Volume 1 — Morris's Iowa Reports

<p> Error to Lee. </p> <p>The suit was brought on a promissory note executed in Illinois by the defendant, then a minor. The case was submitted to the court.— The defendant resorted to infancy as a defence, and in this was sustained by the court, notwithstanding the laws of Illinois in relation to the liabilitiy of minors on their contracts was not proved.</p>

Action, assumpsit. The plaintiff claimed by his declaration $146, but failing to prove one of the items, amounting to $100, defendant moved for a non-suit, on the ground that the amount to be recovered being less that $50, the Disrtict Court had no jurisdiction of the matter. This motion being sustained by the court, the plaintiff excepted and brought the cuase up by writ of error.

<p>In an action by the payee of a note, not negotiable, for the use of the assignee, it ⅛ not necessary to set forth the assignment, either in the declaration, or in the copy of the note, such endorsement being only a piece of evidence.</p> <p>No formal notice of such assignment is necessary to render the maker responsible to the assignee. The suit being instituted for the use of the latter, is sufficient to put the maker on the enquiry ; and if he pays money afterwards to the original payee, he does it at his peril.</p> <p>A blank endorsement of such a note, and the possession thereof by the person for whose use the suit is brought, is sufficient to raise the legal presumption of a transfer to him.</p>

<p> Error to Desmoines. </p>

<p>A transcript from a justice of the peace showing a conviction of A. B. for an assault and battery is not admissible in bar of a prosecution on an indictment for a riot, altho’ alledged to be the same breach of the peace for which the prisoner stands indicted with others for a riot. A riot is a distinct and different offence.</p> <p>A riot cannot be justified to remove a trespasser, even if the rioters have a just right to the possession of the land trespassed upon.</p> <p>To constitute a riot two or more persons should be actually engaged in some physical act of violence.</p>

Platoon Lapoint, Charles French, Baptiste Lapoint, George Lasier and Sapplice Lapoint were indicted by the grand jurors of Clayton county at the District Court of said county, October terra 1840, for “ with force and arras in and upon the body of Jacob F. Rebman in the peace of the United States, then and there being, an assault did make, and then and there did unlawfully and feloniously imprison, confíne and detain him, the said Jacob F. Rebman, and him the said Rebmar. did…

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Valentine Faulkner against William S. Campbell, in the District Court of Louisa county. The complainant states, that he with one Wm. L. McGuire, had executed their joint and several promissory note to the said Campbell, for the sum of $300, which note was the* property of Campbell, and in the the hands of an attorney for collection. That the note was given for a certain “ claim ” upon U. S. land.

Jlppeal from Louisa. David Miller and Valentine Faulkner, filed their bill against Henry L. McGuire, in the District Court of Louisa county. The grounds of complaint were that McGuire had sold to complainant, Miller, a certain land “claim” for $150, and Miller with Faulkner his security executed a note for the same, payable 1st March 1837, and that McGuire at the same time executed to Miller a bond of indemnity against ail prior claims.

Crawford Glover sued John Cochran, before a justice of the peace of Van Burén county, on a note of which the following is a copy: “ Twelve months after date I promise to pay A. J. Davis, or order, one hundred dollars for value received, to bear interest after due, at the rate of ten per cent, per annum ; for the payment of which I bind my heirs, &c., this seventeenth day of January 1840. “ Keosauqua, I. T. “A. w' HARLAN, [seal.”} Upon which note there were the following…

Appealed from Henry. This was a bill in equity, in the District Court, for a new trial at law. The bill stated that Moffatt had brought his action of covenant in the court of law, against the complainants in the bill, who are the appellants in this court, and that the complainants not attending court, and having no attorney present, the said Moffatt causedhheir default to be entered in vacation on the clerk’s docket, and recovered judgment thereon at the subsequent term.

This was an action of debt, brought by James C. McCutchen, against Matthew Spurlock and Claybourne W. Hughes, in the District Court of Henry county, on a note of which the following is a copy: “On or before the fifteenth day of next April, we or either of us promise to pay or cause to be paid, unto James C. McCutchen, or order, the just sum of eight hundred dollars for value received of him this 3d January 1837. “MATTHEW SPURLOCK, [seal.] “C. W. HUGHES. [seal.”] The…

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Robert B. Thompson against Russell Hotchkiss in the District Court of Van Burén county. The plaintiff filed the note in lieu of the declaration, which said note was made payable to R. B. Thompson.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note given by Anderson to Brown, for $176,96. Judgment was rendered at March term, 1842, in the District Court of Desmoines county. Chief Justice Mason, presiding. Anderson, the defendant below, brings the case hereby writ of error.

This was an action of debt, brought by D. W. Matthews assignee of James Weston Woods, against William S. Tally, and George A. Tally, upon a promissory note for $50. The cause was tried at March term 1842, before Judge Mason, and a jury, and a verdict and judgment for defendant. The grounds relied upon by Matthews, plaintiff in error, to reverse the judgment below are embraced in the opinion of the court.

<p> Error to Muscatine. </p> <p>This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace, for Muscatine county, on a note of which the following is a copy:</p> <p>“ Thirty days after date, we promise to pay the commissioners of Muscatine, the sum of twenty-five dollars, with twenty per cent, interest from date, July 14th, 1840.</p> <p>“ JAMES DAVIS.</p> <p>“ STEPHEN WHICHER, Jr.”</p> <p>Summons was served upon Davis, and a judgment against him by default, July 19, 1841, for $25,00 and $5,00 interest and costs.</p> <p>The cause was removed to the District Court by certiorari, and at the December term 1841, the cause came on for hearing, and the parties waived a trial by jury, and consented that the court should try the cause, on the following proofs and concessions :</p> <p>“ It is conceded by the plaintiff’s attorney, that Stephen Whicher, Jr., signed the note as security. It is conceded by the defendant, that the claim of the plaintiffs is a legal one, and it is proved by Edward E. Fay, the clerk of plaintiff’s court, that the debt was contracted for, and on account of funds arising from the sale of lands and lots, pre-empted by the plaintiffs, under an act of Congress entitled “ an act, granting to the counties or parishes of each State and Territory of the United States, in which public lands are situated, the rights of pre-emption to quarter sections of land, for seats of justice within the same,” approved "May 26, 1824. It is contended by the defendant that he should be allowed the right of set-off as follows:</p> <p>‘ The Commissioners of MuscatineJ. County %</p> <p>1 To James Davis, Dr.</p> <p>* To this amount due me on your order on the county treasury of this county, dated Jan. 23,1841, No. 461, $37,50</p> <p>‘ Ditto, dated Oct. 1st 1841, No. 481 (part of) 12,45. ’</p> <p>“ Of which due notice was given by the defendant, and it is proved by the testimony of H. Musgjave the treasurer of the plaintiffs, that there-has been no funds in the treasury, since the date of said orders, wherewith to pay the same, and there rests his defence. ”</p> <p>It was agreed further that if the said set-off was legitimate, and appropriate, the judgment should be for the defendant, otherwise for the plaintiff. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, for 30,9,0 and costs.</p> <p>The defendant sued out a writ of error from this court. And the said plaintiffs in error, by Whicher their attorney, come and say that in the rendition of the judgment aforesaid there is manifest error in this, to wit:</p> <p>1. The judgment-should have been rendered for the plaintiff’s in error and against the defendants in error, and notin favor of defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error.</p>

The defendant, John Ross, was indicted at the District Court of Jefferson county, at the September term 1841, for knowingly and design-ingly, by false pretences, obtaining from one Walter Dillon, a certain promissory note, for the payment of eight hundred dollars and fifty cents, with the intent to cheat and defraud the said Dillon. At the April term, 1842, the defendant, by C. Olney, his attorney, filed a general demurrer, which was overruled.

This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered by Bridgman 6s Co., to Humphreys. Plea, general issue, and notice of payment. Verdict and judgment for $62,41 at. the June term, 1842. Motion for a new trial, for reason that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and for misdirection of the court in matters of law, overruled.

At the November term 1841 of the District Court of Johnson county, Martin Harless and John B. Adams were indicted for unlawfully betting, one with the other, to wit: the said Martin Harless bet a mare against a horse bet by the said John B. Adams, on the event of a certain horse race, at the county aforesaid on the 31 July 1841, then and there run between the said Martin Harless’ horse and the Freelan & Co’s mare, the said Adams winning the bet, &c. At the May term 1842 the…

Earor to Washington. The defendant in error was bound over in two cases, to keep the 1 peace, and to appear at the next term of the District Court of Washing. I ton county, on the complaint of Henry C. Mott, for threatening to shoot j said Mott, &c. At the June term, 1842, Houston appeared in court by 1 his attorney, but Mott, the prosecuting witness, failed to make his j appearance, nor did any other witness appear, to have said Houston | continued under recognizance.

This was an action of assumpsit upon promises, instituted by Abraham Hulick, against Benjamin Zickafosse, in the District Court of Washington county.

Errors assigned: 1. Judgment was taken by default, without any legal service of process on defendants, or either of them, or other legal notice. 2. In the plaintiff’s petition^ the defendant below is charged in ffeát and the judgment is rendered for a* a sum in damages.

Weston Woods, and Edward Hobert for eighty-five dollars and seventy-five cents, payable six months after date, and dated Dec. 12,1840. The declaration contains but one count, in the usual form.

This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, of which the “ One day after date, for value received, we promise to pay N. E. Janney, & Co., or order, without defalcation, sixty-seven dollars and twenty-six cents. Witness our hands and seals, this 27th day of June, 1837 ,- with interest at 10 per cent. “ GORDON & WASHBURN.” The declaration is in the usual form. At the January term, 1839, the plaintiffs moved for a default for the want of a plea which was ordered.

This suit was originally instituted before a justice of the peace, by Lyon against Smith, and removed to the District Court of Henry by certiorari. At the September term 1842 the parlies submitted the law and ^he facts to the court, Judge Mason presiding. The plaintiff sought to recover the value of property lost at defendants house, which he, the plaintiff, contended was a public Inn.

Assignment of errors : The court erred in admitting themote to be read in evidence, inasmuch as there is a variance'between said note and the original-summons, and the record of the justice, the error being the admission of a different ¡note from the one declared upon. The only error assigned, is a variance between the desrciption of the plaintiff and the payee of the note.

This was an action of assumpsit in the District Court of Henry county, brought by Charles B. Wall, assignee nf Abraham C. Dover, against .Jonathan J. King, on a note of which the following is a copy: “On or before the first day of February, 1841, I promise to pay Abraham C. Dover, two hundred dollars, for value received. “April 25, 1309. “J. J. KING.” Indorsed: “New London, February 6th, 1841, Mr. Jonathan J, King, please pay Charles R. Wall, the within note of two hundred…

<p> Error to Johnson. </p>

This cause was tried at the July term, 1841, of the Muscatine District Court, before the Hon. Joseph Williams. It was an action of debt on a delivery bond. Judgment by default and inquiry. It appears by the pleadings that the plaintiff below did not assign in his declaration, nor in the record, any breach in the condition of the bond. This is the principal error relied upon to reverse the judgment of the court below.

This was an action of debt brought by Lane against Porter, in the District Court of Henry county, upon a prommissory note for $100, given by Porter to Lane, November 24, 1838, payable one day after date. The cause was tried at the September term 1841, before Judge Mason, and judgment for plaintiff. assigns: 1. There were no issues made up upon which this case can be decided. 2. There is no assessment of damages, either by the court, clerk or jury.

At the March term of the District Court of Henry county, 1842, James Madison Lewis was indicted for unlawfully selling and retailing spirituous liquors in less quantities than one gallon, without then and there having a grocery license.

This was action of debt, on four promissory notes, for $198,75, each, executed by Joel C. Walker, Henry Eno, and Pleasant M. Armstrong to Samuel B. Ayres, administrator of Henry D. Davis, dec’d., payable at different dates. Judgment by default was rendered against the plaintiffs in error at April term, 1841 of the Lee District Court, for the sum of $795 debt, and $166,06 damages. assigns : 1.

Jones, for the use of Charles Sample, against Charles Madera, William Guffy and Solomon Sherfey, in the District Court of Desmoines county, on a note of which the following is a copy : “ s»dnn “ Two years aftei the date hereof, for value received, we promise to pay Lucindia Jones, or order the sum of four hundred dollars, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, our heirs, &c. Witness our hands this 14th day of April, A. D. 1838. “ CHARLES MADERA, [seal.] “WM.

H. T. Reid, district prosecutor, comes and says, there is manifest error in the record and proceedings in this, to wit : I. Because the court below refused to allow the testimony of Alexander McCIintock, whose name was indorsed on the indict meat as private prosecutor, to be given to the jury on the part of the prosecution. 2.

<p>The act making it indictable to cut timber off the school lands, is not contrary to Organic Law.</p> <p>The legislature has power to punish all injuries to real estate, as misdemeanors, even though the lands belong to the United States:</p>

.Error to Jackson. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in (he District Court of Jackson county, for services rendered in said county as a district prosecuting attorney. The defendant filed a plea in abatement: That the court ought not to have and entertain jurisdiction of the cause, nor of the matters in the plaintiff’s declaration : 1.

This was an action of assumpsit, founded on a promissory note, given by C. H. Gratoit & Co., and Campbell & Morehouse, to the President, Directors & Company of the State Bank of Illinois, for twenty-eight hundred and fifty dollars, dated February 18th, 1840, and payable sixty days after date. To the writ of summons in this case issued, the sheriff returned “ served by delivering an attested cop^jthereof to Peter A. Lorimier, this 20th day of October, A. D. 1840.

This was an action of Right, in the District Court of Jackson county.

<p> Error to Cedar </p> <p>The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action of debt, brought by the defendants against the plaintiff in error, in the District Court of Johnson county, upon a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe county, Indiana. The precipe directing the issuance of the summons and attachment, designated the action to be debt—but the clerk, through inadvertance, issued a summons in assumpsit.

The defendant was indicted in the Louisa District Court, at the Nov. term 1840, for committing an assault upon one Jasper Koons “ with a… Held: without any considerable provocation, lo and at the said Jasper Koons, then and there wilfully, maliciously and unlawfully, did throw and hurl with intent to inflict upon him the said Jasper Koons, a bodily injury, against the form of the statute. ” &c. The defendant was tried at the June term, 1841, and a verdict of guilty rendered.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Alexander Levi, complainant, against John Thompson, James M. Emerson, Hanibal Emerson and John G. Shields, defendants, in the District Court of Dubuque county.

<p>Where an action of replevin was commenced in Dubuque, and by consent of parties the venue was changed to Muscatine—held not to be erroneous.</p> <p>The venue may be changed by consent of parties in all cases were the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.</p> <p>A statute which changes the practice operates upon pending causes, and the proceedings thereafter should be conducted in accordance with such change</p>

This was an action of account, brought by Kerr against Stuart, in the District Court of Muscatine. At the December term, 1841, judgment was rendered on the report of the auditor for the plaintiff, in the sum of $312,12.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Yarnel vs. Dice, in the District Court of Van Burén county. The declaration states that Yarnel and Dice had jointly purchased of one Weston a certain claim in said county ; that difficulties had arisen between them, in relation to the occupancy of the land, and that the matters were submitted to arbitration.

This was a bill in chancery, having for its object the prohibition of the defendant from removing certain personal property mentioned therein from the county of Muscatine, where it is charged that the contract not to remove, was made, which property it is alledged, was mortgaged to plaintiff to secure the payment of a note of two hundred dollars, due in January, 1843. It also prays the writ of ne exeat república, against the person of the defendant.

<p>The aetion of trespass quart clausum fregit, being local, most be instituted in the county where the trespass is committed. [Quere—can the writ be directed to the sheriff of any other county 1]</p> <p>Where a defendant appears by his attorney, and consents that a judgment may be rendered up against him, with stay of execution, &c., it is a waiver of objections to the jurisdiction of the court, and of aDy irregularity in the mesne process.</p>

<p>In an action of forcible entry, it mattera not that the plaintiffs themselves were trespassers. A trespasser may, under certain circumstances maintain this action against the legal owner.</p> <p>The President of the United States has no power by virtue of his office, and independent of statutory authority, to lease the lead mines in Iowa.</p> <p>There is no law in existance authorizing the President to lease the lead mines.</p>

This was an action of sssumpsit brought by Wright against Antrim, in the District Court of Henry county. The point saved for the consideration of the Supreme Court, is contained in the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff in error. Errors assigned: 1. The court erred in rendering up judgment for costs against Wright at the September term, 1842, which costs were made at the March term, 1842. 2. The court erred in giving costs against the plaintiff.

This was an indictment for larceny, found by the grand jury of Johnson county, against Mordecai II. Cropper, at the May term 1842. The errors assigned are as follows : 1. In allowing the evidence of Malcolm Murray to go to the jury when excepted to, as will more fully appear in the bill of exceptions, hereunto made part of the record. 2. In directing the jury to affix the amount of punishment. 3. Because the amount of punishment was not fixed and determined by the court.

This was a bill in chancery filed by Humphreys vs. Snyder, in tha District Court uf Muscatine, on the SOth day of April, 1842, to foreclose a mortgage, and at the June term a decree was rendered for the com. plainant. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action on the case for slander, instituted in the District Court of Washington county, by Stephen Bunker and Louisa, his wife, against Cyrus Cox and Jane, his wife. This case was tried at October term, 1843, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs for $265. The defendants below, seeks to reverse this judgment, because the court instructed the jury that to call a female a whore, was actionable without proof of special damages.

<p>The Supreme Court will not infer that a judgment by default in the court below was on a different day than that which appears in the record.</p> <p>After argument it is too late to raise the objection that the errors have not bean as-ligr.cd by rule day.</p>

Jlppecd from Johnson. This was a bill in chancery filed by John McConnell, an elder of the first Presbyterian Church of Iowa City, against Almeron R. Gardner, an elder of the Universalian Society.

William B. Whitesides, in 1839, claimed to own the legal interest in two lots itLthe town of Dubuque, numbered seven and one hundred at,d ninety-four, (which was laid off by the United States) for the benefit of Jacob Marshall. Whitesides claimed to have the pre-emptive right to said lots and held the certificates of the commissioners for laving off the towns of Dubuque &c., and that he was entitled to the pre-emption to said lots.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Jacob Ganby, against Enos Lowe and Luther W. Hickok, partners, &c. The declaration contained there counts : 1. For goods sold and delivered. 2. For drugs and medicines sold and delivered. 3. On account stated. Plea, general issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $120.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Cornelius Cravens against Emily Cravens, the administratrix, and the children and heirs of Oscar Cravens, deceased, for the conveyance of a tract of land purchased by the said Oscar, as it was alleged, as agent of said complainant. At the April term 1842, the bill was dismissed at complainants costs. From which decree the complainant appealed to this court. The supposed grounds of equity are contained in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of slander instituted by Martin A, Britton against Jesse Wright. A trial was had at the September term 1842, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, for twenty dollars damages and costs. To reverse this judgment the defendant below has brought up the cause by a writ of error. The exceptions to the action of the court below are embodied in the opinion of the court here.

This was a bill filed by Jeremiah Burge against Christopher Burns and Denton J. Snyder in the District Court of Muscatine, to enjoin execution on a judgment at law. The complainant stated that Christopher Burns, at the June term 1841, obtained a judgment against him for $230 damages and $98,60 cost.

The facts in this case may be gathered from the arguments of counsel and the opinion of the court. This is a bill brought for discovery to aid the complainant in a de-fence in a suit at law, and was heard in the court below on demurrer to the bill, and the bill was dismissed and is brought into this court by appeal.

Action of assumpsit on a note, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in error. The record states that at the November term 1842, the defendant made default, “ and neither of the parties requiring a jury it is ordered that the clerk assess the damages, which being assessed at $106.” Judgment was rendered accordingly. To reverse this judgment Parvin assigns for error: 1.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Arthur Bridgman and George Partridge, partners, &c., against John Daugherty, upon two promissory notes. Judgment for the plaintiffs November term 1842, for $230,19. The defendant below is the plaintiff in error. The facts in the record, and the errors complained of, appear in the Opinion of the court.

In 1841, Bissell being in embarrassed circumstances, made an assignment of his effects, for the benefit of certain of his creditors, constituting Timothy Davis his assignee.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Adam Smith and Cbesiey Johnson, for the use of William Harris, against John Smith, upon a note for $123, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of special matter of defence. At the January term, 1843, the case was submitted to the court and a judgment awarded the plaintiffs for $36,98 damages. There were motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial overruled.

At the District Court held in and for the county of Johnson, while the county of Linn was attached for judicial purposes, to wit: at May-term 1840, Henry Switzer, Lester Wallace, and William Long were indicted for burglary. The case was afterwards transferred to Linn, and the venue, as to the defendant Switzer, changed to the county of Cedar. And was disposed of at the May term of the Cedar District Court, 1842, by the district prosecutor entering a nolle prosequi.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by George B. Waller against Robert Lucas, upon a note of which the following is a copy : “ For value received, I promise to pay John G. Deshler or order, eighiy-one dollars by the tenth day of July next. “ ROBERT LUCAS. “ Bloomington, May 5, 1841.” Endorsed “ J. G. Deshler.” At the appearance term, 1842, the sheriff returned “ served this writ by leaving a copy of this writ at the house of Charles Nealley, the usual place of residence…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Scott county District Court by Henry Fox against William G. Knight, as the second endor-see of ninety-one bills of exchange. The declaration contained ninety-one special counts, each one aver-ing the making of the bill, the endorsement by the payee to the defendant, and by him to the plaintiff. Also, an averment of presentment lor payment; refusal to pay, and notice to the defendant of the dishonor.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant in error, upon a note of which the following is a copy : “ $317,81. “ Bloomington, September 1, 1842. “ One day after date, for value received, I promise to pay John A. Parvin, or order, three hundred and seventeen dollars and eighty-one cents, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. “ WM.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, instituted by Chord against M’Coy, in the District Court of Cedar county, and the writ directed to the coroner. The suit was dismissed on the defendant’s motion, on the ground that there had been no affidavit filed as required bv the statute, so as to authorize the coroner to serve the summons, instead of the sheriff.

This wus an action of assumpsit instituted by Joseph Webster, against William Wilson, in the District Court of Lee county, upon a note of which the following is a copy : “ $10,025 “ Ft. Madison, Sept. 25, 1839. “Two years after date, I promise to pay to the order of Joseph Webster, ten hundred and twenty-five dollars, for value received, without defalcation or discount. WILLIAM WILSON. “ Attest, James Douglass.” The declaration contained but one count.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated by defendant’s council, and in the opinion of the court. The court will observe, that this is an action of replevin, or an action of tort. The sum demanded, and not the amount recovered, is the subject which gives the District Court jurisdiction in all actions of tort. Dallas Reports, U. S. S. C., 401 ; 1 Condensed U. S. Reports, 185.

<p>Where a defendant stands hy and assents to the change of the name of the plaintiff in a suit before a justice of the peace, and the parties subsequently go to trial upon the merits, it is a waive of the irregularity of the proceedings, and the defendant is estopped from setting the judgment aside on a certiorari.</p>

<p>Where a note is executed by A B & C, jointly, and B sustains the plea of infancy in an action brought against them on the same, jointly, a judgment may he rendered against A ⅜ C, without compelling the payee to commence de novo.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit and attachment, brought by John C. Sleeth against John H. Murphy. The facts are set out in the opinion of the court. cited : Ballentine on Limitations, 225, 207-8-9-10 ; 3 Peters, 270 ; 2 Mason, C. C. R., 151 ; 2 Peters Dig., 117; T Caines Rep., 402 ; 3 Johns. Rep., 263 ; 7 Johns. 477 ; 2 Cracch, 272. cited: 1 Salk. 287 ; 1 Ld. Ray. 153 ; 12 Petersdorf, 355 ; 9 Conn. Rep., 357; 1 Day’s Conn.

From, Cedar, (agreed case of error.) This was an action of Right, brought by Fulwider against Wilford, in the District Court of Cedar, to recover the possession of the cas! half of the south east quarter of section 11, town, 79, north in range 2 west ; the west half of the south west quarter of section 12, in same/fewnship, and range; the south east quarter of section 13 in same tqitvnship and range, and the south east quarter of section 14 in.the saifie town, and range.

<p>A verba] agreement between the plaintiff and defendant on a trial before a justice of the peace, that a verdict in his court should be final, may if broken, be the grounds of an action, but will not be allowed to be pleaded in bar to the action, when removed to the District Court by appeal.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Philip Mauro against John F. Webb, impleaded with Thomas L. Thurston. At October term 1842, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $631,86, The defendants below brought the case up for reversal. Six errors were assigned, and argued, but as the court considered but one, we shall omit them. The one considered is embraced in the opinion.

Certiorari to Desmoines. The defendants were indicted for incest. The points saved and determined, are embodied in the opinion of the court.

This was an indictment against Wau-kon-chaw-neek-kaw arid two other Indians, for the murder of Moses Tegarden, tried at the August term of the Dubuque District Court. The first error on which the plaintiffs in error rely, is that it does not appear from the record that the grand jury, who found this indictment were lawfully sworn. The indictment in this case was presented and found, at the Clayton District Court.

This was an action of trespass upon lands, commenced before a justice of the peace, by Andrew Keesecker, Rudolph Noble, and John Cook, against Chester Sage. The defendant put in a plea of title, and the case was removed to the District Court. A trial was had at the November term 1843, and a verdict and judgment for five cents damages, and costs rendered for the plaintiffs.

Benner sued Perry and Headly before Washburn, justice, on a note for $25,00 and obtained judgment. The defendants removed the case upon a certiorari to the District Court. Here a motion was made by Benner to quash the writ of certiorari for the want of a sufficient bond. Whereupon Headly and Perry offered to execute a good and sufficient one, to which Benner objected, and the objection was sustained, the cer-tiorari dismissed, and a procedendo awarded.

At the April term, 184S-; of the District Court for the county of Jefferson, (which court was setting as a Circuit and District Court of the United States) Lewis B. Morgan was indicted for purjury.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Chauncy Swan, (late acting commissioner of lows City, who sued for the use and benefit of the territory of Iowa,) against John K. Ewing and James G. Chatham, upon three notes for sixty.six dollars and twenty-five cents each, dated August 19, 1839. and payable six months after date to Swan, acting commissioner, &c. The declaration is in the usual form, without any of the common counts.

This was a proceeding in the nature of a writ of Quo Warranto by the United Stales on the relation of George W, Jones against Timothy Fanning to deprive him of the right and privilege of a ferry opposite to the town of Dubuque. The complaint set up was that the right of the ferry was given by an act of the legislature to Jones, and that Fanning intruded into and usurped the right.

Error lb Washington, This was an action of assumpsit instituted by Joseph Barton against' David A. Coutch and Orson O, Kinsman, on a promissory note for f 100, executed by As defendants below to J. G. Smith; by him- assigned to Jesse D. Payne, and by him assigned to the plaintiff, Barlon. At November term, 1842, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $106. The defendants below are plaintiffs in error.

This was an action of trespass brought by the board of commissioners of the county of Muscatine, trustees of u school section, against Jesse Romaine.

The errors assigned, and all :he facts necessary to the under standing of this case, appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The only points decided in this case were on a motion to dismiss the writ of error, which are recited in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced before a justice of the peace, upon three promissory notes. Tiie defendant pleaded payment by an order drawn on D. J. Snyder for $31,10. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs for thirty dollars and twenty-nine cents, and the cause removed to the District Court by certiorari. A trial was had and a verdict rendered for the defendant.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage, filed by John Warburton,, Hezekiah King, Job P. Doan and Wyllis King, complainants, against Edmund Mattox, William Smith and James Sloan, defendants.

<p> Error to Muscatine. </p> <p>On the trial below a bill of exceptions was tendered, which the judge declined to sign, as he did not consider that he had charged as stated by the exceptor. It was then certified to, as follows :</p> <p>“ The undersigned were present at the above trial, and understood the court to charge and refuse to charge as stated above.</p> <p>“J. SCOTT RICHMAN,</p> <p>“A. WASHBURN,</p> <p>“ J. B. BARKER.”</p> <p>The defendant moved to reject the bill of exceptions :</p> <p>1. Because the same was not filed till some days after the trial.</p> <p>2. That the exceptions do not appear to have been taken at the trial.</p> <p>3. That said bill is not signed and sealed by the judge.</p> <p>4. It does not appear whether the by-stander» signed the bill at tho trial or some days after.</p>

Jlppeal from Dubuque. This is a bill in chancery, filed by Silas Farber, Elizabeth Burbridge, William K. Burbridge, Eliza J. Burbridge, John Burbridge, Clinton. D. Burbridge and Jane Burbridge, complainants, against Alexander Levi, defendant. The case presented by the petition was, that Levi and Benj. Burbridge, deceased, through whom the petitioners claimed, agreed to purchase the property in litigation in 1835, of one Henry Potzer.

This was an action of debt, on two promissory notes, given by defendant to plaintiff. The cause was tried at the June term, 1842, of the Louisa District Court, Judge Williams presiding, and a judgment rendered for defendant, upon an agreed state of facts. The plaintiff below is plaintiff in error.

From, Jefferson. By agreement of parties this cause is submitted to the Supreme Court upon the following statement: “The writ of summons was issued, and llie declaration filed, I8lh January, 1841 ; appearance term commenced 6th April, 1811.

<p>Where a cause is still pending in the court below, the Supreme Court will not entertain a question brought up by consent of parties.</p> <p>It ¡3 not the province of the Supreme Court to give advice to the District Courts.</p>

This was an action of trespass brought by Wilson against Hughell before a justice of the peace, and a judgment obtained for $29,50, for costs and damages against Hughell, for cutting timber off tbe plaintiff’s claim. An appeal was taken to the District Court of Jefferson, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, for two dollars damages and seventy-nine dollars and seven cents costs.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by John Duke against Joseph Remsey, upon a promissory note for $150,00, of which the following is a copy : “ We or either of ns, promise to pay John Duke or order, one hundred and fifty dollars, on or before the public sale of the land on which said John Duke resides, at the time of land sale. “ JOSEPH REMSEY, “GEORGE W. REMSEY, “ February 4th, 1839. “ JESSE D. REMSEY.” The .first count in the declaration sets out the note in the usual…

This was a bill in chancery, filed by George Key, against James W. Isett and Alexander Marshall, praying that they should be compelled to convey to him the undivided half of eighty acres of land, or account therefor, which he the said Key, charged to have been purchased with the joint funds of himself and said Isett, and sold by Isett to Marshall, with notice of the complainants interest, &c. The prayer of the petitioner was denied, and a decree entered for the dismissal of…

This was an action of debt brought by John Runnels against William Phillips, upon a note, of which the following is a copy : “ Twelve months after date, 1 promise to pay unto George B. Phillips one hundred and ten dollars, for value received of him.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Thomas Wyatt against John Bailey. The amount claimed in the bill of particulars was $131,48, and the declaration contained a count for work ar,d labor— one for goods sold and delivered, one for money lent and advanced, one for money had and received and one on account stated. Plea, general issue. The cause was tried at February term 1844, and a virdict and judgment rendered for the defendant.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Thomas M’Craney against Timothy Fanning. At November term, 1842, a verdict and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for 8328,07. After the trial, the defendant asked for a new iriafr upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

This was an action of replevin brought by Ross against Moore, for the unjust detention of a lot of hops, two hundred and fifty pounds, of the value of $500. The defendant demurred to the plaintiff’s declaration, specially, first, because there was a variance between the writ and the declaration, the writ being in the delinet and the declaration in the delinuet, and the return of the writ not showing replegiari faci.

This was a suit by an atlachment brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace. On the returnan attorney appeared for the defendant, and moved to quash the attachment for reasons filed, which was overruled.

This vvas an action of debt, brought by Tomlinson against Culbertson & Finch, before a justice of the peace, on an attachment bond, with a penalty of one hundred dollars. The debt claimed was fifty dollars. The defendants moved for a non suit, on the ground that the bond was for an amount above the justice’s jurisdiction ; which was granted.

This was an action of Right, brought by William Miller against Joseph Wilford and Mary Ann Wilford. Upon the writ of summons there was the following return of service i “ Served on the within Mary Ann Wilford by reading personally, the 4th of September, 1844. Joseph Wilford, Jr., not found. Patterson Fleming, sheriff of Cete county, by Jno. P. Cook, specially deputed to serve this writ.” At the September term, 1844, judgment was rendered against Mary Ann Wilford by default.

George W. Hight and George V. Hight, confined in jail on an indictment for the murder of Peter Andrews petitioned the District Court of Desmoines at the November term 1844, for the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, which was granted.

<p> Certiorari to Jefferson. </p> <p>The case is explicitly set forth in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit and attachment, instituted by Samuel Smith, who sued for the use of Arthur Halferty, against Benjamin S. Roberts. The bill of particulars appended to the declaration was for work and labor amounting to $87,50. Publication was made and proven, and property attached.

Parker filed his petition fur the partition of a tract of land which ho claimed to own jointly with Stewart.

This was an action of bastardy, brought in the name of Maty Stratton against Samuel Shintaffer, and the proceedings were quashed in the court below, on the following motion. “ 1. That the suit is brought in the name of Mary Stratton, whereas the same should be in the name of the United States. 2. Tho warrant is informal and illegal, and not authorized by law. 3.

The facts in this case are these. Darlington had sued Irwin for slan-d *r, and pending this action he filed an affidavit that he believed that Irwin would leave the territory, or remove his property before judgment in the action could be had, or that he could otherwise abscond, so that the process of the court, after judgment, could not be issued, and prayed the court that a capias might issue and he Irwin be held to bail.

This was an action of debt brought by the United States against Thomas B. Johnson and his securities, as marshal of the territory of Iowa. Judgment was rendered against defendants in the court below.

Jlppcal from Louisa. This was a hill to foreclose a mortgage to secure the payment of the note set forth in the opinion. The hill was dismissed for the want of equity, and an appeal taken to this court.

The only point incidentally determined, and the facts of ¡he case are set forth in the opinion of the court.

From Jefferson. This was a bill for the specific performance of an agreement for the conveyance of the east half of S. W. quarter of the N. E. quarter of section 25, township 72, N. of R. 10 W. The bill alleges that on the 13lh March, 1843, the said defendants executed to complainants a bond conditioned to convey to said complainants on or before the 7th of April, 1843, the said land, provided that the complainants should pay the said defendant, on or before the day…

This was an action of assumpsit on a note for two hundred dollars, brought by Green against John, William, James, and H. Carothers. The note was payable to E. J. Kidder, or bearer. Judgment was rendered at January term, 1843, for tiro plaintiffs, for $282.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Lewis D. Phillips for the use of Samuel H. Kenedy against Hosea W. Gray, upon a note of which the following is a copy : “By the first day of January A. D. 1842, I promise to pay lo A. Timmons, the sum of one hundred dollars. “ March 17, 1841. “ II. W-. GRAY.” Endorsed “John Ridgeway, without recourse on me, A. Timmons — pay Lewis D. Phillips, J. Rigeway.” The declaration contained two special counts, huí no plea appears of record.

<p> Certiorari to Muscatine. </p> <p>This was an action of assumpsit before a magistrate, and appealed to the District Court. The record states that “ this cause coming on to be heard by the consent of parties, the same is submitted to the court. The court is of opinion that the plaintiff ought not to recover in this form of action and direct a non suit.” Judgment against the plaintiff for costs.</p> <p>Thera is then a statement in the record of the testimony, but it is not embodied in the usual form, a bill of exceptions, signed and sealed by the judge.</p>

This was a suit instituted by Edgar against Caldwell before a justice of the peace,¿j(or damages, for the taking from the plaintiff's possession, a horse, and judgment against the defendant was rendered for $?19,50 damages and costs. The defendant appealed to the District Court. At September term 1844, the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal because the amount sued for exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice, which motion was overruled.

This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff against the defendants in error, upon an administrators’ bond.

Wilson sued Starr and Burgess before a justice of the peace and a judgment was had for the plaintiff, for $50 and costs. The defendants appealed to the District Court. At the September term 1843, Wm. S. Burges pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace who tried the cause below.

<p>A summon» or other writ, is no part of the record unless made so by a bill of exceptions.</p>

This was an action brought by Woods, an attorney at law, against the defendants, for professional services. And the following bill of exceptions taken at September term, 1843, will sufficiently show the history of the case: “ Be it remembered that on the trial of this cause by the agreement of the parties, the jury had leave, after agreeing to their verdict to separate; which was accordingly done.

Error lo Washington. This was an action of debt brought by the plaintiff against the defen* dant on a promissory note. Pleas, 1. Nil debit. 2. Duress of imprisonment. 3. Note was obtained by fraud. 4. Want of consideration. 5. Failure of consideration. ,. 6. Setoff. Judgment against the plaintiff for costs at the Sept, term, 1844.

This was an action of debt instituted in the name of the United States by the board of commissioners of Dubuque county, against William S. M’Knight and Lawrence Maloney, on a bond, of which the following is a copy : “ We the undersigned William M’Knight as principal and Lawrence Maloney as securiiy, are hereby held and firmly bound unto the United Stales of America, in the penal sum of five hundred dollars, lawful money, to be void upon this condition : Whereas, tho above…

Errors assiged : 1. The court erred in passing the decreo and the giving the judgment ‘hereon against ono of the defendants in the court below before they were all brought into court by legal process. 2. In granting the decree, while the demurrer of one was undetermined and undisposed of, and foreclosing the equity of redemption of the said defendant. 3.

<p> Error to Scott. </p> <p>The only point considered in this case is contained in the opinion of the court.</p>

Thi3 wJte an action of trespass quart clausum fregit, instituted by-John T. Lightfoot, against Francis M’Donald, Andrew Butler, John Vv. Patton, Nathaniel Markham, Orson Markham and Andrew Mitchell, before a justice of the peace.. Judgment was rendered against M’Donald, Butler and Patton, for twelve dollars and costs, and the case was taken to the District Court, on appeal, where it was tried at May term, 1844, and a verdict and judgment had. for plaintiff.

'At the April term of the District Court of Linn, James W. Margrave, prosecuted William H. Woodbridge for forgery, and no indictment having been preferred, the court rendered a judgment against Margrave for costs to the amount of $18,72. To reverse this judgment Margrave sued out his writ of error from this court. Errors assigned: 1.

Jlppeal from Cedar. This was a bill filed by Eleazur Huff, against Charles M. Jennings, and others.

This was action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants in error accompanied by a writ of attachment. The attachment bond and the declaration were in the name of Henry Musgrave, and the suit was commenced and the summons issued in the true name of the plaintiff. The defendants moved to quash the attachment for the following reasons: 1. The causes for the attachment set out in the affidavit were in the alternative. 2.

Error to Muscatine. All the facts necessary to an understanding of this case, are contained in the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in chancery filed by Isett against Young & Snyder. The bill stated that on the 19ih March, 1840, the complainant owned the north half of lot No. 2, in block No. 10, in the town of Bloomington, and that he sold one half of it to Young for $075 ; he paying three hundred down, and giving two notes for the balance, the last due and payable 1st April, 1841. And that complainant executed a title bond to convey said half lot at that time, and gave Young possession.

Jlppeal from Jefferson. This was a bill filed by Wilson against Hughell, praying a writjof injunction to restrain the defendant from committing trespasses upon the complainant’s land claim. The cause was finally disposed of in the court below, at September term, 1842. The bill was dismissed, and a decree that the respondent should have and recover from the complainant his costs. The complainant appealed to this court.

This was a bill filed by the complainant against the defendants in the District Court , of Jefferson county in August 1843, and at September term 1844, the following decree was made, Judge Mason pressing: “ This cause came on to be heard upon the bill, answer exhibits and evidence, and was argued by counsel, and the court after due consideration ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the-said complainants bill as to said respondents, William Thorn and Joel Arrington, be…

This was an action of Right instituted by Reid, against Webster, in the District Court of Lee, to recover the possession of the north-east quarter, of section number twelve, in township number sixty-seven, north of range number five west, containing one hundred and sixty acres, and which is a part of the land known as the half breed tract in said county, containing one hundred and nineteen thousand acres.

This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by James Grant,.the district prosecuting attorney, against the plaintiffs in error, requiring them to show by what authority they exercised th® power and franchises of a corporation. To this the defendants below, pleaded the act of incorporation passed by the legislature of Wisconsin, before the erection of the territory of Iowa, approved 30th November, 1836.

At the September term, 1844, of the District Court of Washington county, William M’Cauley was indicted for the murder of Don Ferdinand Coffman, on the 4th day of August preceding, and on application the venue was changed to Van Burén county.