Volume 1 — Michigan Reports

<p>Under the Ordinance of 1787, a widow is entitled to dower, as at common law1, in all the lands of which her husband was seized during coverture.</p> <p>Actions for the recovery of dower are not within the statute of limitations of 5th Nov. 1829, Laws 1838, p. 408.</p> <p>The right to dower is unlike any othor right to land known to the law, and its . peculiar nature is such as to exempt it from the operation of all general stat-< utes of limitations, however broad and comprehensive, in which it is not named, or by unavoidable implication included.</p>

<p>Under R. S. 1838, ejectment must be brought against the person in actual possession of the premises, when they are'occupied by any one.</p> <p>A verdict in ejectment was as follows": “ The jury find for the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession, during her lifetime, of the one undivided third part of [describing four eighty acre lots, according to the United States survey], except so much of said two last described portions or parcels of land as is contained in the record of the plat of the village of Royal Oak, recorded in. record of deeds for said county of Oakland, as the reasonable dower of the said plaintiff in said premises.” Held,</p> <p>1st. That the description of the land in the verdict was sufficiently certain, and that it would be good in a declaration.</p> <p>2d. That although the verdict, did not find defendant wrongfully withheld the premises, yet that it was good, as it was intelligible, and no doubt could arise as to what was the intention of the jury.</p>

<p>'WIicto A obtained possession of the promises occupied by B, by knocking the door opon with ¡t hammer in B’s absenoé',- arfd in A’s afeeneo B soon after-wards re-entero® by similar violence. Held, that A’s temporary occupation so acquired was not such qmet ami peaceable possession as would' enablo him to maintain forcible entry and detainer under ¿..Sr</p> <p>To Bustain a complaint for unlawful and forcible entry and detainer, under B. 84 thero should be proof of such acts of violenoe as amount to a broach of the poace. Proof that the defendants (there being only two of them) repaired alone to tho premises, and that one of them pounded u’pon tÉíé' door and it was opened, whereupon they both entered, is not sufficient,-</p>

<p>■ Case reserved from Macomb Circuit Court. Jfcn. action was brought by plaintiff on a judgment rendered in his favor against defendants by one Sheldon, a justice of the peaces on 8tíj Septejnb®1» 1887, .of winch the following is a copy:</p> <p>Archibald Spear, vs. Harlehigh Carter and James H. Rose.</p> <p>Judgment by written confession of the above named defendants in favor of the above named plaintiff, for eighty-eight dollars and eighteen ■cents damages, and costs of suit.</p> <p>On the trial the justice’s docket was proved, containing an entry of which the above js a copy, and .was then offered in evidence by the plaintiff and admitted by the court, though objected tp by defendants on the ground the judgment was void. Evidence was also given to .show the original papers in the case could not be found, that the justice had left the state, but no written confession w;as produced. A. •yerdict Was rendered for plaintiflj and (je/endants afterwards moved foy .a new trial, which motion was reserved by the court,</p>

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Court, Assumpsit. Defendant became surety for costs in a justice’s court for one James Sutliff, in a suit brought by Sutliff against Dunn, the plaintiff. Sutliff recovered judgment-for $40 damages and I13..20 costs, before the justice, and Dunn appealed to the circuit court.

<p>The oath required to bo taken by a collector of taxos (sec. 9, eh. 4, tit. 5, part 1, R. S.) on returning lands on Which the taxos have not been paid, may be administered by the deputy county treasurer, in the absence of the treasurer from his office.</p>

<p>Error in Lenawee Circuit Court. Assumpisit by Frost and Galo against Welch, for money had and received. On the trial it appeared Welch was a justice of the peace, before whom a judgment had been recovered by Frost and Gale against one Miles, on which an execution had been taken out and delivered to a constable, and that the constable had received of Miles on the execution, in part papunent of it, bills of the Erie and Kalamazoo Rail Road Bank, which he paid over to Welch, who receipted the amount on the hack of the execution. Frost and Gale afterwards demanded of Welch the amount of money mentioned in the receipt, when he tendered them the hills he had received of the constable, which they refused to aceeprt. Y/lien the hills were ¡receiyed by the justice, the proper of the hank was in circulation to some extent as money, but was not equal to specie. The court charged the jury, that a justice of the peace who had received money on a judgment rendered by him, was liable for it to the judgment creditor, jn an action for money had and received, after demand and refusal; .fhat in receiving money on a judgment, the justice acts under the law, as agent for the judgment creditor, with limited powers; that he is authorized to receive in payment the constitutional currency of the country only, and that if he receives depreciated bills and discharges the judgment, lie renders himself liable for the amount. The defendant excepted to the charge, and a verdict having been returned against him,, and judgment entered upon it, he sued out a writ of error.</p>

<p>MaaS;’ J.,- delivered the opinion of the oourt, of which the following is an ah; Btraot:</p> <p>A hill filed hy a creditor against the administrators of Ms deceased debtor, and others, to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land made hy the deceased in his life-time, so that the land might he available for the payment of his debts, is not witMn B. S. p. 288, sec. 10, prohibiting the commencement of suits against administrators within one year after their appointment, &c., the land not being assets in the hands of the administrators,</p>

<p>Motion for a perpetual stay of execution. Goodwin & Hand recovered a judgment in tbe circuit court of Oakland against Parks, wbo sued out a writ of error from this court, which affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Between the argument of the cause and the decision of the court affirming the judgment, Parks was discharged in bankruptcy, and now moved for a perpetual stay of execution on the judgment.</p>

<p>A certiorari will not lie to remove proceedings lad before a justice of tie peace, under B. S. 1838, to determine whether a mill pond is unhealtlful and productive of disease by reason of tie decay of standing, lodged, or fallen timber.</p>

<p>Debt on judgment recovered in 1824. Plea, statute of limitations. Replication, that in Novi 1882, a pluries execution was taken out on the judgment; that on the lYth of the same month defendant filed a bill in chancery and obtained an injunction, restraining proceedings on the execution; that on 17th Nov. 1885, it was stipulated between the parties in the chancery suit, that the injunction be dissolved, that the pluries execution be set aside, that there be a reference to a master to take testimony in the chancery suit, and to state an- account between the parties, to state the amount due on the judgment,- and ascertain the amount of any and all legal and equitable set-offs to the judgment. That testimony was taken under the stipulation by both parties; that the master made his report in January, 1888, and that in March, 1846, the case was heard in the court of chancery, and a decree made dismissing the bill with costs. On demurrer, ike replication was held bad, as the case clid not come within the exceptions of the statute of limitations, and the replication did not show such an acknowledgment of the debt as would warrant the implication of a new promise.'</p> <p>Where a new promise is set up to take a case out of tlxo statute of limitations, it ought to be proved in a dear and explicit manner, either expressly, or by such an unqualified acknowledgment as authorizes its implication.</p> <p>The acknowledgment should contain an unqualified and direct admission of a present subsisting debt, which the party is liable and willing to pay, and be unaccompanied by any circumstances or declarations which repel the presumption of a promise, or intention to pay.</p>

<p>Whether in ejectment for land purchased at sheriff’s sale by pne not a party to the execution, it is necessary to prove the judgment on which the execution was issued. Query.</p> <p>The journal of the court, in which its judgments and all its proceedings are entered from day to day, and signed hy the court, is sufficient evidence of a judgment.</p> <p>A warrant of attorney and plea of a defendant taken from the fihs in the case, is evidence, in the same court, of the appearance of the defendant in the suit.</p> <p>Sy appearing and going to trial in an attachment suit, defendant waives all prior irregularities.</p> <p>An order made hy the court, under K. S. 1838, for the sale of real estate taken- in an attachment suit, goes to the sheriff in office for the time being, and not to his predecessor who Berved the writ of attachment. The court will presume the law of a sister state is the same as that of their own state, unless the contrary is shown.</p> <p>A judgment is not a contract within the inhibition of the constitution of laws inri pairing the obligation of contracts.</p> <p>To pass the title to real estate sold on execution undorthe act of 1841, it is not necessary it should appear, froxji the-officers x;eturn to tlxe execution, that.qithoj of the appraisers was chosen by defendant, or tlxat ho had an opportxxnity to choose one.</p> <p>The settled doctrine as to sales under decrees and judgments is, that the purchaser is not concerned with anything except the judgment, levy and sale. All other questions are between the parties to the judgment and the officer mating the sale.</p>

Case reserved from Jackson Circuit Court. Ejectment for lots 3 4, 5, and a part of 6, in the village of Jackson, tried before the Hon. Warner Wing, in May, 1846. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>In an action on tho case f°r flowing land, the declaration alleged plaintiff- was lawfully, seized in fee and possessed of the land flowed. Held, that the whole, avermept was material, and must he proved as stated. Held, also, that proq^ of plaintiff’s possession under a claim of title founded upon a deed, not emanating from the sqwoe of title, or traced hack to a person so claiming, did not raise a legal presumption of seizin in fee in the plaintiff; and further, that iff such possession was evidence of seizin, it was at most hut a hare presumption^ liable to he. overcome hjr other proof, as title in a third person.</p>

<p>A judgment against C, in-a, justice’s court,, for $24..22 damages and'SI..92.costs, was stayed by S for six months, instead of three months as the statute required. After the expiration of the six months, the justice issued execution on the judgment against both C and S, on which a mare belonging to S was taken and sold. In an action of trespass for taking and selling the mare, by S against the justice, Held, the justice had no right to,issue the execution against S, for wanb.of jurisdiction, and that, in doing so, he was a trespasser.</p>

The defendants wrere indicted in the District Court of the county of Wayne, for publishing an obscene paper.

<p>“ A quantity of com consisting of about 200 bushels, and a quantity of rye consisting of about 100 bushels,” is not a sufficient description of the property to maintain replevin.</p> <p>In replevin a defective description of the property must betaken advantage of by special demurrer, as it would be held sufficient after verdict, avowry, or plea of property in defendant.</p>

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the court of chancery. Romeyn obtained a decree of foreclosure against Hale, in the court of chancery, and the mortgaged premises were about to be sold under the decree, by a master, when Hale applied to the chancellor on certain affidavits and exhibits, for an order staying the sale.

Cask reserved from Oakland circuit court.. Replevin. The proceedings were instituted against the defendant by the Christian name of James. After the affidavit had been filed and the writ issued and served, but before the execution of the replevin bond, it was discovered that the defendant’s name was Joseph; and the plaintiff thereupon moved the circuit court for leave to amend the affidavit and writ by inserting the latter name.

Bates sued Delevan before a -justice of tbe peace, in trespass.

John Holiday, on 29th November, 1841, made his last will and testament as Mows: “ In the name of God, amen, I, John Holiday, of the Sanlt Ste. Marie, Michigan, do make and declare this my last will and testament, in manner and form as follows.

An action on the case was brought by Reeves in the circuit court, against the plaintiffs, in error, for flowing, by means of a dam kept up by them, the north-west quarter of section thirty, town one south of range five east, and the east half of the north-east fractional quarter of section twenty-five, in the same town, in the county of Washtenaw, of which lands the declaration alleged that Reeves was lawfully seized and possessed.

Mr. Douglass moved .to strike a bill of exceptions from the record. The affidavits he proposed reading in support of his motion, were entitled, “ Gardner D. Williams ads. Charles W. Whipple and Theodore Romeyh.” Mr. Davidson^on the part of the plaintiff, objected to the reading of the affidavits, as they were not entitled in the cause. 4 Hill 19.

<p>Prror to St. Joseph Circuit Court,</p>

An action of debt was brought by Warren Hill in the circuit court, against Edward Brooks and other directors of the Detroit City Bank.

Case reserved from Lenawee Circuit Court. Assumpset against defendant as endorser of a promissory note. ■ Plea general issue.J On the trial, by consent of parties, the following agreements were introduced in evidence : An agreement between plaintiffs and defendant, dated Nov. 29th, 1839, which stated that the defendant had tjiat day assigned to the plaintiffs certain notes and mortgages, among which were a note and mortgage against William A. Hawkins, for $394 48, “which…

<p>A party wfio has stayed execution on a judgment against him in a justice's court, cannot afterwards appeal.</p>

<p>Cask reserved from the District Court for the county of Jackson.</p>

<p>It is not libelous to write and publish of and concerning one who is a druggist, “ The above druggist in the city of Detroit refusing to contribute his mite with _ his fellow merchants for watering Jefferson Avenue, I have concluded to water said Aveuue in front of Pierre Teller’s store, for the week ending June 2Tth, 1846.”</p>

<p>Error to Berrien (Jircuit Court.</p>

Shurts, on 20th April, 1843, ■filed his bill in the court of chancery to foreclose a mortgage executed to him by Engle, deceased, in August, 1839. Defendants, by their answer, admitted the mortgage, but insisted it was usurious. A replication was filed to the answer, and testimony was taken by defendants to prove- the usury.

Certiorari. In August, ÍSSÍ, Fairbanks sued Campau in a justice’s court. The constable made the following return to the summons: “ Served the within by reading personally;” to which he affixed the date of the service and subscribed his name. Campau did not appear on the return day, and Fairbanks proceeded ex parte before the justice and obtained a judgment, to reverse which Campau sued out a writ of certiorari from this court.

<p>In declaring on a promissory note absolute on its face' and in tlie ordinary form, H is not necessary to1 notice a contemporaneous agreement in -writing varying the terms of the note, contained in a separate paper. Suob- agreement is matter of defence only.</p>

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Court. This was an action of asssumpsit, brought by Rufus W'ilson for the use of Jacob S. Farrand against Solomon Davis, upon the following instrument: “ Rufus Wilson v. Charles Davis.

<p>A writ of error does not lie irons this court to ¿county court in civil cases.</p>

Replevin under R. S. 1838. The declaration averred a wrongful and unlawful detention by Loomis of a grey horse belonging to Foster. Plea, not guilty. On the trial, Foster proved that on 30th April, 1844, before suit was brought, he demanded the horse of Loomis, who refused to give him up, stating he owned .the horse himsel£ Foster then proved his damages by reason of the detention, and rested.

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Comí. Proceedings by attachment, under the act to provide for the collection of demands against boats and vessels, approved April 10th, 1839, Ses. L. 1839, p. 70. The complaint was filed on 26th October, 1847, and charged the injury to have been .committed on the 13th November, 1846. The act under which the proceedings were instituted, was repealed by ch. 173, R. S., which took effect 1st March, 1847.

A bill was filed in that court by complainants in January, 1836, to foreclose an alleged hypotheque or French mortgage given by G. Godfroy, the defendants’ ancestor, on the 18th June, 1789, to one Duperon Baby, to secure .the payment of £396 Os. 3d., New York currency, on the 28th Augne', 1790.

Margaret May brought ejectment, in the circuit court against the defendants, for her right of dower in certain premises conveyed by her husband, James May, in October, 1800, in. which conveyance she did not join, to James,Peltier, under whom defendants claimed title. The parties agreed on a case or statement of facts, in the court below, which it is unnecessary to give here as the facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from the Court of Chancery. Case reported in Walk. Ch. R. 529.</p>

Norris and Folletl, the complainants, and the defendant IiilJ, were the owners of separate mill property on the Hm on river, at Ypsiknti; their mills being on opposite sides of the river, and supplied with water by a dam extending across the river from one' hank to the other.

McKibben, the appellant, and William Edwards, who died pending the suit, filed their bill in the circuit court against Hubbard, Mooney and the appellee Barton, to reach equitable assets belonging to Hubbard, against whom the complainants had a judgment, and to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of real estate made by Hubbard to Mooney.

Case reserved from Hillsdale Circuit Court. Indictment for a conspiracy. The defendants were tried and convicted in the circuit court, and the questions reserved were as to the sufficiency of the indictment, which contained three counts.

<p>Chap. 122, R. S., does not give a lien for means and supplies furnished, or for money advanced, in the building, fitting and furnishing of a vessel. The lien in such ease is restricted to work done and materials furnished.</p>

McHenry brought an action of debt against Norvell, in the circuit court, on a judgment recovered by frim against Norvell, in that court, on the 18th November, 1844, for $851 43. Plea, nul tiel record.

<p>Error to Oakland Circuit Court. Indictment for murder,</p>

<p>Tlie general issue cannot be pleaded in a cause in the county court, or in tbe cu> cuit court, under the act to regulate and define the jurisdiction of the circuit and county courts, Sess. L. 1848, p. 286. The pleadings in both courts must conform to the provisions of ch. 92, R. S.</p> <p>A plea within the meaning of sec. 17, ch. 92, R. S., is simply a statement of the grounds of defence, without regard to the form of stating them; and yet they should be stated with such certainty as to enable the opposite party to understand definitely upon what the defendant relies as his defence.</p>

Replevin by Facey, for tire unlawful detention, by Sutton, of a horse belonging- to Facey. Sutton, who was a constable, justified the detention of the horse under two executions against Facey. On the trial in the circuit court, Facey insisted he was a practicing physician at the time the horse was taken, and that the same was exempted from levy and sale on the executions by the exemption act, Ses. L. 1842, p. 7 0.

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Court. The vessel Manhattan was attached for carelessly running down the Saltillo, with a cargo of wheat on board, under ch. 122, R. S., at the instance of Perry, who was a part owner of the Saltillo; and Kinnie, who owned the wheat, filed his claim under the attachment. A- bond was g'iven under the thirteenth section of the act, and the vessel was released.

Case reserved from Eaton Circuit Court. Assumpsit. Plea, statute of limitations.

Case reserved, from Wayne Circuit Court. Suit by attachment. Plea in abatement, of the commencement of another suit at the same time and for the same cause of action. Demurrer and joinder.

<p>Error to Wayne Circuit Court, on a judgment of that court affirming, on certiorari, a judgment of the county court.</p>

<p>Where an affidavit for an appeal from the judgment of a justice, under sec. 2 of the act, Ses. L. 1845, p. 98, was made by an attorney of the party and stated, that plaintiff recovered five dollars more than was justly and honestly due him, as deponent believed, from the facts and evidence in the cause, which were folly communicated to him, itawas held sufficient.</p> <p>The recognizance for an appeal under the act, Sea. L. 1845, p. 98, must be taken ■ before the justice by whom the cause was tried.</p>

<p>M., in 1S15, conveyed certain-premises by warranty deed to R., wbo afterwards died, and E. R., Ms widow, applied to the governor and judges of the territory of Michigan, as the widow'and legal representative of R., under the act of congress of April 21,1S06, entitled “ An act to provide for the ad justment of titles of lands in the town of Uetroit and territory of Michigan, and for other purposes,” placing her application on the deed from M. to R., and in pursuance of such application the premises were deeded to her. In an action of ejectment brought by the widow of M. for her right of dower in the premises, it was heldE. R. and those claiming under her were estopped, by the deed from M. to R., from denying the seizin of M.</p>

<p>H commenced a suit against S, in the county court, by filing a declaration and making and filing an affidavit, under the first subdivision of sec. 89, R. S. 884, on which a warrant was issued against S, who was arrested and brought into court, when he applied for and obtained an adjournment of the cause, without pleading, on giving bail. On the adjourned day he appeared and moved to set aside the proceedings, for the reasons: 1, That the affidavit was not annexed to and returned with the writ. 2, That the note and mortgage on which the suit was brought, were not filed at the time of filing the declaration. 3d, That a copy of the affidavit wa3 not served on him — which motion was overruled. He then offered to introduce testimony to controvert the facts stated in the affidavit, whioh the court refused to receive. Held, 1, That it was too late after his appearance to the action by giving bail, to object to the regularity of the proceedings or the sufficiency of the affidavit. 2, That on their merits the questions were rightly disposed of by the county court.</p>

Case reserved from Jackson Circuit Court. Eastman sued Wall in a justice’s court, in an action on the case, to recover eight dollars tax, which he as resident of a school district had been compelled to p>ay, by reason of Wall’s refusal, as moderator of the district, to sign a warrant to the rate bill for teacher’s wages. The substance of the declaration, which was demurred to, is stated in the opinion of the court.

Case reserved from the District Court of Wayne county. At the September term of the district court, in 1845, the following indictment was found against Carpenter for obstructing Woodward Avenue in the city of Detroit: “ Wayne county, ss: — The grand jurors of'the people of the state of Michigan, inquiring in and for the body of the county of Wayne aforesaid, upon their oaths present, that on the first day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three,…

<p>Oil the change from a territorial to a state government, the legislature of the state abolished, the supreme court of the territory, and transferred certain causes pending therein to the supreme court and court of chancery of the state: but certain other causes pending therein, owing to a defect in the law, Were not transferred to any court. The following year, the legislature passed an act transferring these last mentioned causes to the supreme court of the state. Held, That it was competent for the legislature to pass the act last mentioned, and that by virtue thereof, the causes were transferred to the supreme court of the state, to be proceeded in and disposed of. ‘</p> <p>•To hold a law unconstitutional, it must be a plain violation of some provision contained in the constitution. It must be an ex post facto law, or a law impairing the obligation of contracts, or a law manifestly in collision with some constitutional provision.</p>

<p>Error to Lenawee Circuit Court</p>

<p>Plaintiff sued defendant on the following instrument: “The commissioners of highways of the township of Rowland will pay the bearer twenty-two dollars when funds in roacl district number three and four.</p> <p>Alexandee Palmee,</p> <p>Rowland, Peb’y 22d, 1841. IIeney Osewell,</p> <p>Commissioners of highways in the township.”</p> <p>Sold,, it was not a warrant or order upon the township treasurer, under the act, Sess. L. 1841, p. 159, sec. 5, but a draft drawn by commissioners upon themselves, and that an action could not .be sustained upon it against the township.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Chancery. Case reported' in' Walk. Ch. R. 535. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Ejectment. Case made by tbe parties, and reserved by tbe Oakland Circuit Court. The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them with reference to tbe questions decided by tbe court, were as follows: Niles, on the- 13th April, 1836, purchased tbe premises in question of George Postal, sen., and George Postal, jun., and at tbe time gave back a mortgage to Postal sen. for a part of tbe purchase money.

<p>Under E. S. 1838, a deputy county clerk need not sign a writ in the name of the clerk. Where it was signed, “ W. M., deputy clerk, and in the absence of tho clerk,” hold sufficient.</p> <p>The under sheriff may act in his own name, and need not sign a return to a writ served by him in the name of the sheriff. E. S. 1838. Were it otherwise, when the writ appears from the return to have been served by a proper officer the return is amendable, and a judgment will not be reversed by reason of the defect.</p>

<p>Error to Oakland Circuit Court.</p>

<p>Where the plaintiff in a justice’s court exhibits a promissory note endorsed by defendant, and states that he declares against defendant as endorser, without malting any averment or statement as to the presentation of the note for payment, and notice of non-payment to defendant, the declaration is bad in substance and the judgment will be reversed.</p>

<p>Where, in an aetionof debt on a bond, the declaration alleged that the defendants acknowledged themselves to be held and firmly hound unto “ the board of supervisors of the county of St. Joseph,” and by the bond produced on the trial they were hound unto “ the supervisors of the county of St. Joseph,” the court held there was a variance between the bond declared on and the one produced, and that plaintiffs should have averred in their declaration that the hond was made to them by the name mentioned in the bond.</p> <p>A bond in. these words, “Know all men by these presents, thatl, A. B., principal, and C. D., E. E., and G. H., sureties, are held,” &c., “for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, severally, firmly by these presents,” is a joint as well as several hond.</p> <p>A hond given by the-treasurer of a county for the faithful performance of his official duties, to the hoard of supervisors of the same county, is a good and valid hond, although there is no statute requiring such a hond to be given.</p>

<p>An order made by a county conl-t, dismissing an appeal, is a judgment that may be reviewed by the circuit court, within the meaning of the 67th section of the act to consolidate the laws in relation to county courts, and for other purposes. Sess. Jj. 1849, p. 288.</p> <p>A mandamus will bo allowed to set an inferior court in motion, but not for tho purpose of requiring it to come to any particular conclusion, or of retracing its steps where it has already acted; and this irrespective of the question, whether the party has or has not another remedy.</p>

The attorney general filed an information, in tlie nature of a quo warranto, against tlie defendant for exercising the office of judge of probate for Washtenaw county.

Henry and Gustave Grandjean, who were partners, sued Buchoz in- the court below, in assumpsit on an award.

<p>Case reserved from Oakland Circuit Court.</p>

Assumpsit by Sorrel against Brewster. The declaration contain a special count, on a note executed by one Raitte, in the name of defendant, and the common counts for goods sold and delivered. On the trial the following letters were given in evidence, to prove the agency of Raitte: “Lithopolis, April 9lh, 1844. Mr. Brewster : Sir — I hare to say to you that I have on hand a lot of five to eight thousand fur skins, which I am anxious to sell.

Case reserved from Calhoun Circuit Court. The only question was as to the validity of a certificate of acknowledgment of the execution of a deed by a feme covert, under the act of 1840, Sess. L. 1840, p. 167, sec. 4.

Motion to dismiss certiorari. Iu September, 1847, the commissioners of highways of the township of Lima, in Washtenaw county, laid out and established a highway across the land of the plaintiff, who subsequently appealed from their decision to the township board In January, 1848, the township board, afterhearing the proofs and allegations of the parties on the appeal, made their decision, confirming what' had been done by the commissioners- To- review this last decision a…

<p>In trover, by one having a lien on goods against the general owner, or against orto who has converted the goods by his direction, the plaintiff can recover only according to his special interest; but against a stranger the full value of .the goods may be recovered, although exceeding the lien, and the plaintiff will be a trustee for the general owner as to the balance. If the goods converted are of less velue than the amount of fije lien, no more can be recovered than their value.</p> <p>The same rule prevails in replevin, under R. S. e.124, sec. 29, p. 549, where either of the parties, at the commencement of the suit, has only a lion upon, or special interest in the goods replevied, and is not the general owner.</p>

Case iri chancery,- reserved, from Wayne Circuit Couirt. A bill was filed in that court on 22d November, 1847, by a part of the heirs at law of John Baptiste Campau, deceased, against other heirs of said Campau, and the' devisee of Gabriel Chene, deceased, to set aside the following deed from Canqpau to Chene, dated 27th of May, A. D. 1800: “ Before the undersigned witnesses, was present Jean Baptiste Campau, of the township of Ilamtramck, county of Wayne, in the territory…

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Court. Ejectment by Henry Campau, son and beir at law of Henry Campau, deceased. The defence was a deed of the premises in controversy, dated 8th August, 1831, from the administratrix on the estate of Campau, deceased, to Peter J. Desnoyer, whose title the defendant held.

Paddack filed a bill in the circuit court against Pardee, to settle a question of right in regard to a water power, and to quiet his title to certain premises connected with it. A decree having been made in his favor, Pardee appealed to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit, in Wayne county court, against the defendants, on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: $100, ' Üetroit, April 11, 1846. Six months after date, I promise'to pay Placidus Orel or bearer one hundred dollars, at James M. Lyell’s office, value received. Andrew T. McReynolds. On the hack of the note was the following endorsement: “ I guaranty, John Watson.” Process was served on Watson, but not on McReynolds.

Case reserved, from Wayne Circuit Court. One Jessee Cram was indebted to plaintiffs, who sent their clerk to Cram’s store to collect or secure the debt. The clerk called at Cram’s place of business, and urged him for payment or security. Cram could not pay, but offered to give his note with sureties for the amount, payable in forty days, which the plaintiffs’ clerk agreed to accept.

Henry B. Lathrop brought an action of covenant, in the circuit court, against the agent of the state prison, for a breach of articles of agreement; by which the agent of tho the prison had let to him the, services of a number of convicts for a term of year*, and recovered a judgment for $5,7-35 (53.

A bill was filed by Williams against Hubbard, Barton and Mooney, for the purpose of reaching equitable assets belonging to Hubbard, the judgment debtor, and to set aside a conveyance of real estate, made by Hubbard to Mooney, to defraud creditors.

<p>A challenge to the array must bo In writing.</p> <p>The defendant, on being arraigned in the comity court on an indictment for murder, requested to be tried before the circuit judge, under the provisions of see. 7 of the act to regulate and define the jurisdiction of the circuit and county courts. Sess. L. 1848, p. 237. On the day appointed for the commencement of the next regular term of the circuit court, the circuit judge did not appear, and his absence was noted on the journal by the clerk, and the court adjourned to the next day, when the circuit judge appeared and assigned a day for the trial of the canse. Tt war. held, that the statute requiring the assignment to be made on the first day of term was, as to time, directory only, and that the assignment made on the second day of term was good within the statute.</p> <p>An order made under the act, Scss. U. 1848, p. 237, by the county judge for summoning a jury to try a causo before the circuit judge, more than three days before the day assigned for the trial, is in compliance with the letter and spirit of the net.</p> <p>Tire most usual mode of trying the impartiality of a juror, challenged for favor, is by triers appointed for that purpose, on the demand ofthe challenging party, but it is not the only legal mode.</p> <p>Where a juror is challenged for favor, .and the challenging party, when asked by the court how he will have the challenge tried, refuses to indicate the mode of trial, it may he tried by the court by administering an oath to the juror, and propounding questions to him.</p> <p>I f a party or his counsel interpose a challenge for favor, or raise any other preliminary question involving an inquiry, and then neglects or refuses to move the trial or examination thereof, he thereby waives such challenge or question.</p> <p>The degree of force, or the means to he employed, in protecting one's person or personal liberty, must depend on circumstances. To justify a person in taking the life of another, it must appear hi3 safety required him to do so.</p> <p>On an indictment for murder generally, as at common law, the prisoner may be found guilty of murder in the second degree, under R, S. oh, 153, p, 85if</p>

Case reserved from Wayne County Court. The only question in the case, was, whether the rail road company, which was incorporated in 1834, and whose charter is silent as to taxation, was liable to pay the specific tax imposed on rail road, canal and turnpike companies, by R. S. ch, 21, sec. 5.

<p>Cash reserved from Wayne Circuit Court.</p>

A suit in attachment was brought by Dean against Vanderhoof, in Wayne counly court, in Debembel, 1847, and on the return of the writ of attachment a motion was made to quash it, by Vanderhoof, for an alleged defect in the affidavit oil which it issued, which motion was denied.

Case reserved from Macomb County Court. Hart was indicted and convicted in the county court for selling liquor, contrary to the provisions of sec. 1, ch. 41, R. S., p. 184. He moved an arrest of judgment, on the ground the penalty given by the act could not be recovered by indictment, and the question was reserved by the county judge for the opinion of this court.

<p>Cabe reserved, from Wayne County Court.</p>

“ Melaneton Freeman, petitioner, v. Rebecca Freeman, respondent.— It satisfactorily appearing to this court that the defendant in this cause, Rebecca Freeman, is not a resident of this state, but that she resides in the city of New York: On motion of Johnson and Martin, solicitors for petitioner, it is ordered, that the said defendant cause her appearance in this cause to be entered within four months from the date of this order, and that, in case of her appearance, she…

Charles Draper sued Comstock in the circuit court, and declared in- assumpsit oh' a joint and several promissory note, made by Comstock and Aáb B.- Hadsell, on' the 19th October, 1840, for $70 91, payable to William Draper or order, and endorsed by him to the plaintiff.' The defendant put in a plea, stating that Orison Allen and A. S. Allen, on' lltli April, 18-38; made their promissory note for $100, payable in ninety days to thfe'ordei- of Corn-stock, the defendant, at the…

Worden sued Harrington in the circuit court on a warranty of a span of mares.

<p>A bill filed to foreclose a mortgage stated that tbe defendant, being indebted to complainant in the sum of $750, confessed five several judgments for $150 each, before a justice of the peace — setting out the judgments as they were entered on the justice’s docket — and that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of the judgments in one year. Defendant, by his answer, to which a replication was filed, admitted the judgments and mortgage, but denied the indebtedness, and insisted the judgments were void. The cause was heard on the pleadings, and the court, being of opinion the judgments confessed before the justice were void for not complying with the statute, dismissed the bill with, costs.</p>

<p>Case reserved from Lenawee Circuit Court.</p>

<p>Error to Hillsdale Circuit Court.</p>

<p>A certiorari lies to the county court to review a judgment of that- court on proceedings instituted under ch. 42, R. S., as the cause cannot he carried to tho circuit court of the county for review, under ch. 92, R. S.</p>