have looked upon dragnet clauses with disfavor and have required that the debts sought to be brought within them reach be specifically referenced or bear some relation to one another. See, e.g., Potomac Coal Co. v. $81,961.13 in the Hands of an Escrow Agent, 451 Pa.Super. 289, 679 A.2d 800, 804 (1996), appeal denied, 547 Pa. 743, 690 A.2d 1163 (1997) (finding “the better-reasoned approach [to be] the one applying the relatedness test”); Mead Corp. v. Dixon Paper Co., 907 P.2d 1179, 1182 (Utah App.1995) (ruling that a dragnet clause will not be construed to cover future advances unless they “are of the same kind and quality or relate to the same transaction or series of transactions as the principal obligation secured”); Merchants Nat’l Bank v. Stewart, 608 So.2d 1120, 1126 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>); Dixie Ag Supply, Inc. v. Nelson, 500 So.2d
holding that a contract may incorporate by reference provisions in another instrument but only to the extent that the incorporated matter is specifically set forth or identified holding that under the old state employment merit system all employees of the state are deemed classified unless they have been specifically exempted form that category holding that antecedent debts will not be deemed within a dragnet clause unless they are specifically identified in the instrument holding that parties not specifically identified are not released holding all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication