Volume 10 — Wisconsin Reports

This was an action brought by William C. Bateman in the circuit court for Green county, Wisconsin, to recover the purchase money paid by the plaintiff to Corbly Johnson and Miron C. Burnett, the defendants, on a bond to convey certain real estate situated in said county, together with damages on the bond by the defendants in refusing to convey the land described in the bond. The action was commenced by the personal service of a summons and complaint on the defendants therein.

This is an action brought by the plaintiffs, Aaron Blade and Charles C. Shoyer, against the defendants, The Chicago, St. Paul, and Fond du Lac Railroad Company, as common carriers, in the circuit court for Rock county, to recover damages for injuries done to six bales of domestic goods, delivered to the defendants at Chicago, and by the defendants for good and legal consideration to be freighted over the road of the defendants, and to be delivered to the plaintiffs, at…

This was an action commenced in the circuit court for the county of Racine, by Richard M. Wanzer, David Foote and John A. Kerr, by creditors’ bill, October 20th, 1851, against Richmond W. Howland, A. C. Barry, P. Hardy and 0. How-land. Most of the facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court, and will be omitted here.

This action was brought by Enoch P. Dye against Obed Montague, to recover damages for the breach of a written contract for the conveyance of land from Montague to Dye. The contract acknowledged the receipt of the consideration of $400, for which Montague bound himself to make a deed free and clear of all incumbrances, in one year from the date, of 40 acres of land in the state of Iowa; and bound himself under a penalty of $400 if he failed to make the deed.

This was an action brought by the administrators of Rufus P. Jennings against Samuel Chandler, to compel an account of the partnership existing between Jennings and Chandler in Jenning’s lifetime, in the dry goods business. The complaint averred that at the death of Chandler the stock of dry goods, &c., amounted to $16,000 or $20,000, and other property to from $10,000 to $20,000.

This case comes to this court upon an order made by the judge of the circuit court of Milwaukee county, denying the petition of the appellants, David W. Catlin, Lorenzo Snow, and E. Porter, to set aside the decree of confirmation of a sale entered in that court.

APPEAL PROM circuit COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. This case comes before the court on an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Milwaukee county. The plaintiff, John D. Pierce, filed his declaration under the old practice in debt, upon a contract, the substance of which is stated in the opinion of the court.

This complaint was in the usual form under the code, setting out the contract sued on, and claiming judgment for the principal and interest; for which judgment was rendered. The other facts will be gathered from the opinion of the court. 1. A demurrer can only be regarded as frivolous when its insufficiency as a defense must be so glaring that the court can determine it upon bare inspection, without argument. Nichols vs. Jones, 6 Pr.

This is an appeal brought by Steckmesser from an order of the Dodge Circuit Court, by which a transcript of a judgment rendered by Charles Beckman, Esq., a Justice of the Peace for the County of Dodge, in favor of Steckmesser, and against Graham & Scott, and which had been filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dodge county, was ordered to be stricken from the files and the docket entries in the Judgment docket; which order was ordered to be vacated and set…

This áction was commenced in the circuit court for Dodge county, on the 28th day of July, 1858, by the plaintiff, Thomas Boyd, for the foreclosure of four mortgages given by the defendant, Farnum A. Sumner, to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in his complaint claimed to recover upon fourteen county orders, issued by the supervisors of the county, at various times, from the 27th day of November, A. D. 1849, to the 27th day of December, A. D. 1858 ; that the orders were severally presented for payment to the treasurer of the county, on the 20th day of April, A. D. 1859, and payment refused, and notice to defendant; plaintiff demanded judgment for amount of the orders.

This action was commenced in Crawford county, and from thence removed to Bad Ax county for trial.

This was an action brought on the 16th of March, 1858, against the county of Crawford, to recover a judgment upon a county order, signed by two of the commissioners of the county, and dated the 29th of May, 1843, and presented for payment on the 31st of October, 1843, and payment refused by the treasurer, “ for want of funds in the treasury.” The complaint claimed the amount of the order, $90 86, and interest, from the date of presentation.

The facts in this case will be readily gathered from the decision of the circuit judge, and from that of this court. The opinion of Judge Cate is as follows : “The complaint in this action sets up a claim, on the'part of the plaintiff, against the county, based upon county orders, issued by said county.

This was an action commenced by the defendants in error, Frederick H. Kribs and Ephraim Myers, against George R. Nichols, the plaintiff, for the recovery of personal property, claiming title in themselves as the assignees of Moses K. & David Kribs, and averring detention, &c., by Nichols.

This was an action commenced by declaration, containing only the money counts. The action was founded upon a promissory note for 0367,61, dated September 2, 1850, and payable in six months from date. No copy of the note was given, nor was there any special count upon it. The declaration was served February 28, 1857, and the plea of the general issue interposed.

This is an action commenced by the respondent, John Moyer, against the appellant, 0. Strahl, on a promissory note, made by the appellant, together with one S. R. Gunn, dated at Prescott, Wisconsin, June 26th, 1857, payable to A. P, Manning, or order, for the sum of $1,150, at St. Paul, Minnesota, due six months after date, with interest, at 12 per cent, per annum, from date. The note had been endorsed by the payee, and transferred to the respondent.

This action was brought to compel the conveyance by the defendant to the plaintiff of certain lands described in the complaint, alleged to have been purchased by the defendant as the agent of the plaintiff, and for his benefit. The complaint and answer were served respectively on the 30th day of June, and the 16th day of July, 1857.

This was an action brought against the defendants for taking from the plaintiff á quantity of goods, wares and merchandize, in a store at Mazomanie, in Dane county.

The facts of this case can be gathered from the opinion of the court, and will not be restated. insisted that the order of arrest should have been vacated by the court below, because it was irregular on its face. The constitution provides that “ the style of all writs and process shall be The State of Wisconsin. Process signifies the writ or judicial means by which the defendant is brought to answer. Bonv.

This was a proceeding in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county, at the February term, A. D. 1859, instituted by the respondent as relator, to punish the appellant for a contempt of court, in neglecting to execute a writ of assistance, issued by the clerk of the court, and delivered to Ernest Off, the under sheriff of the appellant; and was based upon the affidavits of H. Mulberger, and J. J. Enos, attorneys for Chap-pell ; and upon the relation, an attachment was issued and…

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace of Dane county, to recover the value of a quantity of lime claimed to have been sold by Daniel Williams to one Kline, to use in constructing a building for McDonell. The cause was appealed to. the county court, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff below, who was the assignee of Williams, for the amount of the claim. The effect of the testimony is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced to recover four bonds of $100 each, issued by tbe La Crosse & Milwaukee Railroad Company, for the purpose of retiring $400 of the capital stock of the Milwaukee & Watertown Railroad Company, which the defendant Cady detained. The answer denied the detention and claimed a lien upon the bonds for service as agent m procuring the issuing of the bonds to one Martin Stuifer, of whom the plaintiff purchased them.

<p>APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY.</p> <p>The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

A judgment of foreclosure had been rendered by the Dane circuit county, in favor of Marshall against Lawrence, and it was referred to R. W. Lansing, to make sale of the mortgaged premises, and to report the same to the court. After the making of the sale, Lansing presented his bill for $20, which he claimed as his fee.

This was an action to foreclose a mortgage; the defendants appeared and answered, and a trial was had, and judgment of foreclosure rendered against George W. Haskell and Hannah S. Haskell, for the sale of a part of the land named in the bill and mortgage, and judgment against George W. Haskell and Edward W. Haskell for the deficiency, if any, and judgment for Gilbert Allen, another defendant, for his costs.

This was an action brought to foreclose a mortgage, and comes to this court on an appeal from an order of the court below, affirming an order of the judge of said court at chambers, setting aside the sale, order of confirmation of sale, and subsequent proceedings. The judgment of foreclosure was entered April 10th, 1858, and the sale was made June 2d, 1858, and confirmed on the 10th of June, 1858.

The facts in this case, as to the matters of the complaint and answer, and the entry of judgment, are stated in the opinion of the court. The judgment interlocutory and order of reference was made on the Sth of June, .1858, who reported the matter back, and final judgment was entered on the same day.

<p>Appeal — Practice—Order and Decrees.</p> <p>Where an appeal is taken from an order “ denying a motion made to set aside, and strike from the file the judgment roll,” and the record showed no suoh order was made hy the circuit court, the appeal will he dismissed.</p>

This was an action commenced by Clark against the city of Janesville, to recover the amount due upon a city bond, and the coupons attached. Held: or that the people voted on the question. Saying “that upon the said submission á majority of the votes cast were in favor of taking stock,” is not saying any votes were cast upon the question.

This action was brought to recover interest on coupons.attached to town bonds issued by the town of Beloit, for the purpose of aiding the… Held: might be employed as such instrumentality, and indebtedness and taxation, as lawful means, at the time the power was exercised, and the obligation incurred by the subscription. “ But everything was made to depend for its validity and force upon the exercise of the sovereign power with which the legislative body was clothed, at the…

This was an action brought by the Rock River Bank to recover the amount of a note made by M. W. Sherwood.

This was an action, commenced by Lemuel W. Weeks against tbe City of Milwaukee, the County of Milwaukee, and Garrett M. Fitzgerald, the county treasurer, to restrain the latter from selling the lands of Weeks for taxe^.

This action was commenced by Peter Soens and others, against the city of Racine, to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the city of Racine from collecting a special tax levied upon the lands of the respondents to pay a part of the expense of building certain piers, breakwaters, and protections, for the purpose of securing the lake shore in the second ward of the city from the encroachment of the waters of Lake Michigan.

This action was commenced by Samuel and William Lumsden against James B. Cross, to recover the amount they had paid to redeem a lot in the city of Milwaukee which the defendant had allowed to he sold for taxes which he was hound to pay.

APPEAL PROM CIRCÜIT COURT, WALWORTH COUNTY. This was an action commenced by William Cahoon, against the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company, as maker, and James Haskins and John S. Partridge, as indorsers, of the following promissory note: “ Oppice op the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company, I Elkhorn, June Qth, 1857. j $275. Six months after date, the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company 'promise to pay Wm.

Andrew Blaikie filed his declaration, describing himself as the assignee of James A. Smith and Charles B. Smith, against Harry Griswold and Franklin J. Burcham, as partners, &c., in the common money counts, to which was appended a' notice in the usual form, that the claim was founded upon two promissory notes, each for $2,317,50, dated January 23, 1858, payable to the Smiths, in 90 days from date, on one' of which was indorsed $719,03.

APPEAL EROM ’ CIRCUIT COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. This was an action commenced by Charles D. Nash against Benjamin Church as owner, and Frederick Buchmann as tenant, for the recovery of lot 7 in block 30, in the sixth ward of the city of Milwaukee. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed title in themselves.

This was an action commenced by David M. Marvin against Abram Tittsworth, John D. Titsworth, Rudolph Titsworth,' William Dunn, Francis Clark and L. 0. Paine Freer, to recover possession of lands.

This was an action commenced by Eben E. Caldwell against Judah M. Lawrence, to enforce a lien for lumber furnished by Lansing Bicknell, a lumber merchant, to Lawrence, and used in the construction of a dwelling house. The amount had béen determined between Bicknell and Lawrence, and a note for $71 51 given for its payment; and Bick-nell filed his lien under the statute for the amount; but before suit brought, assigned the note to Caldwell, who now brings this suit.

ATPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, This was an action brought by William H. Newman and Edward Franks against John Kershaw, impleaded with Theodore Perry, and several others, to foreclose a mortgage upon premises situated in the State of Wisconsin, and which was executed and delivered by Perry to them, within the state of New York, to secure a bond for $20,000, with interest at seven per cent.

This was an action commenced by Lucius G-. Fisher against the Horicon Iron and Manufacting Company, for damages in the construction of a dam across the Rock river at Horicon, whereby the waters of the river were made to overflow five hundred acres of lands of the plaintiff. The answer of the defendant set up as a defense : 1. The act to authorize A. G-. Ellis and others to erect a dam at the place where this is erected, approved March 9, 1839. 2.

APPEAL EKOM CIRCÜIT COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. After this case was remanded to the circuit court, according to the ordermade and reported in 6 Wis., 369, where the facts are fully stated, it was referred to the clerk of the court to ascertain the amount due on the bond and mortgage to the defendant Lyness.

This was an action for libel, brought before the code took effect, by Joseph W. Haskins, against Samuel Lumsden, William G. Halpin, and Edward Kennibeck, for publishing a handbill, headed “Jackson Hadley ,” and addressed to Democrats of the first district of Wisconsin, and Irishmen and Germans in particular,” which was published by the defendants the evening preceding the general election of 1856, at which election Hadley was a candidate in that district for member of…

This action was brought by Ferdinand Sauer against Charles Steinbauer, to foreclose a mortgage on which one of three payments had become due, and the others to become due; on which judgment was entered for the whole amount, and for an absolute sale of the mortgaged premises. From which the defendant appealed to this court.

This action was brought by James W. Babb against Joseph Mackey, for damages sustained by the plaintiff,' by reason of building and maintaining a dam across the Baraboo River by the defendant, whereby the lands of the plaintiff were overflowed, and’’greatly injured, and a mill site on the plaintiff’s land was destroyed. To this declaration the defendant pleaded three pleas: 1. General issue. 2.

This was an action for the delivery of personal property unlawfully detained, brought by the plaintiff, Charles C. Pratt, against the defendant, John E. Donovan, James A. Maxwell and Ozias Y. Throop, two of the appellants, signed the undertaking of the plaintiff, Charles C. Pratt, to the coroner of Sauk county, in order to obtain a delivery of the goods in question. The complaint of the plaintiff is in the usual form for the unjust taking and detaining of the property.

This was an action commenced by James Finney against the Milwaukee & Mississippi Railroad Company.

<p>APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, DANE COUNTY.</p> <p>The facts in this case are fully stated by the court.</p>

This action was brought by Thomas Chynoweth against D. K. Tenney, Wm.

This was an action commenced by John M. Jamison, against Toleff Gjemenson, impleaded with Stark Larson and his wife, to foreclose a bond and mortgage made by Larson to secure the payment to Jamison of #1,500, with interest semiannually, and conditioned that if the interest was not paid when due, the whole might become due at the option of the mortgagee. The interest due December 1, 1857, was not paid, and suit was commenced for the whole sum.

This was an action of replevin in the detineP, commenced by Jonathan R. Bates, against Miles Wilbur, to recover the possession of a buggy.

This was an appeal by John Hassler from a decision of the commissioners of the swamp and overflowed lands, awarding a pre-emption right to certain lands to Frans Schumacher. The facts of. the case may be gathered from the opinion of the court

This was an action commenced by Julius A. Stevens against Lyman H. Cotterill, Wilbert N. P'easlee, and James Johnson, to recover the sum of $500.

This was an action commenced by James M. Phillips, against Henry Swart and David P. Smith. The substantial allegations in the bill are, that the complainant owned the equitable title or interest to certain real estate, by a contract with one Daugherty, by the terms of which he was to pay $3,000; $2,500 of which he had paid.

This was an action commenced by Samuel M. Hay and Orson J. Clark, against the Steamboat Winnebago, under the act relating to boats and vessels. The complaint alleged, in substance, that they had a claim against the boat, for the sum of $124, for work, materials furnished in building, repairing, &c., the steamboat The boat was seized by the sheriff, upon the warrant.

This action was commenced by George F. Emerson & Co., against the steamboat “Shawano City,” for the price of a force pump. The facts of .the case can be readily gathered from the opinion of the court.

<p>Replevin — Goods Sold and Delivered.</p> <p>Where S. sold a stock of goods to M., taking a mortgage as security for his pay on the goods, and after forfeiture M. re-delivered the goods to S. with other goods originally belonging to M., from which last S. was to receive enough to replace any deficiency which on taking an inventory might be found in the stock sold by S., and return the balance to M.; but, before completing the inventory, the sheriff levied upon the whole stock by virtue of an execution issued against M., and took them from the possession of S., who brought replevin against the sheriff for taking the goods, &c.: Held, that as to that part of the stock sold to M., S. took an absolute title without any further aot on the part of either party; but as to that portion originally belonging to M., and from which 8. was to make up the deficiency after taking the inventory, the title would not pass until the inventory was completed.</p> <p>The case of Sewell vs. Eaton, 6 Wis., 490, considered and approved.</p>

This was an action commenced by Miles L. Kellogg, before a justice of the peace, against Anson Ballard, and appealed to the circuit court. The defendant was examined before the justice as%a witness in the cause, and was in attendance at the court on the day previous, and also a few minutes previous to calling on the cause for trial, when he could not be found to be notified or subpoenaed.

<p>Appeal — Practice.</p> <p>An appeal -will be dismissed unless there is a proper return of the record of the cause from the circuit court.</p>

This action, was commenced by Nelson B. Norton, against John Kearney, Charles J. Jones, and Washington I. Butler.

<p>ORIGINAL ACTION TOR MONET CLAIMED.</p> <p>The facts in this case will be readily gathered in the following opinion, and in the same case reported in 9 Wis., 38.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY.</p> <p>This was an action commenced by Lawrence G. Graham and Donald Scott, against the La Crosse and Milwaukee Rail Road Company, Selah Chamberlain, Moses Kneeland,, Jackson Hadley, Edwin H. Goodrich, Z. G. Simmons, E. Mariner, James Luddington, Coles Bashford, Samuel Hale, Daniel Wells, jr., C. Clement, George E. Dexter, B. G. Gill, E. O’Neil, W. D. Chapin, William Chappell, E. Cram, Thomas Falvey, and E. Cramer, respondents, in the nature of a creditor’s bill, setting forth two judgments for $11,170, and $29,804,57, and costs against the railroad company. The others were made parties because they were supposed to have some interest as lessors, bondholders, and receivers of money, &c. The complaint asked for a receiver, and settlement of the indebtedness of the company. All the defendants except the Railroad Company, filed demurrers and assigned reasons:</p> <p>“ 1. The court hath no jurisdiction of the subject of the action.</p> <p>“ 2. There is a defect of parties plaintiff The La Crosse and Milwaukee Rail Road Company should have been made plaintiff</p> <p>“ 3. There is a defect of parties defendant.</p> <p>“ 4. Several causes of action have been improperly united in this complaint:</p> <p>“ 5. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,”</p> <p>This demurrer was sustained by the circuit court, and the plaintiffs appealed.</p> <p>After a judgment creditor has exhausted his remedy at law, he may invoke the power of a court of equity to set aside •fraudulent conveyances, and to reach all trust property, all equitable interests, and choses in action, belonging to the debtor, which cannot be reached by execution at law. This power of a court of equity is not dependant upon statutory provisions, but is a part of the inherent power and original jurisdiction of a court of equity to grant relief wherever a right exists at law, and the modes of proceeding in courts of law afford incomplete remedy. This was decided, as to trust property and equitable interests, in Hendricks vs. Robinson, 2 J. Ch., 283; Brinkerhoof et al. vs. Brown et al., 4 J. Ch., 671", McDermutt et al. vs, Strong et al, 4 J. Ch., 689 ; Spa-der vs. Davis et al., 5 J. Ch., 280; s. c., 20 John., 555; Egbert vs. Pemberton et al., 7 J. Ch., 208.</p> <p>2. The code has only changed the form in which the 'right is to be sought, but has not pretended to take away any rights which before existed. Rogers vs. Horn, 2 Code Rep., 7 9 ; Hammond vs. The Hudson R. Iron and M. Co. et al., 20 .Barb., 378.</p> <p>It is true that the “proceedings supplementary ” are, in some cases, a sufficient substitute for the creditor’s action but they are cumulative upon the remedy by action, and, moreover, do not apply to corporations. Hinds vs. Canandai-gua and N. F. li. R. Co., 10 How. Pr., 487; Sherwood vs. B, and N. Y. City R. R. Co., 12 How. Pr., 136; Tappan vs. Evans, 11 N. H., 311; Bigelow vs. Cong. Soc. Middleton, 11 Vt., 283-86 ; Waterman vs. Cochran et al., 12 Vt, 699 ; Gordon vs. Lowell, 21 Maine, 251; Williams vs. Hubbard, Walker Ch., 28; Wright vs. Petrie, 1 S. and M. Ch., 282 ; Balletine vs. Beal, 3 Scam., 203; Bean vs. Smith, 2 Mason, 252; McElwainvs. Willis, 9 Wend., 559; Willard’s Equity, p. 240.</p> <p>Legislatures cannot abolish the general jurisdiction of equity. Const, of Wis., art. VII, sec. 2; Rubens vs. Joel, 3 Kern., 488; Voorhies vs. Child, 17 N. Y., 361.</p> <p>3. This creditor’s action is the appropriate, and often the only, remedy to enforce payment by a corporation.. Bigelow vs. Cong. Soc. Middleton, 11 Vt., 283; Wright vs. Petrie, 1 S and M. Ch., 282; Blanchard vs. Cawthern, 4 Simmons R., 566; Covington Drawbridge Co. vs. Shepherd et al., 21 How. U. S., 112.</p> <p>The better opinion is that the franchise of a corporation is not the subject of sale on execution at law, and our revised statutes, chap. 78, secs. 11-15, do not apply to railroad companies. Angel and Ames on Corporations, sec. 641, note 1; Trustees Pres. Society vs. JL. & S. R. R. Co., 3 Hill, 567.</p> <p>In this case we steer clear of all the question ever made, for the funds we are trying to reach in the hands of Goodrich are trust funds within every definition. They are the funds which came to the hands of Goodrich while a director of the company; and no cases, I suppose, need be cited to show that a director is a trustee, &c. 1 Story Eq. sec. 465, 466, 466 a; Chan. Corp. vs. Sutton et at., 2 Atk., 400-4; Hodges vs. N. E. Screw Go., 1 R. I., 312-40.</p> <p>But the stronghold of the defence, as J understand it, is in our revised statutes, p. 875, chap. 148, sec. 18, for the sequestration of the property and effects of insolvent corporations.</p> <p>1. We say- this statute vests in the circuit court a discretionary power only, in the nature of a visitorial power. In a certain case, if the creditor ask it, the court may sequestrate; &c.</p> <p>2. The statutory remedy is cumulative only, and not exclusive of the creditor’s suit. I have already shown that the creditor’s suit flows from the general jurisdiction of courts of qquity, and is not founded upon any statute. “ If a statute give a remedy in the affirmative, (without a negative expressed or implied), for a matter which was actionable by the common law, the party may sue at the common law, as well as upon the statute; for this does not take away the common law.” 2 Inst., 200; Com. Dig. Title, “ Action on Statutes, C.;” JLmey vs. Harris, 5 John., 174; Farmers Sec. vs. Coventry, 10 John., 389 ; Ooldsen vs. Eldred, 15 John., 220; Chittenden vs. Wilson, 5 Cow., 165 ; Rex vs, Leicester, 7 Barn, and Cres., 6.</p> <p>In Byron vs. May, 2 Chand., 103, we find an authority nearer home, and similar to this case. State vs. Norton, 3 Zabriskee, N. J. 33, 40 ; Mayor Bat. vs. Howard, 6 Har. and J., 383 ; Booker vs. McRoberts, 1 Cal., 213 ; Sharp vs. Warren, 6 Price, 231; s. c., 2 Eng. Ex. Chr. R. 408; Peoule vs. Craycraft, 2 Cal., 243.</p>

This was an action by Cfolm Harris, Jun., against John Harris, Sen., the facts of which are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action commenced by Julius D. Morton, against Andrew S. Wells and Otis R. Johnson, to recover the amount due upon two promissory notes made by them, for $300, and for $237 73, with interest. The complaint was in the usual form under the code, and was served, with the summons, on the defendants, August 9th, 1858.

This was an action commenced by Edward H. Beebee, against O’Brien, Graham and Jones, and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>APPEAL EROM CIRCUIT COURT, RACINE COUNTY.</p> <p>This was an action commenced by Latham Cornell against Russell Skinner, Alice E. Skinner, Otis E. Stevens, Mary A. Stevens, Edwin Skinner, Henry Skinner, Richard Van Alstine, Charles D. Wicker, Joel -H. Wicker, Columbus A. Orvis, William H. Dewey, David Rhodes, Alex. McClurg, James D. Van-hovenburg, Nicholas Schneider, Benjamin Raymond, Charles P. Raymond, John G. Conroe, Hugh Gorton, Phillip Lovell, John Kimber, Charles Fountafn, John C. Tucker, Thomas Smith, jr., Charles L. Curtis, and John Heley, to foreclose a mortgage, as stated in the opinion of the court. In addition to the facts therein stated, it is only necessary to add that at the commencement of the suit, the defendants had, by law, six moths in which to answer the complaint. But that act was repealed by chapter 220, General Laws 1859, published April 2d, 1859, in express words, thus leaving no time in which the defendants were to answer.</p>

This was a motion made by Alexander C. Wiggins, the respondent here, in the circuit court for an order setting aside and vacating a sale of real estate made by the sheriff of Rock county, by virtue of an execution issued out of the circuit court for Rock county, upon a judgment recovered by E. P. Doty against Spencer Snyder. The motion was based upon petition and affidavits; copies of which, with notice of the motion, was served personally upon the appellants.

This was an action commenced by Richmond W. How-land against William L. Needham, for false imprisonment. The complaint was in the usual form, and avered an imprisonment for four days in the common jail.

This was an action brought by Dewey K Warren, Sheriff of Waukesha, against Lefebre D. Gordon, Orvis French, and' D. Edgar French, upon an indemnity bond, given by the defendants to the plaintiff, to secure him in making a levy in an attachment case, of Gordon against one Peter Smith. The penalty in the bond was $800.

This was an action commenced by Sally Ann Davis, 17 years of age, by her father Harry Dayis, against Martin Haf-ern, for damages for breach of promise of marriage. The petition of the plaintiff is signed by herself and sworn to, and the father consented to serve, and the order appointing him is signed by the circuit judge. The summons, being in the usual form, was returned by the sheriff, that by diligent search he could not find the defendant in the county.

This was an action of replevin, commenced by Hezekiah Dunbar against James W. Hollinshead, for a steer, in which verdict and judgment were given for the plaintiff. At the next term of the court the defendant made this motion for a new trial, founded on the affidavit of the defendant, and on the minutes of the judge taken at the trial, of the evidence of five witnesses. The motion was granted, and the plaintiff appealed.

This action was commenced by William F. Manny against Lafayette Smith and Richard Woolsey before a justice of the peace; the facts of which are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action commenced by E. A. Woodward, against'Jacob M. Howard, as executor of the estate of Mary P. H. Cutler, for the support and. maintenance of the child of .the deceased. On the trial, the court found for the plaintiff, $59 50, and judgment was entered accordingly, from which the defendant appealed.

APPEAL PROM CIRCÜIT COURT, DANE COUNTV. This was an action commenced by Oscar Mohr, Francis Fischer, and his wife, against Francis Gault, to obtain a perpetual injunction to restrain him from directing the waters of Black Earth creek from their mill, in the town of Cross Plains.

On the 22d of November, 1859, S. D. Carpenter filed in the supreme court a relation against Samuel D. Hastings, the treasurer of the state, avering that one James Ross was the contractor to do the public printing; that on the 19th of July, 1859, the Bank Comptroller ordered from Ross, for the use of his office, 125 quires of blanks of the statement of the condition of the banks of the state, on medium paper, printed on both sides; (the order is set forth at length); that…

The relation filed in the case by Samuel Crawford, set forth that he had been elected to the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and entered upon the duties of the office on the first of June, 1853.

This was an action commenced hy Andrew Proudfit, by information for a mandamus, against Samuel D. Hastings, the State Treasurer, to compel him to pay out of the state treasury to the relator $5645,25. The information set forth that Calkins & Webb were the state printers, and as such they had printed and furnished to the Secretary of State, by his order, blank forms amounting to 5640 quires, worked on both sides.

This was an action commenced by James P. Falkner against Loring Guild to recover back money paid upon a land contract, on the ground of the defendant’s want of title to the land. The complaint was framed upon the following paper: Madison, Wisconsin, July 28, 1855.