of frauds, and an action will lie for the purchase money, which may be sustained by parol proof. Davis v. Tisdale, 4 Yerg. 172; Whitby v. Whitby, 4 Sneed, 472; Perry v. Central S; R. Co. 5 Cold. 138; White v. Blakemore, 8 Lea, 49,59; Mowry v. Davenport, 6 Lea, 80, 93; Taylor v. Ross, 3 Yerg. 330; Gilman v. Kibler, 5 Humph. 19. Here, then, the action may be maintained, and the alleged promise to pay for the land is proved by the execution of the deed, its acceptance by defendant, his possession under it, the unsigned paper written by himself taken as his admission of facts implying the debt, by the admissions contained in his letter of May 28, 1877, and by his payment of the quarterly interest for all the years before his death; for, as was said in Howel v. Price, 1 P. Wms. 291,294, "the running on of interest, and its carrying interest, was proof of its being a debt." And these facts prove the promise averred in the declaration, whether the documents would be, in themselves, sufficient to answer the statute of frauds or not, if that statute required it to be in writing. No reasonable mind can doubt that there was an express promise to pay, and that it is reasonably proved by such facts; but certainly the law would conclusively imply from them a promise in support of the averment in the declaration. Somewhat ·similar reasoning has led me to the conclusion that the statute of limitations cannot avail the defendant. We have no statute requiring the new promise to save the bar to be in writing, nor, indeed, any rule of law requiring an express promise at all, but only an express acknowledgment of a subsisting debt. The supreme court of Tennessee, recognizing the intensity of a temptation to evade the statute by frfl-ud and perjury, has, in the absence of that wise legislation which prevails in some states requiring a new promise in writing, held very rigidly to the rule that there shall be no implication of a waiver of the statute from partial payments, either of principal or interest, and requiring a distinct acknowledgment on the part of the debtor of a continuing liability to pay. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY has stated the rule as to the character of acknowledgment that will save the bar in terms that fully meet the requirements of the Tennessee cases, as I understand them. He says:
"In order to remove the bar of the statute it is necessary that there should ei tller be an express promise to pay, or an admission of the debt in such terms as would imply that the party wa,; liable and willing to pay it." Georgia Ins. 00. v. Ellicott, 'raney, Dec.13I; Bell v. JJIorrison, 1 Pet. 362; Moore v.
Bank of Columbia, 6 Pet. 86 j Fort Scott v. liickman, 112 U. S. 150; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56. And Mr. Justice DAVIS likewise enunciates a rule, as to the effect of partial payments, that is the same as we have it in Tennessee. U. S. v. Wilder, 13 Wall. 254. So, if the ruling in Palmer v. Andrews, McAIl. 491, that this is a commercial question which the United States courts will decide independently for themselves, be correctwhich I doubt-the two jurisdictions in this state quite agree on the subject. v. Gass, Mart. & Y. 270; Belote's Ex'rs v. Wynne, 7 Yerg. 533; Thompson v. French, 10 Yerg. 453 ; Hale v.Hale, 4 Humph. 183; lIunterv. Starkes, 8 Humph. 656; Butlerv. Winters, 2 Swan, 91; Broddie v. ,Johnson, 1 Sneed, 463; Bogers v. Southern, 4 Baxt. 67; Steel v. Matthews, 7 Yerg. 313; Locke v. Wilson, 9 Heisk. 784; S. C. 10 Heisk. 44-1; Folk v. Bussell, 7 Baxt. 591.I do not understand that either the supreme court of the United States, or the supreme comt of the state, excludes the circumstance of a partial payment from the consideration of the triers of the fact whether there has been a new promise or an acknowledgment of the debt or not, but only to limit its probative value so that of itself it shall constitute neither a promise nor acknowledgment. Elsewhere, even when there has been a statute, as in England and some of our states, requiring the new promise or acknowledgment to be in writ· ing, the statute usually makes an exception in favor of the implica· tion of an acknowledgment from partial payments, which shows the potential character of that circumstance where that rule has prevailed. But with us, standing alone, part payment implies nothing as an acknowledgment of the balance of the debt, for that which he pays may be all the debtor wishes to admit to be due; but if there be other circumstances attending the'payment, showing that it could be made only on a distinct acknowledgment of the whole debt, those circumstances, taken with the payment, are a sufficient basis for the implication of a promise to pay that will save the bar. This was always the correct rule, even where partial payments were fully recognized as saving the bar, and is yet, under the exception in their favor, contained in the above-mentioned statutes. Any departme from it was a misunderstanding of the rule. In l'vlorgan v. Rowlands, L. R. 7 Q. B. 493, it is stated that part payment is not sufficient "unless it be such that a jury might fairly infer a promise to pay the remainder. No doubt, very slight circumstances might be sufficient to support such an inference where there is a legal duty to pay." And the circumstances surrounding payment were scrutinized, perhaps not always with the best judgment, before the fact of payment could be treated as an acknowledgment, and often it was unavailing. Thus the fact that the payment was that of interest on the debt was often, though not always, a controlling circumstance in favor of the acknowledgment. If the debt was payable "on demand," the fact that interest was paid was q,uite conclusive of an acknowledgment to save the bar; if not so
payable, the circumstance was of less force; and there is a distinction sometimes taken between interest accrued before and after the bar attached. Bamfield v. Tupper, 7 Exch. 27; Brown v. Rutherford, 14 Ch. Div. 687; Maber v. Maber, L. R. 2 Exch. 153; Morgan v. Rowlands, supra; Sigourney v. Drury, 14 Pick. 387, 391; Gilbert v. Collins, 124 Mass. 174; Hopkins v. Stout, 6 Bush, 375; English v. Wathen, 9 Bush, 387; Cocker v. Cocker, 2 Mo. App. 451; Shannon v. Austin, 67 Mo. 485; Wood, Lim. 150, and notes. Nor has Lord TENTERDEN's act in England, nor the legislation in our own states, that have sub· stantially re-enacted that statute, changed the rule either as to the precise character of the promise or acknowledgment required, or as to the effect of partial payments, except in states like California and Nevada, which have left out the exception in favor of partial pay· ments contained in 'Lord TENTERDEN'S act, or Wisconsin, which has abolished all kinds of acknowledgments, and requires an explicit written promise. The only effect of the legislation is to require a written memorandum of the acknowledgment or promise; but when we come to test the sufficiency of the memorandllm, we apply precisely the same rule as before in reference to the character of the promise or acknowledgment, as shown by the parol testimony. Only the mode of proof has been changed. In Lee v. Wilmot, L. R. 1 Exch. 364, in considering the sufficiency of a letter, it is said:
"If there be a distinct acknowledgment, it is not necessary there should be a promise in explicit terms; but from the acknowledgment a promise may be inferred,unless it be accompanied by a refusal to pay, or any other circumstance which excludes that inference."
And in Re River Steamer Co. L. R. 6 Ch. App. 822, Lord Justice MELLISH says:
"Now, it is perfectly settled law what is'the description of letters which will take the case out of the statute. * * * Before this statute, not only a verbal promise to pay a debt more than six years old. but a bare, unconditional acknOWledgment of its substance made within six years before action brought had been held sufficient to take the case out of the statute. But now, in order to revive the liability of the debtor, after the expiration of the six years, by subsequent acknowledgment or promise, there must be proof of some writing, signed by himself, either containing an express promise to pay the debt, or being in terms from which an unconditional promise to pay it is necessarily implied. If, therefore, the writer, although he admits the debt, refuses to pay it, or reserves the matter for further consideration, or refers the creditor to some third person for payment, or the like, this will not be sufficient to prevent the operation of the statute. That being the rule, there must be one of these three things to take the case out of the statute: Either there must be an acknowledgment of the debt from which a promise to pay is to be inferred; or, seco'ndly, there must be an unconditional promise to pay the debt; or, thirdly, there must be a conditional promise to pay the debt, and evidence that the condition has been performed."
The mere writing of the name and date on a past.due note was held Bufficient. Bourdin v. Greenwood, L. R.13 Eg. 281; Quincey v. Sharpe, 1 Exch. Div. 72; Skeetv. Lindsay, 2 Exch. Div. 314. And these cases,
KIBX '1. WILLIAMS.
professedly, only follow the rule laid down by Lord TEN'l'ERDEN himself long before his celebrated act was Tanner'v. Smart, 6 Barn. & C. 603; Cleave v. Jones, 6 Exch. 573. And see Fairbanks v. Dawson, 9 Cal. 90; Pena v. Vance, 21 Cal. 142 ; Palmer v. Andrews, McAll. 491; Wilcox v. Williams, 5 Nev. 206; Pierce v. Seymour, 52 Wis. 272; S. C. 9 N. W. Rep. 71; Williams v. Gridley, 9 Mete. 482; Sibley v. Lumbert, 30 Me. 253; Palmer v. Gillispie, 95 Pa. St. 340; Wesner v. Stein, 97 Pa. St. 322; Minniece v. Jeter, 65 Ala. 222; Halper v. Fai·rley, 53 N. Y. 442; Pickett v. King, 34 Barb. First Nat. Bank v. Ballott, 49 N. Y. 155; 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. (1872,) 941, 952. I have gone over these authorities and many others that convince me that our Tonnessee rulings on this subject are consistent with the better rulings everywhere, and that the only difficulty arises from misunderstanding or misapplying them in giving effect to the testimony in a particular case. No explicit promise, either verbal or written, is required, as in Wisconsin, both before and after their act requiring a written memorandum; there may be an acknowledgment of the debt sufficient to save the bar, but that acknowledgment must be of a character that from it a promise may be fairly and necessarily implied, and it may be proved in parol by any circumstances tending to show it, 'or by any writing sufficient to establish it. Partial payments, either of principal or interest, in themselves are not sufficient to establish such an acknowledgment, but, in connection with other circumstances tending to show an intention to admit a subsisting liability to pay the debt, they are as potential here as elsewhere. It is the implication from the bare payment that is prohibited to us, nothing more. Now, I concede that if we had the Wisconsin requirement of an explicit promise to pay the debt, it would be difficult to find it in any of the writings relied on here, and that it is not otherwise proved. But. apart from that, the requirement of an acknowledgment from which a promise is necessarily implied is abundantly met by this proof. In the first place, I think no one can read the deed in the light of Williams' subsequent conduct towards these parties, and certainly when that is supplemented by his admissions in the unsigned paper and in his letter of Mllty 28, 1877, and not conclude that, although Williams carefully provided for himself the privilege of paying the debt at the end of two years or before, it was really intended by the parties from the beginning as a permanent investment for the benefit of this trust, to run indefinitely. So, if we had nothing more than the recitals of this. deed, the fact that Williams went into possession under it; that he withheld it from the record to protect beneficiaries, and was so long permitted to do so without complaint; that the interest was payable quarterly, and was in fact promptly paid i,n advance before and after the six years expired,-it would be a necessary implication from these payments, under the circumstances, that having so acknowledged a subsisting liability after the bar, he promised to pay the debt. But add the v,24F,no.8-29
admissions in the unsigned "document in the letter of May 28, 1877, and the letters accompanying the remittances and receipts, and the implication of a promise, from the constantly recurring payments of interest up to his death, is .irresistible. Moreover, taking the unsigned document by itself, and more particularly the letter of ;'/[ay 28, 1877, by itself, and either of them would, in its language, be a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt from which a promise to pay it would be necessarily implied. They would be sufficiept as written acknowledgments under Lord TENTERDEN'S act, or that of any of the states examined, except Wisconsin, which requires an express promise; and, as admissions proving an acknowledgment, they are as competent and conclusive here, where we require no writing, but the same full proof. The plea of plene administ·ravit must, on the agreed statement of facts, be found in favor of the defendant, but otherwise there must be the usual judgment against him for the balance of the debt and interest. So ordered.
HALL and others v. SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF HONOR.
(District Court, E. D. Arkansas. July 9, 1885.)
BENEFICIAL 80CIETIES-SUSPENSTON OF LODGES OF BENEFICIARY ORDERS.
If the laws of a beneficiary order authorize an officer or tribunal of Ihe order to suspend a subordinate lodge for certain causes, and a lodge is suspended by such officer or tribunal for such cause, after due notice of the proceedlllgs is given to the lodge, a mere error in the finding of facts, or an erroneous application of the law to the case, which might be corrected on appeal in the mode provided by the laws of the order, will not vitiate the proceedings, nor cause them to be subject to collateral attack in any tribunal; but a suspension by an officer not vested by the laws of the order with that power, and without notice to the oftending party, is absolutely void, and cannot aftect the legal rights or change the legal statu. of anyone, and from such an order of suspension no appeal is necessary to save the rights of parties. Karcher v. Supreme Lodge, 137 :Mass. 36!!, distinguished from this case on the facts.
BY 8UBORDTNATE LODGE.
SAlim-EFFECT OF TENDER OF
A tender of an by a subordinate lodge, which is refused, is just as eftcctual to preserve the rights of a lodge and its memb 1rs as if it had been accepted. It does not have to be repeated; the burden to act after tender and refusal is on the creditor, and the debtor is only required to be ready to meet the demand wheu made.
SAME-GOOD S'fANDING AND PAYMENT OF ASSESSlI1ENTS.
In beneficiary associations, where the time and frequency of payments depend on the mortality of members, and are to be made only upon notice that an assessment is required, no liability is imposed on a subordinate lodge or its members until due notice in conformity with the laws of the order is given, and good standing is not lost by a failure to pay an assessment ofwhich no notice was given thi'ough the fault or misconduct of the supreme lodge or its officers.
At Law. Plaintiffs sue as the heirs of Joseph Hall, who was, in 1880, a member of Harrisburg lodge, No.1, 714, of the Knights of Honor, and claim the sum of $2,000 as a benefit. The case was

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Maria Moyer, one of the SRF+CTY collaborators, is back with a stunning capsule collection of ocean-inspired sculptures and jewelry, titled Blue for Loomstate. We had an intimate gathering, celebrating this unique collection and its muse, plankton, last night. The delicate pieces are now available for viewing and for sale at the Rogan Store at 330 Bowery and Bond.
The artist Maria Moyer & Brad Livingstone Black.
Maria's porcelain jewelry pieces are really perfect for any outfit - here paired with ROGAN Fall dresses.
Cheers to The Naked Grape for providing the wine.
One part of the wall installation.
Loomstate co-founder Scott Mackinlay-Hahn introducing Maria Moyer & Waves for Water, to which portions of the proceeds from Maria's pieces will go.
Maria sharing her inspirations & love for plankton!
Documentary filmmaker Nicole Mackinlay-Hahn writing on one of two Loomstate blanks. Scott is sending them to pro-surfer Greg Long & Waves for Water founder Jon Rose who have embarked on a new journey for the cause.
Guests signed Maria's guestbook and read about Waves for Water.
Read our Q&A with Maria Moyer here. Check out MariaMoyer.com and WavesforWater.org.


text:
The internationalization of U.S. history, however, is not merely a matter of academic concern. As part of the College of Liberal Arts' (and Vision 2020's) mission to globalize Texas A&M University, a U.S. in the World cluster provides our students the opportunity to study the past with an eye to the connective links that have long bound together seemingly dispersed peoples. If familiarizing students with cultural difference and enabling them to navigate the immense diversity of the present is one advantage of history, it follows that classrooms which emphasize the largest context of the American past would be most beneficial. Our cornerstone U.S. history survey courses that connect us most closely to the university's entire student body, HIST 105 and 106, have already reflected this shift in the core conceptions regarding how we present the nation's past. Syllabi and teaching material for those classes reflect the commitment of our faculty to offering a more complex understanding of American history as embedded in international affairs. It stands to reason that a U.S. in the World cluster would allow us to build off that precedent to offer a more thematically and intellectually coherent series of courses designed to prepare students for their self-consciously global lives in the twenty-first century.
Undergraduate courses which fit into a U.S. in the World cluster and in which the international dimensions of American history are particularly evident include:
HIST 105. U.S. to 1877
HIST 106. U.S. 1877 to the present
HIST 319. U.S. Immigration and Ethnicity
HIST 343. Inter-American Relations
HIST 359. American Environmental History
HIST 360. History of the American Petroleum Industry
HIST 363. History of Science in America
HIST 364. History of Technology
HIST 367. Colonization of North America
HIST 368. The Early Republic
HIST 374. U.S. after WWII
HIST 443. American Military History to 1901
HIST 444. American Military History since 1901
HIST 453. The American Frontier
HIST 462. American Foreign Relations to 1913
HIST 463. American Foreign Relations since 1913
HIST 464. International Developments since 1918
HIST 470. History of American Business
HIST 481. Various Senior Seminars
HIST 601. Colonial North America
HIST 613. Reading Seminar in the U.S. in the World
HIST 621. The Emergence of Modern America
HIST 623. America since World War II
HIST 634: Maritime History and Sea Power
HIST 645. Research Seminar in War and Society
HIST 646. Readings in War and Society
HIST 678. Readings in the Southwest and its Borders
HIST 679. Research Seminar in the Southwest and its Borders


text:
What is an IPO?
Selling Stock
IPO is an acronym for Initial Public Offering. This is the first sale of stock by a company to the public. A company can raise money by issuing either debt (bonds, debentures and convertible debentures) or equity (shares, trust units, funds, etc). If the company has never issued equity to the public, it's known as an IPO.
Companies fall into two broad categories: private and public.
A privately held company has fewer shareholders and its owners don't have to disclose much information about the company. Anybody can go out and incorporate a company: Just put in some money, file the right legal documents, and follow the reporting rules of your jurisdiction. Most small businesses are privately held. But large companies can be private too. Did you know that IKEA, Domino's Pizza, and Hallmark Cards are all privately held?
It usually isn't possible to buy shares in a private company. You can approach the owners about investing, but they're not obligated to sell you anything. Public companies, on the other hand, have sold at least a portion of themselves to the public and trade on a stock exchange. This is why doing an IPO is also referred to as "going public."
Public companies have thousands of shareholders and are subject to strict rules and regulations. They must have a board of directors and they must report financial information every quarter. In Canada, public companies report to provincial regulators such as the Ontario Securities Commission and the Autorité des marchés financiers (in Quebec). In other countries, public companies are overseen by governing similar bodies. From an investor's standpoint, the most exciting thing about a public company is that the stock is traded in the open market, like any other commodity. If you have the money, you can invest. The CEO may not approve of you, but there's nothing he or she could do to stop you from buying stock.
Why Go Public?
Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors:
Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt.
As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal.
Trading in the open markets means liquidity . This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
Being on a major stock exchange carries a considerable amount of prestige. In the past, only private companies with strong fundamentals could qualify for an IPO and it wasn't easy to get listed.
The Internet boom changed all this. Firms no longer needed strong financials and a solid history to go public. Instead, IPOs were done by smaller startups seeking to expand their business. There's nothing wrong with wanting to expand, but most of these firms had never made a profit and didn't plan on being profitable any time soon. Founded on venture capital (VC) funding, they spent like mad trying to generate enough excitement to make it to the market before burning through all their cash. In cases like this, companies might be suspected of doing an IPO just to make the founders rich. In VC talk, this is known as an exit strategy, implying that there's no desire to stick around and create value for shareholders. The IPO then becomes the end of the road rather than the beginning.
How can this happen? Remember: an IPO is just selling stock. It's all about the sales job. If you can convince people to buy stock in your company, you can raise a lot of money. IPOs like this can be extremely risky.
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) The Underwriting Process


Marlborough, Mass., April 4, 2019 — /BackupReview.info/ — ExaGrid®, a leading provider of intelligent hyperconverged storage for backup, today announced record first-quarter bookings and revenue for Q1-2019. ExaGrid grew both the bookings and revenue percentage over the same quarter of the prior year, continuing its trend of progressive growth.
Increased its worldwide labor coverage in Argentina, Colombia, Dubai, Hong Kong, Italy, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan and Turkey.
Additional integrations with Veeam Software and Zerto.
Expanded relationship with HYCU to further its penetration into organizations deploying Nutanix with ESXi and AHV.
Enhanced software so that appliances can sit behind Commvault deduplication and further deduplicate Commvault data by an additional 3X greatly reducing the storage costs behind Commvault. This allows Commvault deduplication to remain turned on.
Received recognition as a "finalist" for the Network Computing Awards.
Unlike first-generation deduplication solutions that were either built into a backup application media server or into a scale-up storage appliance, ExaGrid delivers the backup industry's only true scale-out architecture with data deduplication. It is typically half the cost of the large brand solutions and also improves backup and restore performance by combining Adaptive Deduplication with a unique landing zone.
"First-generation deduplication solutions can be cost prohibitive for backup storage and are also slow for backups, restores, and VM boots, which is why over 80% of ExaGrid's newly-acquired customers are replacing Dell EMC Data Domain, HPE StoreOnce, and the Veritas NetBackup 5200/5300 series of appliances with ExaGrid," Andrews said.
All backup storage vendors reduce storage and bandwidth to varying degrees but provide slow ingest rates because they perform data deduplication 'inline.' In addition, because they only store deduplicated data, restore speeds and VM boots are also very slow. Because ExaGrid has eliminated the three compute challenges inherent to backup storage with data deduplication, ExaGrid's ingest rate is 6X faster – and restores/VM boots are up to 20X faster – than its closest competitor. Unlike the first generation vendors that only add capacity as data grows, ExaGrid appliances add compute with capacity, ensuring that the backup window remains fixed in length. Only ExaGrid uses a scale-out architecture with a unique loading zone, which holistically addresses all of the scalability and performance challenges of backup storage.


Food, absolutely glorious food, all the way! – Bolton Live!
Food, absolutely glorious food, all the way!
As a food blogger, I am naturally quite excited that The Great British Bake Off 2016 starts tonight, with all its quintessentially British charm, warmth, tension and amazing bakes! We shall, off course, be rooting for local Pastor, the Rev. Lee Banfield, and hoping he does Bolton proud! This is followed by a new food show called 'The Chronicles of Nadiya', featuring last year's GBBO winner as she goes back to explore her Bangladeshi roots – also don't forget to book for her cookery demonstration at Bolton Food & Drink Festival on Sunday!
If you have ever thought about following a more healthy and ethical way of life, or just wonder what a vegan lifestyle is like and want to find out more, then make sure you pop along to Bolton's first Vegan Fair at Victoria Halls on Saturday. There are tasty foods on offer, jewellery, cosmetics, reiki demonstrations and (not to be left out) even luscious vegan cakes!
With all the excitement building, I did actually get round to making some courgette and sweetcorn fritters, as featured on Sunday Brunch, as we are stil getting a steady stream of courgettes on our plant. Unfortunately, in my enthusiasm, I got my timings wrong and had to leave the mix to stand. The resulting fritters were tasty but a bit of a spongy texture. Undaunted, I posted a pic on twitter and Simon Rimmer (yes, the man himself) replied and told me I had either added too much batter or too little veg. I shall be trying again this weekend, if I get chance, but if you have a go and they work out well, please send us a pic.
In a fritter sort of mood, it seems, I read a blog on Wastenot Bolton last week (check it out and get involved) about making onion bhajis from leftovers/bargain buys and it made my mouth water, so I went rooting through the cupboards to see if I had the necessary ingredients to hand. Luckily I did (the flours were a bit out of date, but dried goods are fine are they looked/smelt ok) and I also had some excess chilies to use, so I started to look around for alternative bhaji recipes as, although they are one of my favourite things, I have surprisingly never actually made them myself from scratch. I came across an interesting and very informative Guardian article on the subject, which purported to offer the solution to making the perfect onion bhaji. That may be overstating it slightly, however I have to say that they were really delicious and tasted great with some of Spice Valley's gorgeous, fresh mango chutney, which was included in a lovely taster hamper from some of the Food & Drink Festival's sponsors. Also in the hamper was some crusty fresh bread from Slattery and Franca's Pomodoro per bruschetta and, well readers, it had to be done! Simple and really tasty, especially with a few olives.
I shall be blogging about GBBO and avidly following everyone's progress. Naturally, the Bolton live team will also be out and about throughout the food festival, interviewing, filming, blogging, tweeting and probably eating! If you see us, come and say hello, and we hope you will enjoy the amazing weekend of deliciousness on your doorstep, either in person or by following our blogs etc.
Previous Previous post: Sunny Afternoon, Sizzling Evening!
Smithills ghost captured on camera?


Our good friends at 2ndVote have done some great research on this topic. Check out their story.
This morning, Sam Saladino, founder & CEO, was interviewed on GRN Alive. He discussed Catholic Values Investing and our upcoming Catholic Values Investing Conference.
Dave Palmer, Guadalupe Radio Network Executive Director of North Texas, hosts this weekly program with news and a special emphasis on stories impacting Catholics in cities where the Guadalupe Radio Network stations are on the air.
Article: "Why I Use the Word Catholic to Describe the Ideal Economy"
The adjective Catholic is rarely employed to describe the ideal economy we need. Many would see its use as mere window dressing to make the free market appear a bit more compassionate. Everyone knows that the business of creating wealth comes from industry and business. The accountant's ledger is the only true measure of this wealth. Catholic can only be, at best, a timid adjective that modifies the more efficient noun, economy.
I am the first to recognize that the role of economics is to define norms by which goods and services are produced, exchanged, and consumed. These norms are reflected in ledgers. However, economic activities also involve moral acts that are influenced by our free and rational nature and the pull of our sentiments. Thus, the Church can play an important role in the concrete functioning of an economy, although it is often hidden.
I was reminded of this fact by a news item that triggered these considerations. A 2017 Merrill Lynch report found that some 34.2 million people provide unpaid care to older people in America. Most of these caregivers are family. Together they form the backbone of the nation's long-term elderly care system, supplying an estimated $500 billion in free care every year. This is three times the amount spent by Medicare's long-term care budget.
I was struck by this example of a current economic problem—the cost of caring for the elderly. It is resolved with almost medieval means by non-monetary processes. While not all these care-givers are Catholic, their actions are modeled by Christian virtues reflecting the Church's charity and solicitude for the suffering. This charity can far outperform government programs at no cost to the taxpayer. It provides better and loving care. There is no question that this care helps the formal economy.
This is where the "Catholic economy" offers great benefits. In a Catholic society, there are many social and cultural structures like the care-givers that generate enormous value. The non-monetary processes found in family, religion, and communities are sources of immense material and spiritual wealth that largely go uncompensated, remain unrecorded, or defy quantification. Saint Thomas Aquinas called this economic activity, economia pura. It is this pure domestic economy that modern economists ignore because it cannot be found on spreadsheets. French historian Fernand Braudel claimed that one third or more of dealings in modern industrialized economies are found in this sector.
I believe these vast sectors constitute the heart and soul of the economy and merit my use of the august adjective of "Catholic." Perhaps the most productive thing a person can do to fuel prosperity is to help make the economy more Catholic.
These wealth-generating social structures can be found everywhere in Catholic society. Most of them were unknown in pagan society. At the same time, they are systematically rejected and disparaged in our neo-pagan modern culture.
The first institution is the family based on the Catholic insistence of the insolubility of marriage. This extremely stable relationship is a dynamic source of uncompensated activity that freely provides its members with shelter, nourishment, education, affection, and healthcare.
The Church raises marriage to the level of a sacrament and thus provides the couple with the necessary graces and strength to bring new souls into the world and provide for their formation and education. The Catholic family becomes not just a basic social unit but an economic unit that generates and distributes wealth and benefits to its members.
There are other lesser institutions influenced by the Church that display similar qualities. We can refer to local, cultural, or religious associations that generate arts, civic spirit, and works of charity that enrich the community in ways that cannot be quantified. This can also be seen in any kind of organic neighborhood or ethnic community where inhabitants receive the great benefits of solidarity and a distinctive local identity.
Inside a climate of mutual trust provided by the Church, common local transactions, barter, or acts of neighborliness are clearly valuable actions that strengthen economy. We might also point to the long history of the Church's support of agriculture where the land, besides freely giving its fruits and creating abundant wealth, also creates a sense of self-sufficiency, the development of character and a strong attachment to property.
All of these institutions and activities enrich society and culture. They have an indirect impact upon the formal economy and truly nourish and sustain it.
However, it is the Church that is the principal agent in this society that supports the economy. It is not just a generic "Christian" outlook that made Western civilization economically great. The Church served as the foundation for our civilization, which includes our economy. This is why I use the adjective Catholic, and not the ecumenical Christian, to modify the ideal economy we need.
In the first place, the Church is an institution that enriches culture and generates enormous value in society in the spiritual sphere. We can look at her liturgical, moral, and religious acts that communicate untold spiritual benefits to a community. Giving meaning and purpose to life is a priceless commodity in today's world of depression, hedonism, and loneliness.
The Church further gratuitously bestows culture, charity, and learning upon her children and society as a whole. It was the Church that first established universities and hospitals. Her religious orders freely served the poor in their hospitals and even went to the point of seeking out patients in the highways and byways. The Church has the unique ability to get people to think of serving others for the love of God.
These indirect means are joined by more direct means by which the Church helped facilitate the smooth running of economies.
Transactions depend upon trust and honesty. As guardian of the moral law, the Church naturally issues objective norms that concretely help identify and denounce injustice in the economy and create a climate of trust. In addition, the Sacrament of Confession not only insists upon honest dealings but enforces restitution for theft or damage.
Even in the field of economic theory, it was the Church that led the way. Contrary to the popular myth, the science of economics was not invented by Adam Smith (who saw Catholic charity as disruptive). The early foundations of economics are found in the writings of medieval figures like Saint Bernardine, Saint Antoninus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and other early Scholastics.
Libertarians, the Austrian School of Economics, and other economic schools all trace their origins back to Spain's School of Salamanca (1500-1650). Its Dominican friars developed complex economic concepts like the theory of utility, the quantity theory of money, opportunity cost, and liquidity preference long before modern economists.
We cannot underestimate the role of the traditional teachings of the Church in forming the modern economy. This same moral guidance is still much needed in increasingly impersonal economies run by algorithms and quarterly earnings reports.
However, there are limitations to a Catholic economy.
Justice must govern every economy, whereas the Church depends much upon charity and poverty. This is why an economy cannot be governed by charity lest it leave the marketplace in the hand of those who would take advantage of the honest.
The Church is limited to creating the conditions for economies to flourish. It can do no more. The marketplace can never be a church although markets were often situated in the Church squares. Nor can a Church become a marketplace.
"Catholic" must always be an adjective to the noun "economy." Whenever this adjective tries to become the noun, it quickly leads to the moneychangers of the temple whom Our Lord so violently cast out.
I fear for the time when all vestiges of the Church are scrubbed from economy. Then there will be no more familial caregivers. The family will be reduced to a mere collection of selfish individuals. The moral law will be erased by the unbridled passions of frenetic markets. The marketplace will once more be left to the dog-eat-dog brutality of those who seek only their own profit. Society will fall apart, as it is today, and no amount of tax dollars, jobs or economic policies will put it back together.
This is why I use the adjective Catholic to describe the ideal economy we need. When the Catholic element is expunged, the heart and soul of economy will also be gone and we will be left with the terrifying ledger of a world without God.
When you visit your doctor, you expect to receive honest advice about your health. But, the pharmaceutical company, Bayer, has taken this an opportunity to push their products into your system.
Bayer, the company behind many household brands including Claritin, Coppertone, Aleve, and Aspirin, paid 11,850 doctors over $2.5 million in "consultation fees" starting in 2013. These doctors would receive significant payments and coincidentally would heavily recommend and prescribe its contraceptive product Essure to women.
Essure is implanted in a woman's fallopian tubes and causes scar tissue to form and block the tubes so that sperm can no longer travel to the egg. It is a permanent procedure that renders a woman sterile and unable to become pregnant for the duration of her life. Though this product has been used over 750,000 times since 2002, several concerns have arisen lately about the safety of the product.
In April of 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an order that restricted the sale and distribution of Essure due to patients not being provided with "adequate risk information" by their doctors. More than 10,600 women have claimed that Essure has resulted in serious health issues for them. Device migration, organ perforation, autoimmune disorders, and accidental pregnancies have affected these women. There is currently a class action law suit against Bayer for these injuries. Also, a Netflix documentary titled "The Bleeding Edge" about the lives of the women who suffered has just been released. Bayer has announced they will discontinue the product by the end of 2018.
IWP Capital currently lists Bayer as a "Fail" due to their contraceptive production. As of July 27, 2018, their stock price is down -4.93% Year To Date and their 1-year and 3-year trailing returns are down -11.78% and -7.58% respectively. Many analysts are downgrading the stock to a "Sell" recommendation amid the Essure controversy.
How should the church encourage wealth creation?
An interesting article from Acton Institute on wealth creation from the position of faith. Your thoughts?
Elevate Credit is a subprime lender that focuses on providing responsible loans to low credit or no credit borrowers.
Many subprime lenders are involved in predatory lending which is in violation of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops' Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines. However, Elevate Credit does the opposite and, instead of targeting vulnerable low credit individuals with predatory rates and terms, offers low credit individuals the opportunity to help build credit with reasonable rates and transparent terms. This is in line with the spirit of the guidance of the USCCB and promotes socially responsible business.
The stance of IWP Capital is that Elevate Credit is a "Pass" with no involvement in any controversial activities.


text:
HomeNewsBritish "bitcoin-bank" prepares for IPO worth $ 52 million
British "bitcoin-bank" prepares for IPO worth $ 52 million
The listing could be announced next month. In anticipation of it, Mode expects to attract additional financing – now the company is looking for investors.
British fintech company Mode (formerly R8 Group) plans to place shares of its "bitcoin bank" on the stock market and thus raise about £ 40 million (approximately $ 52.6 million). As reported by The Daily Telegraph, the company may officially announce its listing next month.
Launched in 2019, the Mode app allows its customers to buy and sell Bitcoin, send cryptocurrency to other users, and also make money on deposits. The function of online payments will soon appear in the app – a payment department has already been created in Mode, which cooperates with Chinese Alipay and WeChat Pay.
Mode's website says that its clients' assets are stored at an unnamed but "respected" custodian. The latter provides insurance coverage of "up to $ 100 million" through the world's largest insurance market, Lloyd's of London. Earlier it was reported that Mode is a client of the BitGo service.
At the end of August, the R8 Group launched a rebranding of the company to "bring together the different enterprises of the Group under a common identity." At the same time, the company announced the hiring of former Alipay chief executive Rita Liu as the new commercial director of Mode.
According to The Daily Telegraph, in anticipation of the upcoming IPO, the company expects to raise an additional £ 7.5 million (approximately $ 9.9 million) in funding. Mode is now actively looking for investors.
As expected, after the pause caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, another wave of IPOs is rising in the stock market. Mode can join the galaxy of cryptocurrency companies that have already announced plans for the placement.
Recall that in June, the Chinese mining company Ebang was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase and blockchain company Diginex are planning to list on NASDAQ. Bithumb also plans to go public, but this time in the South Korean market.
Note that not all companies choose the IPO procedure to place their shares on the stock market. Some, like Coinbase, are going to use the direct listing process. Others, such as blockchain company INX, conduct "digital IPOs," which are essentially security token offerings (STOs).
British fintech
ETC Lab CEO: 51% attack is a universal problem of PoW networking
73% of Argentines see cryptocurrencies as a store of value
JPMorgan will launch a neobank in UK in early 2021
Investment bank JPMorgan intends to establish a neobank in the United Kingdom under the Chase brand. This was reported by the SkyNews TV channel, referring to some tech-insudstry sources. Sky News interviewees said the investment […]
Swiss conglomerate Credit Suisse will compete for the market with Revolut and Monzo
Credit Suisse has rethought its retail strategy to focus on digital banking. The CSX application will allow private clients of the conglomerate to access the full range of services online. Swiss financial conglomerate Credit Suisse […]
TransferWise fintech unicorn profit doubles amid pandemic
The positive financial results at TransferWise are considered a consequence of the payback of the startup expansion strategy. Compared to other UK fintech startups, the company has barely felt the impact of COVID-19. UK-based fintech […]
Australian convicted for mining Ethereum and Monero on supercomputers
Sydney resident Jonathan Hu has escaped ten years in prison for mining cryptocurrencies on government supercomputers. Writes about this local edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. In 2018, Jonathan Hu worked as a contractor for [...]


text:
Big Picture Press
Candlewick Entertainment
Candlewick Studio
Templar Books
Bestsellers & Awards
Authors & Illustrators Online
books by G. Neri
G. Neri
"I am an accidental writer," says G. Neri, author of When Paul Met Artie, Hello, I'm Johnny Cash and Ghetto Cowboy. "I never thought I would—or could—write stories for young people, but life steered me from being a filmmaker and digital media producer to kids books." Neri has since written 10 books of prose and poetry and has won numerous awards, including a Coretta Scott King Honor and a Horace Mann Upstander Award.
"All my stories are inspired by real life. I think everyone has a story to tell and my job is to find those stories." He is widely-traveled, having done school visits in 47 of the 50 states in America. He has also lived in Berlin, Montreal and Vancouver, traveled all over Europe and toured in Russia with his book, Ghetto Cowboy. But his craziest adventure was this past winter when he was given a grant from the National Science Foundation to go to Antarctica! "That was a trip of a lifetime," he said. "I was able to go to some of the most remote places on earth and walk in the footsteps of Shackleton and Scott. Sometimes you have to go to great lengths to find stories."
Normally, he lives in the jungles of the gold coast of Florida, where he swims with manatees and kayaks amongst alligators. He has a wife and daughter and a cat named Mexico that came out of the jungle during a hurricane. "I try to say yes to all new experiences, whether its eating jellyfish salad, skydiving, or writing a new kind of story he's never attempted before. Life's an adventure. Take chances and live it to the fullest."
browse bios by:
Author Illustrator
policies |piracy |site map | © 2016 - Candlewick Press


Our creative workshop studio, event space and research facility where we facilitate and host events.
We understand the importance of great creative spaces. Whether you´re looking to hire a hosted venue for workshops, research groups, brainstorming, launch events, away days or simply somewhere to get together, The Roofspace on our top floor in Windsor, provides a unique flexible environment where people can relax, think, talk and be open to new ideas. We can help facilitate your event or you can simply hire The Roofspace as a venue, we provide the big and little things that really matter and make an event memorable.
for use together or alone.
or to think on your own.