Volume 10 — Illinois Reports

The motion was predicated upon certain facts set forth in the petition of the Relator, which are substantially as follow : That on the first Monday of August, 1847, Gallatin coun*> ty was included within certain limits defined by law and so recognized; that by an Act of the General Assembly, approved January 26, 1826, the county seat was located at Equality; that on said first Monday of August, there was an election for public officers of said county, and among them a…

In this case an affidavit was filed showing the fact that the plaintiff in error was not a resident of this State. A motion to dismiss the writ of error was then made, because no bond for costs had been filed in the case.

Attachment, in the Hardin Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, and heard before the Hon. William A. Denning and a jury, at the May term, 1848, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff below for $208-573. The facts material to the issue are adverted to by the Court in their Opinion.

<p>This case depended upon a state of facts similar to the preceding, and the same pleadings were filed.</p>

The facts of this case were substantially as follow: A little more than two years after the letters of administration were issued to the defendant, the plaintiff filed his account in the office of the Probate Justice of the Peace, The defendant entered his appearance, and by consent the cause was tried without process. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and a set-off.

Debt, in the Pope Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant, and John G. Neely, and heard before the Hon. ’William A. Denning at the October term, 1848, upon a demurrer to pleas, which are stated in the Opinion of this Court. The demurrer was sustained, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff below for $123, debt, and $12-03 damages. From this judgment, Benajar Neely took an appeal.

Bill of Discovery in aid of a suit at law, in the Gallatin Circuit Court, filed by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error and others. The cause came on to be heard before the Hon. William A. Denning, at the October term, 1847, on the demurrer of the present plaintiff in error, when the same was overruled. There was no final judgment in the Circuit Court.

Assumpsit, in the Franklin Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, and finally heard before the Hon. William A. Denning and a jnry.

Forcible Detainer, brought by the appellee against the appellants, and originally heard before a justice of the peace of Peoria county, when a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Circuit Court, and the cause was tried at the October term, 1848, before the Hon. John D. Catón and.a jury, when a verdict was again rendered in favor of the original plaintiff.

Debt, in the Pike Circuit Court, brought by the «plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, and heard before the Hon, Norman H. Purple, without the intervention of a jury, at the September term, 1848, when a judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs. The plaintiff entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.

This was a suit originally commenced before a justice of the peace in Adams county by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below, who appealed to the Circuit Court, and at the May term, 1848, the Hon. Norman H. Purple presiding, a jury was dispensed with, and the cause tried by the Court who rendered a judgment for plaintiff for $51-46, and costs.

Assumpsit, in the Brown Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against* the plaintiff in error. The cause was heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple and a jury, at the September term, 1848, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $55-09. The defendant entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. So much of the evidence as was material to the determination of this cause, will be found in the Opinion of this Court.

Debt, in the Jo Daviess Circuit Court, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error and George Cruikshank. At the March term, 1847, the Hon. Thomas C. Browne presiding, a default was entered, and a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs for $6262-48 debt, and $2626-65 damages, against John J. Cruikshank the only defendant served.

<p>Appeal from Grundy.</p> <p>Where an appeal was prayed and the bond filed prior to April 1,1848, the day on which the new Constitution went into operation, the Court held that the case was not affected by the division of the State into judicial districts, but was pending in the Supreme Court existing at the time of perfecting the appeal.</p> <p>All cases removed into the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of error since April 1, 1848, necessarily go to the Court held in the Division, in which the same were decided, unless the parties, by consent, send them to the Court in the adjoining Division.</p>

Debt, in the Jo Daviess Circuit Court, upon a forthcoming bond, brought in the name of the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, and heard before the Hon. Thomas C. Browne, at the October term, 1846. Demurrer to the declaration, which was sustained by the Court, and judgment against the plaintiff for costs.

Attachment, in the Pike Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, as drawers of a bill of exchange. The affidavit qf the plaintiff was filed in the office of the Clerk .of the Circuit Court on the 12th day of September, A. D. 1844, and a writ of attachment was issued on the same day, returnable to the April term, 1845.

Debt upon an appeal bond, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error and others in the Hancock Circuit Court, and heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple, upon a demurrer to the declaration, at the September term, 1847. The demurrer was sustained, and a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant for costs. The condition of the bond declared on is set forth in the Opinion of the Court.

Trespass for an assault, brought by the appellees against the appellants in the Stephenson Circuit Court, and heard before the Hon. Thomas C. Browne and a jury at the August term, 1846, when a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs below for the sum of $534-16 damages. All the facts necessary to the determination of this case are concisely stated by the Court in the Opinion.

Ejectment, in the Hancock Circuit Court, brought by the, plaintiff in error ¿gainst the defendant in error, and heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple, at the September term, 1848, when a judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for costs. So much of the evidence as relates to the only point in controversy, and is necessary to the determination of the cause, is stated in the Opinion of the Court.

Debt, in the Peoria Circuit Court, brought by the appellees against the appellant, and heard at the May term, 1848, before the Hon. John D. Catón, who found the issues for the plaintiffs below, and rendered a judgment accordingly for the sum of $518 debt, and $179-30 damages. The defendant entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.

Debt upon a guardian’s bond, in the Clinton Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendant in error, and heard before the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner, at the May term, 1847, when a judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs.

Bill in Chancery, in the Greene Circuit Court, brought by the appellant against the appellee, and heard before the Hon. Samuel D. Lockwood, at the April term, 1848, when a decree was rendered in favor of the appellee for $483-76, for a conveyance, &c. The following is a history of the case: On the 27th of April, 1838, the father of the appellee mortgaged to John Caldwell the east half of the south-west quarter of section fifteen, in township ten north, of range eleven west,…

Ejectment, in the Fulton Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant, and heard at the March term, 2848, before the Hon. Norman H. Purple and a jury, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff below. So much of the evidence in the case as was material to the determination of the questions of law raised by counsel, will be found in the Opinion of the Court.

Motion, in the Mason Circuit Court, to quash an execution and to set aside a sale thereon, because there was no seal on the execution. The cause came on for a hearing before the Hon. Samuel D. Lockwood, when the plaintiff in the execution entered a cross motion for leave to amend. At the May term, 1846, the latter motion was overruled, and the former allowed, quashing the execution and vacating the sale.

In this case, a judgment was rendered in the Jo Daviess County Court, at the November term, 1846, the Hon. Hugh T» Dickey presiding, in favor of the present defendants in error, for the sum of $6,321*34 upon the assessment of a jury of inquiry, the defendant not appearing. The form of the judgment concluded with an award of execution, thus ; “And that execution issue therefor against the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Jas.

Bill for an injunction, &c., in the Warren Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, and heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple.

Trespass, originally brought before a justice of the peace of Peoria county by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, by whom a judgment for costs was. rendered against the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where the cause was tried before the Hon. John D. Catón and a jury at the May term, 1847, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $4-10.

Assumpsit, in the Madison Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. At the August term, 1847, the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner presiding, the defendant moved that the writ of capias be quashed and the bail discharged for reasons set forth, which motion was overruled, and the defendant then pleaded to the merits of the case.

Bill in Chancery, in the Pike Circuit Court, filed by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to set aside a sale of lands, for a partition, &c. The cause was heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple, at the August term, 1847, and it appearing from the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Court that the lands were not susceptible of division, a sale was ordered, &c. So much of the bill as is necessary to a proper understanding of the case is briefly…

Bill in Chancery for a specific performance, filed in the Warren Circuit Court by the appellee against the appellant, and heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple.

Ejectment, in the St. Clair Circuit Court, brought by the appellees against the appellant, and heard before the Hon. Gustavus P. ICoerner and a jury, at the April term, 1848, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiffs below. The facts so far as they are material to the determination of the case, are adverted to by the Court in the Opinion.

This case was submitted to the Circuit Court of Warren county at the May term, 1848, the Hon. Norman II.

Assumpsit, in the Jersey Circuit Court, brought by the appellant against the appellee, and heard before the Hon. Samuel D. Lockwood, at the September term, 1844. In September, 1843, the defendant, by his attorneys, filed six pleas, of which the following is the substance : 1.

This case, brought by the appellee against' the appellant, was heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple, at the September term, 1848, of the Pike Circuit Court. Judgment for the plaintiff below. Defendant appealed. The bill of exceptions taken at the trial did not purport to contain all the evidence before the Court, but it contain- 1 ed a recital that a judgment and execution was read in evidence without objection, neither of which was embodied in in the bill.

Bill in Chancery for a specific performance, &c. in the Madison Circuit Court, filed by the appellee against the appellant and one David Brown. The complainant, during the course of the proceedings, dismissed the bill as to Brown. At the March term, 1848, the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner presiding, a special decree was rendered against Bruff only, who thereupon appealed to this Court.

Bill in Chancery, for an injunction, &c. brought by the appellees against the appellants, and heard before the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner, at the August term, 1848, of the Mad- ison Circuit Court. A decree was rendered in favor of the complainants, granting a perpetual injunction, &c. The complainants claimed to be the heirs at law of Thomas Botkin, deceased, which was denied by the defendants in their answer, the oath to which was dispensed with.

Motion to quash an execution and fee bill, made in the St. Clair Circuit Court, the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner presiding. The motion was overruled, and the defendant sued out a writ of error. The main facts of the case will be found in the Opinion of this Court.

Forcible Entry and Detainer, commenced before a justice of the peace in Jo Daviess county, by Crummer against Robinson and others. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and an appeal was taken to the County Court.

Bill in Chancery filed in the Madison Circuit Court, &c. At the March term, 1848, the Hon. Gustavus F. Koerner presiding, the cause was submitted to the Court upon the pleadings and proof without argument, when a special decree was entered in favor of the Company, who were the complainants below. The material part of the testimony is sufficiently stated by the Court. .

Bill in Chancery to foreclose a mortgage, &c., brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, in the Rock Island Circuit Court, and heard before the Hon. Thomas C. Browne, at the October term, 1846, when a decree of sale, &c., was rendered. So much of the pleadings and evidence as is material to the determination of the case will be found in the Opinion ■ of the Court.

Gustavus P. Koerner presiding, at the October term, 1847. The record shows that several pleas were filed by the defendant on the trial of the motion.

<p>Ejectment, in the Madison Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant and others, and heard before the Hon. Gustavos P. Koerner.</p> <p>At the March term, 1848, the plaintiff dismissed his suit as to all but William Reece, and a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in favor of tile plaintiff. The defendant filed a bill of exceptions, and entered an appeal.</p>

<p>Application for a mandamus. The following are copies of the notice served, and of the application to the Supreme Court:</p> <p>Jacksonville, December 1st, 1848.-Murray McConnell, Esquire,.</p> <p>Sir:</p> <p>You will please to take notice that at the December term 1847, of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, in the case of William McKee, (myself) executor of Jesse McKee, deceased, complainant in Chancery v. John Manchester, Thomas Manchester, Mark W. Delahay, Holaway W. Vansyckle, James Á. McDougall, Murray McConnell (yourself), John Mathews, George N. Manchester, and George Dewell, defendants, the said Court partially reversed the decree that was recorded in said cause at the September term, 1844, of the Circuit Court of Pike county, in said State, and remanded said cause with directions to the said Circuit Court, “to render a decree and proceed consistently with the principles of” the Opinion rendered in said cause by said Supreme Court. That said cause was so remanded, and reviewed in the name and style of “William McKee, executor of Jesse McKee, deceased, complainant in Chancery v. Mariali Manchester, Julia Manchester, Mary Adeline Manchester, and Thomas Collins Manchester, heirs at law of John Manchester, deceased, John Mathews, administrator of said deceased, and in his (the said John Mathews,) own right, Thomas Manchester, George N. Manchester, George Dewell, Mark W. Delahay, Holaway W. Vansyckle, Murray McConnell, and James A. McDougall, defendants,” at the April term, 1848, of the said Circuit Court and a decree was rendered by said Court on the 8th day of April, 1848, consistent with the determination of said Supreme Court, in the premises, and appointing and requiring Daniel H. Gilmer as Special Commissioner, to sell and convey on twenty days’ notice, of &c. for cash all the right, title and interest, of said defendants of, in and to certain real estate, set forth in said decree, if they, or some of them, should not in ninety days pay to said Commissioner, the sum of two thousand, six hundred and seventeen 93-100 dollars, ($2617-93 cents,) with interest from April 8th, 1848, at the rate of six (6) per cent, and costs of said suit. That said defendants have not, nor hath either of them paid any part of said sum of money or costs. That you on the 7th of July, 1848, filed a bill in Chancery against the said John Mathews, Thomas Hollow-bush and Augustus R. Burbank in the said Circuit Court, and that on the sixth day of the September term, 1848, of said Court, you amended your said bill, and obtained an order from the Judge.of said Court, restraining and enjoining the execution of the decree last aforesaid. That I, by my solicitor, David A. Smith, on the same day, in said Court, and to use of the said Thomas Hollowbush, Augustus R. Burbank, and John Mathews, submitted a motion for a peremptory order upon the said Special Commissioner to execute the decree aforesaid, to proceed forthwith on twenty days’ notice to sell the property described in the decree, notwithstanding your said injunction. That said motion was overruled, and I, by my said solicitor, excepted to the opinion of said Court in overruling said motion. That on the third (3rd) day of the next term of the Supreme Court of said State, to beholden for the Second Division of said State at Springfield on the eighteenth inst., I shall, by my solicitor, file a petition to said Court, accompanied with the just, full and true transcript of the records and proceedings aforesaid duly certified, and there, or as soon thereafter as I can be heard by my counsel, shall move said Court on said petition to grant a peremptory mandamus to the said Special Commissioner, requiring him to execute said decree by sale of, &c. as aforesaid, or a peremptory mandamus to the Judge of the said Circuit Court, requiring him to order the said Special Commissioner so to execute said decree, or for such other or further order as the Supreme Court has power and authority to make in the premises, to secure the supremacy of law, by carrying into complete execution its determination in the matter aforesaid, according to the laws, customs and usages of this State, and according to the rules and principles of the Common Law.</p> <p>If you please, you will appear and resist the matter and • things proposed in the premises.</p> <p>Very respectfully yours,</p> <p>William McKee,</p> <p>executor of John McKee, deceased, by his solicitor,</p> <p>D. A. Smith.</p> <p>Jacksonville, December 2d, A. D. 1848.</p> <p>I served Murray McConnell, Esq., with a copy of the foregoing notice. (Signed) David A Smith.</p> <p>State of Illinois, ss.</p> <p>To the Honorable, the Judges of the Supreme Court of said State sitting at Springfield for the Second Division of said State, December term, A. D. 1848.</p> <p>In the name of the People of the State of Illinois, William McKee, the person referred to in the foregoing annexed notice respectfully relates and shows to your Honors, that he brings here into Court, and prays, that the same may he taken as a part of this petition, just, full and true transcripts of the records and proceedings referred to in said notice, marked Exhibit (A); that the facts stated in said notice are true, and asks that the said notice may be considered and treated as a part of this petition. He states that a copy of said notice was duly served upon Murray McConnell, Esq., the person referred to in said notice, on Saturday, the 2d day of December, A. D. 1848. That the course which he is pursuing in the premises to defeat and undermine the Opinion of this Honorable Court, as the Court of last resort, rendered as aforesaid, is unprecedented, unjust, extra-judicial, vexatious and oppressive, and that if such a practice is tolerated by this Honorable Court, that in no case can its decision put an end to strife, if a party whose rights have been fully and finally determined upon by it, can successfully resort to such shifts and expedients as the said Murray McConnell is attempting to perpetrate in the premises. That the said Daniel H. Gilmer, Special Commissioner, is a resident of the said county of Pike, and ready and willing, but for the restraining order of injunction so irregularly and improperly obtained as aforesaid by the said Murray McConnell, to execute the decree obtained as aforesaid in favor of your relator, at the April term, 1848, of the said Circuit Court of Pike county, pursuant to the principles of the Opinion of this Honorable Court rendered as aforesaid ; that the said Murray McConnell is endeavoring to evade the execution of said decree (to which he is, and was a party as aforesaid,) by matters which transpired long before said decree was rendered, and which he ought to have pleaded and relied upon in the cause in which said decree was rendered. That the said Circuit Court in the said injunction suit of the said Murray McConnell had no rightful cognizance of, or jurisdiction of the said decree to restrain or impede its due and prompt execution. Forasmuch then as your relator is utterly without redress in the premises unless, &c., he prays your Honors for the relief that he has notified the said Murray McConnell that he (your relator,) will ask for, and which is particularly indicated in said notice, and as in duty hound your relator will ever pray, &e.</p> <p>The People of the State of Illinois,,</p> <p>ex relatione William McKee, by his solicitor,</p> <p>David A. Smith..</p> <p>State of Illinois, > Q . Sangamon Co., $ C ‘</p> <p>This day appeared before the undersigned, Clerk of the-Supreme Court of said State for the Second Division, David A. Smith, who made oath in due form of law, that the foregoing notice and petition are true in substance and fact, and that he served Murray McConnell, Esq,, with a copy of said notice on the 2d inst.</p> <p>David A. Smith.</p> <p>Sworn to and subscribed before me as above, the 20th day of December, A. D. 1848.</p> <p>W. B. Warren, Clk.</p>

Attachment, in the Adams Circuit Court, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error.- Several motions were made in the Circuit Court and duly disposed- of. Steelman then filed with the Clerk a special-demurrer to the declaration. At the October term, 1848,• the Hon. Norman H. Purple presiding, when the cause was called for trial, one of the defendants’ counsel stated in substance, that he believed they w.ould have nothing further to do with the case.

This suit was originally instituted before a justice of the peace of Brown County, by the appellee against the appellant, when a judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, and at the April term, 1848, the Hon. Norman H. Purple presiding, the cause was tried by the Court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $80-00 and costs. A copy of the instrument sued on is set forth in the Opinion of the Court.

This cause was entered upon the docket of the Supreme Court for the Second Grand Division, when a motion to dismiss the appeal was made by the counsel for the appellee.

This suit was decided and the Opinion of the Court was delivered at the December term, 1847. See 4 Gilm. 319. At the present term of this Court, a motion was made for leave to file a petition for a re-hearing, based upon the following affidavit: State of Illinois, ss.

Motion to dismiss the above entitled suit for want of prosecution, entered by M. Hay, counsel for Metz, the Relator. The proceedings in the Circuit Court are briefly stated in the Opinion of this Court.

This was a suit originally commenced by Irwin against Smith, and heard before a justice of the peace of Madison County, when a judgment was rendered in favor of Smith. Irwin appealed to the Circuit Court, and a summons was issued to the appellee to appear, &c. which was returned “not found.” An alias was issued returnable to the next term of the Circuit Court, upon which the sheriff made a - similar return. At the said term, (March term, 1847,) the lion.

Foreign Attachment, in the Sangamon Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, and S. M. Tinsley and others as garnishees. The principal defendants were not personally served with process, but a notice of the pendency of the suit was published in a newspaper, the first insertion of which was on the 27th day of May, A. D. 1842.

Debt, in the Kendall Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, and heard before the Hon. John D. Catón and a jury, at the August term, 1813, when the issues were found for the defendants. A statement of the pleadings and evidence in the case will be found in the Opinion of the Court.

Replevin,, in the Marshall Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendant in error, and heard before the Hon. John D. Catón and a jury at the March term, 1848, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant. The particular instruction to the jury excepted to, is recited in the Opinion of the Court.

Forcible Detainer, brought by the appellees against the appellant, before a justice of the peace in Cook county, when a verdict was rendered for the complainants below. The defendant appealed to the Cook County Court, and the cause was heard before the Hon. Hugh T- Dickey and a jury, at the October term, 1847, when a verdict was again rendered for the complainants. The substance of the complaint will be found in the Opinion of the Court.

Bill in Chancery for an injunction, &c., in the Pike Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error. The cause came on to be heard at the August term, 1847, the Hon. Norman H. Purple presiding, and the complainants npt appearing, the bill was dismissed and the injunction dissolved.

Assumpsit, the Warren Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against'-th% 'appellant, and heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple ana á jdry, at the November term, 1846, when a verdict -and judgment were rendered in favor of the plaintiff below for $446-50'. So much of ihé evidence given on the trial in the Circuit Court and contained in the bill of exceptions as is material to the determination of the case, will be found embodied in the Opinion of this Court.

Attachment, in the Madison Circuit Court, brought by Fairfield, for the use of Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall, against Love. The attachment bond was executed by Field and sureties, the condition of which is recited in the Opinion of the Court. A motion to quash the attachment for an alleged insufficiency in the bond was made at the August term, 1848, the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner presiding, which was overruled.

Indictment for larceny against tlie plaintiff in error, heard in the Morgan Circuit Court, at the October special term, 1848, the Hon. David M. Woodson presiding, when the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. So much of the evidence and instructions as is material to the determination of the case is briefly stated in the Opinion of the Court.

Bill in Chancery, &c., in the Brown Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant and others. The material portions of the bill and proceedings are set out in the Opinion of the Court. At the April term, 1846, the Hon. Norman H. Purple presiding, a demurrer to the bill was interposed and overruled by the Court. The defendants neglecting to put in an answer, a default was entered, and the bill taken as confessed, &c.

Assumpsit, in the Fulton Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error upon the following instrument: “Fulton County, Farmers precinct, Feb. 16,1847.

A writ of error was prosecuted in the Supreme Court by William G. Goforth, administrator of Curtis Hale, deceased, against Lyman Adams. Pending the suit Goforth died, and his counsel suggested his death to the Court, whereupon the following order was entered upon the records, to wit: “William G. Goforth, 1 administrator of -- ] w , .

Motion, in the Madison Circuit Court, made by the appellee, who was plaintiff in an execution against one Henry K. Lathy, against the appellant, late sheriff of the county.

Bill in Chancery in the Scott Circuit Court, brought by the appellees against the appellant and others. A decree was rendered in favor of the appellees for the sum of $159, among other things, and entered as of the October term, 1847, having been decided in vacation by the Hon. Samuel D. Lockwood, presiding judge.

Bill in Chancery, in the Calhoun Circuit Court, brought by the Bank of Illinois, for the use of David A. Smith and Samuel Dunlap, its assignees, with George W. Atchison, the Union Insurance Company and the Missouri Insurance Company of St. Louis, who sued for the use of the said Atchison and said Missouri Insurance Company, against John Shaw and William Frye, for the purpose of setting aside certain conveyances alleged to be fraudulent, &c. At the September term, 1846, the…

Bill in Chancery, in the Peoria Circuit Court, filed by the appellee against the appellants, the material portions of which are stated in the Opinion of this Court. After various proceedings in the Circuit Court, a joint decree was rendered at the October term, 1845, in favor of the complainant below, and against all of the defendants in the suit, for the sum of $2356-38. ^ The cause was argued in this Court by S. T. Logan and E. JY.

Bill in Chancery, &c. in the Madison Circuit Court, filed by the appellants against the appellee. 'The bill averred that John Sigerson and Enos H. Harrison, of the firm of Sigerson & Harrison and the appellee became partners for the purchase and shipment of corn, oats and flour, and accordingly made purchases and shipments of those articles to Wallace Sigerson, of New Orleans; that the consignee remitted the net proceeds of the sales; that the appellee was interested in one…

Bill in Chancery for an injunction, &c., in the St. Clair Circuit Court, filed by the appellants against the appellees, and heard before the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner, at the September term, 1848. The bill set forth, in substance, the following facts, to wit: 1.

Ejectment, in the Madison Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellants. The cause was heard before the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner, at the August term, 1848, of said Court, when a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below. An agreed case was made, and certain questions were submitted for the determination of this Court, all of which are considered in the Opinion.

This was a suit in Chancery, commenced by James Campbell against James Wilson, in the La Salle Circuit Court, by bill filed on the 10th of July, 1840, and on the 16th of November, 1843, by agreement removed to the Lee Circuit Court.

Trespass, in the Winnebago Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant, Hiram R. Maynard, and Ephraim Wyman, for taking and driving away certain cattle, the property of the appellee. The declaration contained two counts, which were -substantially alike, and in the common form. The defendants •severed in their pleas, Maynard pleading separately, and the others joining in a like plea. Maynard pleaded not guilty, and two special pleas of justification.

Trespass upon the Case, in the Kane Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error and one John Johnson, for firing a prairie, &c., and heard before the Hon. John D. Catón and a jury, at the April term, 1847. The defendants pleaded the general issue. During the progress of the trial, the counsel for the defendants asked the Court to give several instructions to the jury, some of which were refused and others given with a qualification.

Trespass, in the Kane Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant, and heard before the Hon. Theophilus L. Dickey and a jury, at the January special term, 1849, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff below for $90, The facts of the case, so far as the same are material to the determination of the question raised by the assignment of errors, are sufficiently stated by the Court in their Opinion.

This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace of Kendall County, by Norton & Blackstone for the use of John Blackstone against Walrath, and on the trial thereof, the justice rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant for costs.

Bill in Chancery to set aside a sheriff’s sale .of land on execution, &c. filed by the appellant against the appellees, in the Kane Circuit Court, and heard before the Hon. John D. Catón, at the August term, 1847, upon a demurrer to the bill for want of equity, when the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. The material allegations of the bill are set forth in the Opinion of the Court.

Attachment in aid of a suit at law, sued out by the present plaintiff in error against the defendant in error in vacation. At the May term, 1849, of the Oglfe Circuit Court, the Hon. Hugh Henderson of the eleventh Judicial Circuit presiding, the cause coming on to be heard, the writ of attachment was quashed, because it was applied for and issued in vacation.

This was an action originally brought before a justice of the peace of Lee county by the present appellee against the appellant, who rendered a judgment for the plaintiff below for $77. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. The cause was heard in the Circuit Court at the April term, 1848, before the Hon. Thomas C. Browne and a jury, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $76*52.

The counsel for the appellees in this case entered a motion, founded upon affidavits filed by him, to strike the bill of exceptions from… Held: and no bill of exceptions was then submitted to counsel; that the counsel of appellees heard nothing further in relation to the bill, until informed by the Circuit Clerk some weeks after that the bill had been filed in his office; and that the bill did not set forth all the evidence heard on the trial, but that material testimony…

Assumpsit, in the Stephenson Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellant. At the April term, 1848, the Hon. Thomas C. Browne presiding, on motion of the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant was required to plead on the morning of the day succeeding that on which the motion was made. At the August term, 1848, a default was entered against the defendant, on motion of plaintiff’s attorney for want of a plea.

Attachment, in the Cook Circuit Court, brought by the appellees against the appellants. The writ was tested in the name of the Circuit Judge. At the June term, 1848, Ralph V. M. Croes, an attorney of the Court, appeared and moved the Court to quash the writ of attachment issued in the cause, for the insufficiency of the affidavit, when a cross motion for leave to amend was interposed and allowed.

Assumpsit, in the Stark Circuit Court, by the appellants against the appellees, and heard before the Hon. John D. Caten and a jury, at the October term, 1848, when a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants. The facts, so far as they are material to the determination of this case, are stated in the Opinion of the Court.

Assumpsit, in the- Jo Daviess Circuit Court, brought by the appellee for the use of Robert C. Buzan, against the appellants, and heard before the Hon. Thomas C. Browne and a jury, at the October term, 1848, The suit was brought upon the following instrument: “Messrs.

Assumpsit, in the Kane Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, and heard before the Hon. Theophilus L. Dickey, at the January special term, 1849, who found the issues for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at the sum of $172-78., when the defendant moved in arrest of judgment. At the April term following, the motion was overruled by the Court, and judgment rendered for the amount of the damages assessed.

Indictment for larceny, in the Kane Circuit Court, heard before the Hon. John D, Catón and a jury, at the April term, 1848» The defendants filed an affidavit and entered amotion for a continuance.

Shit for taxes, in the Lee Circuit Court, at the April term, 1848, Hon. Thomas C. Browne presiding. A list of the lands against which taxes had been assessed and which were due and unpaid, and the printer’s certificate of publication of the notice of the intended application for a judgment having been filed, Stillman, Circuit Attorney, entered a motion for judgment.

<p>Bill in Chancery to foreclose a mortgage, &c., filed by • the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, in the Cook County Court, and heard before the Hon. Hugh T. Dickey, at the. October Term, 1848. The defendant, Hugunin, demurred to the bill, and the demurrer was overruled, and a decree pro confesso, that the defendant pay the complainant the sum of $2475-89, &c„, reported by the Master, and in default thereof, that the mortgaged premises be sold, &c.</p> <p>A statement of the material facts appears in the Opinion of the Court.</p>

Bill in Chancery, in the Lake Circuit Court, filed by the appellant against the appellees.

This was a suit for cutting trees, originally commenced by the appellee against the appellants, before a justice of the peace of Stephenson county, and tried before a jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants below. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court.

Trespass on the Case in the La Salle Circuit Court, brought by the appellees against the appellant, for damages occasioned by setting out a fite on the prairie, heard before the Hon. John D. Catón and a jury, at the November term 1847. The substance of the pleadings in the case is stated in the Opinion of the Court. During the progress of the trial, the plaintiffs below asked, among other instructions, the following, which was given : “4.

Debt, in the La Salle Circuit Court, brought by the defendant in error against the plain tiffin error, to recover back the amount, with interest, of a payment alleged .to have been illegally enforced from the defendant in error by the plaintiff in error. The case was tried by the Court below and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff below for $500 debt and $292*50 damages. The pleadings and evidence are set forth in the Opinion of the Court.

Assumpsit, in the Coolt County Court, brought by the appellee against the appellants for work done upon the Illinois and Michigan Canal, heard before the Hon. Hugh T. Dickey, and a jury at the October term 1848. The jury found a verdict for the .appellee for $1014-96. The appellant moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled and a hill of exceptions taken. The evidence, so far as it relates to the questions decided, is stated in the Opinion of the Court.

Debt, in the Lake Circuit Court, brought by the appellant against the appellees, on the official bond of one of the defendants below, as School Commissioner, for loaning the sum of fifty dollars of the school money for five years, without taking security by mortgage on unencumbered real estate, as required by the statute.

Bill in Chancery, for an injunction, filed in the Will Circuit Court by the appellant against the appellee, and heard at the October term, 1848, before the Hon. Jesse B. Thomas. The injunction was dissolved by the Circuit Court on motion, and the bill dismissed. The complainant appealed. The facts appear in the Opinion- of the Court.

Bill in Chancery, in the Winnebago Circuit Court, filed May, 1846, by Benjamin Smith, Margaret Smith, his wife, and Levi Moulthrop, plaintiffs in error, against Simmons Sackett, Benjamin Sackett, Erastus Moulthrop, Horace Miller, Gardiner C. Miller, and Hiram Waterman, defendants in error, and heard at the October special term, 1848, before the Hon. Jesse B. Thomas. The defendants below demurred to the bill: the demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed.

This case was submitted to the Circuit Court of Will county, at the October term, 1848, the Hon. Jesse B. Thomas presiding, upon an agreed statement of facts. The appellees, who were the plaintiffs below, claimed damages of the appellants, defendants below, for injury to their mill, resulting from a diversion by said defendants of the water of the Des Plaines River, from the mill of said plaintiffs.

This suit was originally broughtbefore the Probate Justice of the Peace of Marshall county by the present defendants in error for the use of Cochran & Perry, on the official bond, as a constable, of Robertson, one of the plaintiffs in error, for failing to return an execution in his hands for collection, within the time prescribed by law.

This was an action brought originally before a justice of the peace of Marshall county by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error for goods furnished by the former to the wife of the latter, living apart from her husband. The case was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court of said county, and there tried before the Hon. John D. Catón and a jury, at the October term, 1848, and a verdict found for the plaintiff below for $54-04.

Ejectment, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, and tried at the August term, 1848, of the Lee Circuit Court, Before the Hon. Thos. C. Browne and a jury- The plaintiff below, to show title, gave in evidence a Patent from the United States to Jesse Bowman, assignee of Samuel M. Bowman, for the premises in question, and a deed from Jesse' Bowman and Anna Bowman to himself for the same lands.

Replevin and Trover, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, and tried at the March term, 1848, of the Lake Circuit-.Court, by the Hon. Jesse B. Thomas, the parties dispensing with a jury. Both suits were between the same parties, depending on the same facts, and tried together on the same evidence. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and property in himself, to the declaration- in replevin, and the general issue alone in the action of trover.

Bill in Chancery, filed in the Henderson Circuit Court, by the appellees, as heirs of David Lynn, deceased, against the appellant, Samuel W. Lynn, a co-heir, and Stephen B. Munn, and heard before the Hon. Norman H. Purple.