Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 259 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Another Person), 22.10 (Possessing a Lottery Ticket), 22.11 (Possessing Rundown Sheets, Etc.), and 22.15 . . . Instruction 22.15 is authorized for publication and use as proposed, with a correction to the title and . . . Lastly, in instructions 22.10, 22.11, and 22.15, on our own motion, we replace the references to a repealed . . . In addition, in instruction 22.15, we also correct the citation to section 849.094(8)(b), Florida Statutes . . . This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015 [176 So.3d 938] and 2018. 22.15 [MANUFACTU R . . .

IN RE MAYA RESTAURANTS, INC. C. v., 585 B.R. 761 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2018)

. . . Id. at 10:22.15-10:22.48; 10:50.51-10:50.55 ("The portion that's nice can be easily fixed and operated . . .

DOE, v. OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY,, 289 F. Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. Va. 2018)

. . . . § 2A:84A-22.15 (West 2017) ; N. M. Stat. Ann. § 31-25-3 (West 2017) ; N.Y. . . .

ODONNELL, On v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (S.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . .”); October 7, 2016, 22.15 at 18:45, C.D.D. (Mr. D.: "Currently, I’m mostly living out of my car.” . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INCORPORATED L. L. C. s v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION,, 834 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . Code §§ 22.15, 22.16. . . .

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, v. FLORIDA, Of, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1095 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . & Restated Lease Agreement § 22.15, ECF Nos. 1-4 & 1-5.) . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES REPORT NO., 148 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Predator); 11.15(b)-(k) (Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply with Registration Requirements); and 22.15 . . . This instruction was adopted in 2014. 22.15 [MANUFACTURING] [OWNING] [STORING] [KEEPING] [POSSESSION . . .

UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON, Sr,, 535 F. App'x 509 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . Kenneth Patterson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 22.15 grams of cocaine base. . . . And the amount of crack Patterson had in this case (22.15 grams) was “considerable.” Id. at 43. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 122 So. 3d 302 (Fla. 2013)

. . . 3.6(e)(2) (Involuntary Intoxication Resulting in Insanity); 21.16 (Falsely Per-sonating an Officer); 22.15 . . . Lesser Included Offenses Comment This instruction was adopted in 2013. 22.15 [POSSESSION] [PERMITTING . . .

CENTURY REAL ESTATE LLC, a v. ALL PROFESSIONAL REALTY, INC. a M., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . A-D § 22.15.) . . . A-D § 22.15.) . . .

GE INVESTORS, P. C. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, R. S., 447 F. App'x 229 (2d Cir. 2011)

. . . announcement caused GE’s stock price to fall from $24.50 at the close of market on October 1, 2008, to $22.15 . . .

D. McGUIRE, v. J. McGUIRE,, 42 So. 3d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 22.15, at 429 (2d ed. 1997). . . .

WEISS, v. KEMPTHORNE, U. S., 683 F. Supp. 2d 549 (W.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . thirty-eight acres of property to be used as mitigation property is comprised of wetlands, for a total of 22.15 . . .

DeBIASI, v. CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE,, 537 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . See CBA § 22.15. . . .

TMJ IMPLANTS, INC. a v. AETNA, INC. a CIGNA a a CIGNA a CIGNA a a CIGNA a CIGNA a, 498 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . Ch. 22.15 (citing Restatement §§ 585-592A in discussion of absolute-privilege defenses); id. . . .

ADAMS, v. Jo ADAMS a k a, 126 So. 3d 250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 22.15, at 463-466 (2006); 3 Fla. . . .

In VOELKEL, v. S., 322 B.R. 138 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005)

. . . . $40,451-$9,540/$139,561 = 22.15%. . . . .

In CARLIN, v., 318 B.R. 556 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2004)

. . . 14, 2002 Principal as of 11/01/02: $4,506.01 Interest as of 11/01/02: 110.20 Penalty as of 11/01/02: 22.15 . . .

KEACH v. U. S. TRUST COMPANY, N. A. f k a U. S. N. A. D. S. Co- S. Co- S. R. E. A. A. Jr. P. R. D. P. T. N. J. R. II, F. S. H. K. F. L. J. W. A. J. B., 313 F. Supp. 2d 818 (C.D. Ill. 2004)

. . . selection of a 10% risk premium was more appropriate, the value of F & G’s stock would still have been $22.15 . . .

MURPHY, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 273 F. Supp. 2d 292 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . projected enrollment of 957 students for the coming academic year, and the student-teacher ratio of 22.15 . . .

ROGERS CORPORATION, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 275 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 22.15(c), requested a hearing. . . .

NEWELL RECYCLING COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 231 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 22.15; see also In re Green Thumb Nursery, Inc., FIFRA Appeal No. 95-4A, 6 E.A.D. 782, 1997 WL 131973 . . .

T. H. K. H. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 736 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . PA-DOVANO, FLORIDA APPELLATE PRACTICE § 22.15, at 429 (2d ed.1997). . . .

RESNICK v. ESTATE OF RESNICK,, 729 So. 2d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Kaufmann, 504 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 515 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1987); § 22.15(1), Fla. . . .

BUCKLEY v. COMMONWEALTH MORTGAGE ASSURANCE COMPANY SERVICE COMPANY, a f k a, 725 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . PADAVANO, FLORIDA APPELLATE PRACTICE § 22.15, at 429 (2d ed.1997); see also Maryland Cas. Co. v. . . .

NEC CORPORATION HNSX v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,, 978 F. Supp. 314 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . ; Compare Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 Fed.Reg. 1,344, 1,351 (Dep’t Commerce 1996) (prelim.determ.)(22.15% . . .

NEC HNSX v. U. S., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 933 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)

. . . Reg. 1,344, 1,351 (Dep’t Commerce 1996) (prelim, de-term.)(22.15%), with 61 Fed. . . .

GREENE, v. WCI HOLDINGS CORP. WCI II J. R. R. B. S. A. CEO,, 956 F. Supp. 509 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Each post-split warrant entitled plaintiff to purchase one share of Wickes common stock at $22.15 per . . . The drop appears to be because each warrant — at an exercise price of $22.15 — could now only be exercised . . .

BLOUNT, v. ALABAMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE,, 869 F. Supp. 1543 (M.D. Ala. 1994)

. . . Coats, and Norma McCrory each had tenure exceeding Blount's and ranging from 22.15 years to 28 years. . . .

In QUALITY BEVERAGE CO. INC., 170 B.R. 310 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1994)

. . . Hunt testified that he helped prepare, and he signed, the Form 22.15, Business Personal Property Rendition . . .

UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ- ACOSTA,, 989 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1993)

. . . stipulated in writing that "the gross weight of the seized marijuana is 27 pounds and the net weight is 22.15 . . .

In MORRIS,, 150 B.R. 446 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1992)

. . . Under the contract Debtors were to make weekly payments of $22.15 for a period of 52 weeks. . . .

FARMLAND DAIRIES, v. T. McGUIRE, LEHIGH VALLEY DAIRIES, INC. a Co. v. T. McGUIRE,, 789 F. Supp. 1243 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . . §§ 22.8, 22.15(c). . . . .

In ICS CYBERNETICS, INC. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANCORP N. J. v. ICS CYBERNETICS, INC, ICS S. A., 123 B.R. 467 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Bankr.R. 7054; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); see generally 3A MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, supra, ¶¶ 22.14 [2, 5], 22.15 . . .

C. MANN, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. E., 683 F. Supp. 27 (D. Conn. 1988)

. . . See 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.15 (2d ed.1987). . . .

BEE, v. Dr. GREAVES,, 669 F. Supp. 372 (D. Utah 1987)

. . . Greer would also like to exclude 22.15 hours of lawyer time spent by CDN at the trial. . . .

M. O GILVIE, L. O L. O a M. O a By M. O v. INTERNATIONAL PLAYTEX, INC., 821 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1987)

. . . Gray, The Law of Torts § 20.5, at 147-61, § 22.15, at 393-94 (1986). B. . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 22.89 18.20 21.19 22.72 29.01 22.79 19.51 22.63 23.01 18.76 23.16 24.60 16.37 23.12 23.37 25.26 24.02 22.15 . . .

GREAT WESTERN CITIES, INC. v. J. CURTIS, Sr. S. a, 588 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)

. . . Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 22.15, at 22-153 (2d ed. 1984); cf. Continental Ill. . . .

FITZGERALD, v. GREEN VALLEY AREA EDUCATION AGENCY,, 589 F. Supp. 1130 (S.D. Iowa 1984)

. . . could recall whether plaintiff had mentioned either of his other handicaps. . 670 Iowa Admin.Code § 22.15 . . .

ALTAIRE BUILDERS, INC. v. VILLAGE OF HORSEHEADS, G. R. C. J. R. J. W., 551 F. Supp. 1066 (W.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . Id., Certiorari and Mandamus § 22.15 at 202-203. . . .

IRVING TRUST COMPANY v. NATIONWIDE LEISURE CORPORATION,, 562 F. Supp. 960 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . supra, 93 F.R.D. at 111; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 13.36, 13.39 and 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.15 . . .

TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHREVEPORT, v. KILPATRICK, 675 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . Prudential Insurance Co., 331 F.2d 346, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 1964); see also 3A Moore, supra note 4, H 22.15 . . .

EVERETT PLYWOOD CORPORATION, a v. UNITED STATES, 651 F.2d 723 (Ct. Cl. 1981)

. . . price (indicated stumpage plus road costs) was $51.05 MBF for Douglas-fir; $35.70 for hemlock; and $22.15 . . .

EVERETT PLYWOOD CORPORATION, a v. THE UNITED STATES, 227 Ct. Cl. 415 (Ct. Cl. 1981)

. . . price (indicated stumpage plus road costs) was $51.05 MBF for Douglas-fir; $35.70 for hemlock; and $22.15 . . .

DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC. v. FERNANDEZ,, 489 F. Supp. 434 (S.D. Fla. 1979)

. . . Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil, § 1715 at 451-544; 3A Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 22.15 . . .

WASSERMAN, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, INC. IRVING TRUST COMPANY v. NATIONWIDE LEISURE CORPORATION, 490 F. Supp. 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)

. . . Nutmeg Airways Corporation, 66 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.Conn.1975); 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 22.15 at 22-149 . . .

CROSSWHITE v. UNITED STATES, 438 F. Supp. 368 (D. Or. 1977)

. . . to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business”. 3B Mertens, Federal Income Taxation § 22.15 . . . Mertens § 22.15, at 124. . . .

FIRST TENNESSEE NATIONAL BANK, CHATTANOOGA, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 421 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Tenn. 1976)

. . . The same conclusion is reached in 3A Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.15, p. 3132, where it is stated: A . . .

I. T. O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, T. s MARITIME TERMINALS, INC. Co. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, D. MARITIME TERMINALS, INC. Co. v. HARRIS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STEVEDORES v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPT. OF LABOR, T., 542 F.2d 903 (4th Cir. 1976)

. . . Davis, supra, § 22.15 at 280. . . .

LIBERTY NATIONAL BANK TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a v. ACME TOOL DIVISION OF RUCKER COMPANY, 540 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice Paragraph 22.15. . . . Moore, Federal Practice Par. 22.15, p. 3130, n. 6; 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil . . .

CHEROKEE INSURANCE COMPANY v. L. A. KOENENN, Jr. D. v. E. SEATON M., 536 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice § 22.15. . . .

F. C. GAINES, Jr. v. SUNRAY OIL COMPANY, AMTEL, INC. v. E. WILKINSON J., 539 F.2d 1136 (8th Cir. 1976)

. . . See generally 3A Moore’s Federal Practice H 22.15 (1974). . . .

NACIREMA OPERATING CO. INC. Co. v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., 538 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1976)

. . . Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 22.15, at 283 n.23 (1958). . . .

COMMERCE INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CABLEWAVE LIMITED, 412 F. Supp. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.15, at 3129 (1974). Cf. Prudential Insurance Co. v. Trowbridge, supra. . . .

YOUNGER, v. GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a, 418 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Va. 1976)

. . . 258 salary of claimant $6,248.44 salary of white counterparts $6,141.21 claimant's daily wage rate $22.15 . . .

COLEMAN MOTOR CO. a v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 525 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1975)

. . . 4.94 6.71 5.61 1963 51.42 22.07 13.96 6.47 6.84 5.71 1964 49.49 24.22 14.25 6.63 5.88 6.16 1965 51.86 22.15 . . .

RUANE v. NEW YORK STATE RACING AND WAGERING BOARD, 400 F. Supp. 819 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)

. . . Moreover, rule 40.6 limits the modes of punishment available by referring specifically to rules 22.12-22.15 . . . See Racing Rule 22.15 and discussion at page 7. . . . . The jockeys may seek review of any discipline pursuant to Racing Rule 22.15. . . . .

E. HAZEN, M. v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a, 518 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1975)

. . . In section 22.15 of the contract it is provided that “[ejmployees subject to force-reduction because . . .

BELL s, v. NUTMEG AIRWAYS CORPORATION, 66 F.R.D. 1 (D. Conn. 1975)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶22.15, at 3130 (2d ed. 1966); see also John Hancock Mut. Life Co. v. . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶22.15, at 3130 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

J. BRENNAN, v. GILLES COTTING, INC., 504 F.2d 1255 (4th Cir. 1974)

. . . traditionally been allowed to defend their decisions in the courts of appeals, see Davis, Administrative Law § 22.15 . . .

PROVIDENT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF PHILA. v. EHRLICH a k a a k a W. d, 374 F. Supp. 1134 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.15, at 3129 (2d ed. 1970). . . .

JEFFERSON STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CRAVEN, 365 F. Supp. 861 (M.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . Such a position is taken in 3A Moore, Federal Practice § 22.15, at 3134: “[T]he purpose of both the statute . . .

E. KOCH, v. UNITED STATES, 457 F.2d 230 (7th Cir. 1972)

. . . See 3B Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 22.15. . . .

JAMES TALCOTT, INC. v. ALLAHABAD BANK, LTD. CITY TRADE INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS COMPANY,, 444 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . But see 3A Moore’s Federal Practice U 22.15 n. 6. . . .

TRAK MICROWAVE CORPORATION, v. MEDARIS MANAGEMENT, INC. a H., 236 So. 2d 189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice §§ 22.04(2) and 22.15. . . . See Volume 3A, Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 22.15, p. 3129. . . .

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a v. KAISER d b a, 213 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . from $40.25 to $44.30; the tax on the separate agency locations thereof was raised from $20.15 to $22.15 . . .

JAMES J. RITTER v. THE UNITED STATES, 183 Ct. Cl. 875 (Ct. Cl. 1968)

. . . Pasadena residence: (j) Closing costs- 477.85 (k) Miscellaneous expense (remainder of authorized $500)_ 22.15 . . . The $22.15 miscellaneous charge, bringing plaintiff’s total reimbursement up to $500, was more than used . . .

H. COPPAGE, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a a, 263 F. Supp. 98 (D. Md. 1967)

. . . Co., W.D.Pa., 120 F.Supp. 650 (1954); 3 Moore, op. cit., 22.15. . . .

BLUEBERRY LAND COMPANY, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 361 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . Income Taxation § 22.15 (1958) [hereinafter cited as Mertens]. See also Malat v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY,, 240 F. Supp. 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)

. . . . § 22.15. . . .

M. WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 329 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1964)

. . . rise to as much litigation as any other in the entire Code.” 3B Mortens, Federal Income Taxation § 22.15 . . .

SCHUETZLE, v. D. DUBA, O. N. Al, 201 F. Supp. 754 (D.S.D. 1962)

. . . Power Commission, 345 U.S. 153, 73 S.Ct. 609, 97 L.Ed. 918 and 3 Davis Administrative Law, Section 22.15 . . .

v., 38 Cust. Ct. 513 (Cust. Ct. 1957)

. . . Government refused to concede that compliance was had with the provisions of sections 22.7 (e) and section 22.15 . . . C. 1313, 1624.) ******* 22.15 Failure to obtain inspection and supervision of lading. — Whenever the . . . plaintiff in this case has not contended that the regulations, represented by sections 22.7 (e) and 22.15 . . .

RAINIER, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, 137 Ct. Cl. 210 (Ct. Cl. 1957)

. . . One of the contractors agreed to reduce his unit price from $22.15 to $21 per coat. . . .

C. HAYCRAFT, v. THE JAVA SEA, 143 F. Supp. 303 (W.D. Ky. 1956)

. . . Libelant expended for transportation from Memphis to Louisville for plane fare $22.15, $4.50 for taxi . . .

HINES, v. FRED JONES COMPANY,, 229 F.2d 213 (10th Cir. 1956)

. . . committed reversible error in striking from the complaint allegations alleging that the company violated § 22.15 . . .

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA CO., 173 F.2d 79 (7th Cir. 1949)

. . . These predatory discounts and other preferences amounted to 22.15% of A&P’s total profits in 1939; 22.47% . . .

v. W. C. Co., 36 C.C.P.A. 47 (C.C.P.A. 1949)

. . . D. 51254, and subsection (e); and in section 22.15. . . . there'was no customs inspection of the shipment for drawback purposes, drawback shall not be allowed. 22.15 . . . Furthermore, it will be observed that section 22.15, supra, is in harmony with the other provisions of . . . authority for allowing drawback without inspection of imported merchandise is provided for in section 22.15 . . .

W. C. Co. v., 20 Cust. Ct. 115 (Cust. Ct. 1948)

. . . Section 22.15 of the same regulations, likewise promulgated at the time of exportation of the merchandise . . . involved, reads as follows: 22.15 Failure to obtain inspection and supervision of lading. — Whenever . . .

E. v. L. v., 41 B.T.A. 752 (B.T.A. 1940)

. . . common stock of the Corn Products Refining Co. and Penick & Ford, Ltd., Inc., in 1934 was, respectively, 22.15 . . .

v., 7 B.T.A. 687 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . determination of deficiencies in income tax as folloivs: For the year 1919, $5,803.06; for the year 1920, $22.15 . . .

, 5 B.T.A. 61 (B.T.A. 1926)

. . . example, one stockholder received a check for $283.04 which represented “ $210.06 refund on wheat, $22.15 . . .

JOHN D. SPRECKELS BROTHERS COMPANY v. THE STEAMSHIP NEVADAN AMERICAN HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, 1 D. Haw. 359 (D. Haw. 1903)

. . . It is a very large tug, having a length of 99.6 feet, a tonnage of 160, breadth of beam 22.15, a draft . . .

DEPUTRON v. YOUNG, 134 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1890)

. . . north line 18 feet; thence south along Leighton’s line 200 feet to' the place of beginning, containing 22.15 . . . Deputron, defendant, being 22.15 acres was worth (40,000) forty thousand dollars. . . .