Volume 11 — Kansas Reports

Error from Lyon Listriet Court. Action brought in the district court on the bond of a school-district treasurer.

<p>1. School Districts; Action on Treasurer’s Bond; Who to he Plaintiff. An action on the bond of the treasurer of a school district to recover a balance not paid over to his successor in office, must bé in the name of the school district, and not in the name of such successor as treasurer.</p> <p>2. Party; Title of Cause. The plaintiff in an action cannot be described in the. alternative, as one, or another. Who the party plaintiff is must appear clearly and with certainty from the record.</p> <p>3. Default; Error. It is error to enter judgment for want of an answer, before the time for answering has elapsed.</p> <p>4. Parties; Defendants in Error. Before a judgment rendered in the district court can be reversed in error, the party in whose favor it was rendered must be brought into this court.</p>

Frror from Jackson District Court. Action by plaintiff in error against James M. Helnuand William Helm to set aside and annul a deed, and to compel defendants to surrender the same for cancellation.

Error from Neosho Eistriet Court. Injunction, brought by Beaeh and six others, residents, electors and taxpayers in School District No. 2, Neosho county, to restrain Leahy, as county treasurer, from collecting certain taxes levied on property of the plaintiffs.

A complaint was filed and prosecution commenced against Crawford on tbe 20th of February 1872, charging him with the crime of murder in the first degree, in shooting and killing Charles H. Davenport on the 14th of said February. Subsequently, and at the April Term of the district court, an information was duly filed to which defendant pleaded “Not guilty,” and the case was tried at the September Term 1872 of said court.

Error from Brown District Court. Chase sued the Railroad Company to recover damages for the destruction by fire of forty-five tons of hay, forty-five rods of fence, and one hay-rack and one hay-rake. The line of defendant’s road was through plaintiff’s land, and said property was situated on plaintiff’s land, and about thirty rods from the railroad track.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by Ortman to quiet his title to a certain lot in the city of Topeka, designated in his petition as “ Lot 169 on Kansas Avenue,” and having a frontage on said avenue of twenty-five feet. The case was tried before A. L. W., judge pro tern., at the June Term 1869, and judgment was given quieting Ortman’s title to the north twenty feet, leaving Giles’ title or claim to the south five feet undisturbed.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus Motion to Dismiss. The only question decided in tbis case is one of practice.

Error from Cowley District Court. Trespass, brought by Wilson, to recover for injuries to his growing crops by cattle of Davis. The action was commenced in a justice’s court, and appealed to the district court, where it was tried at the July Term 1872, before A. H. G., pro tern. judge, and a jury. The case here presents several questions of practice respecting which the proceedings and the facts whereon they arise are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. The defendant in error as administratrix of tbe estate of her deceased husband Daniel Salmon, brought suit against the K. P. Railway Company to recover damages sustained by the widow and heirs of said deceased by reason of his death. The action was brought under §422 of the code.

Frror from Shawnee District Court On the 27th of May 1867, defendant in error, The President and Directors of the Insurance Compmvy of North America, issued its policy of insurance to one G. E. Bernstein to insure him on his stock of goods in Council Grove to the amount of $6,000. Afterward the policy was reduced by the agent of the defendant to $3,000.

Error from Saline District Cov/rt. Action by Clarhson to recover damages committed upon his lands by cattle belonging to Powers. The cause was tried at the July Term 1872, and judgment given in favor of the plaintiff. Powers brings the case here on error. The opinion contains a full statement of the case.

JError from, Sedgwick District Court. Williams brought suit before a justice of the peace to recover an alleged debt due him for a lot of corn sold by him to Smith. The action was appealed to the district court, and was there tried at the December Term 1872. The defense was, payment. On the trial Smith testified that on or about the 9th of December 1871 he settled with Williams, and paid him in full for the corn, being the claim in suit.

Error from FranJdin District Court. Humphreys sued Keith on a promissory note. The district court, at the December Term 1871, held that plaintiff was not the party in interest, and could not for that reason recover, and. gave judgment for defendant for costs. The plaintiff brings the case here on error. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. 1.

Error from Greenwood District Court. Judgment of foreclosure and sale was given in favor of McOurdy against John G. Kirkman and another, and an order of sale was issued to Baker as sheriff to appraise, advertise and sell the mortgaged premises as upon execution.

<p>1. Power of Attorney, to Convey Lands. A power of attorney to dispose of all the principal’s lands in a specified district is good, though it does not in terms mention any land, and if the principal own any land in that district, a conveyance thereof by the attorney will pass the title.</p> <p>2.--Attorney may make Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. A power of attorney'to convey or assign away real estate in payment or to secure the payment of debts, authorizes the attorney to make an assignment of such real estate for the benefit of- creditors.</p> <p>3. Assignment — Who may Attack. Under the laws of 1862 concerning assignments, only the creditors could avoid the assignment on the ground that the assignee had given no bond.</p> <p>4. Record; Evidence. The record of an instrument authorized to be recorded is admissible in evidence when it appears that the original is not in the possession or under the control of tlie party desiring to use it.</p> <p>5. Evidence — Grounds of Objection. An objection to the admission of testimony to be available must ordinarily state the grounds of the objection.</p>

Error from Coffey District Cov/rt. The action in the court below was against Chapman and Crocker, the latter being sued as county clerk.

<p>1. Divorce; Petition Cannot be Verified before Attorney. The affidavit verifying a petition in a divorce suit can not be made before an attorney of the plaintiff.</p> <p>2. Motion; Practice. Where a petition is improperly verified, the remedy is by motion to strike it from the files.</p>

Error from Franklin District Court. Action by Mrs. Washabaugh to recover damages for art injury sustained by means of a defect in the sidewalk on Oak street in the city of Ottawa. Plaintiff claimed that it was the duty of defendant to construct and maintain a good and sufficient sidewalk at the place designated, but negligently suffered said walk to become and remain in an unsafe condition, etc. The action was tried at the August Term 1872 of the district court.

Error from Cowley District Court. The petition filed in the district court was entitled as follows: “Enoch Maris, A. A. Jackson, and C. H. Kingsbury, who sue for the benefit of all the occupants of the town site of Winfield, plaintiffs, against The Winfield Town Company, The Winfield Town Association, and T. B. Ross, probate judge in and for Cowley county, defendants.” The body of the petition is as follows: “The plaintiffs say, that for a long time prior to the 10th of July…

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. The Independence Town Company as plaintiff filed in this court a petition against James Delong, as Mayor of the City of Independence, defendant, for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to convey to the plaintiff or its assigns the lots in the town site of the city of Independence.

En'ror fircm Doniphan District Court. Action for malicious prosecution, brought by Hudson against G. W. Gillespie and William Ketchum. The petition alleges that Gillespie had commenced a criminal action against Hudson, charging him with the larceny of a certain raft of saw-logs belonging to Gillespie & Ketohwm, and that said charge was false, and said action malicious.

Error from Leavenworth District Cowrt. Action against McGonigle and Bueldey upon an undertaking executed by them as sureties. The body of the undertaking is as follows: [Title.] “'Whereas, Wm.

Error from, Leavenworth District Court. On the 20th of November 1868, Hiatt commenced an action against Auld to recover the sum of $4,679, together with interest from the 3d of December 1865. On the 9th of February 1870, said cause came on for trial. During its progress, and after a number of witnesses bad been examined, Hiatt on leave of the court, dismissed his cause without prejudice, the attorneys of the parties signing a stipulation in relation thereto.

Error from Doniphan District Court. Injunction, brought by the Railroad Company, to restrain Dryden from cutting down telegraph-poles, and interfering with their telegraph line. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts. The district court, at the September Term 1872, dissolved the temporary injunction thereto fore granted; and from such order plaintiff appeals, and brings the case here on error. 1.

Error from Douglas District .Court. This action was commenced in tbe district court by Erisoilla Blachbwrn and John Blackburn against the plaintiff in error.

Error from Labette Distriet Cowrt. Replevin brought hy-Reed against Umbarger as constable, to recover possession of two mares of the value of $350. The defendant’s answer admitted that Reed was the owner of the property, but defendant justified the taking by virtue of an execution issued to him as constable by a justice of the peace upon a judgment in favor of G. W. Bowman and against said Reed.

Error from Labette District Court. Action by Ellsbree as plaintiff against Emnaett Doty, J. F. Waskey, F. P. Waskey, J. W. Weir, Wm. Herbaugh and J. C. Petty, the sureties on the official bond of H. C. Bridgman of Labette county. The averments of the petition are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The defendants demurred.

Error from Labette District Court. The petition below was entitled “George W. Fox,plaintiff, v. Mrs. Peter Van Norman, defendant.” The body of said petition is as follows: “The plaintiff shows to the court that Peter Van Norman in his lifetime made and delivered his certain promissory note, of which the following is a copy: [Then follows copy of note dated January 12th 1871, for $125, payable three months after,date to N. L. Harlin, signed 'Peter Van Norman/ And two other…

Error from Pottawatomie District Court. Action to foreclose nmrtgage given by Standift and wife to Norton.

M'ror from Morris District Court. Action brought by J. C. Munkers and W. R. Terwilliger to recover of the plaintiff in error the sum of $1,518, being the price for the loading of five hundred and six car-loads of stock, at the rate of three dollars per car. Answer, general denial. The action came on to be heard at the April Term 1871, Hon. J. H. Watson, district judge, presiding, and was tried on the 12th of April, before the court and a jury.

Error from Osage District, Cowrt. Bain brought replevin against Hutchinson and another for the recovery of the possession of a certain printing press and a keg of ink. The action was tried at the March Term 1872. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for the recovery of the possession of said property, and for damages for the wrongful detention by defendants. The value of the property was assessed at $250, and damages for detention assessed at $85.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. By the adoption in 1868 of an amendment to § 4 of art. 15 of the constitution of Kansas, the office of State Printer was created. Said amendment provides that such officer shall be elected by the legislature in joint session — the election to be held on the third Tuesday of January in every .•second year, commencing in the year 1869.

Error from Woodson District Court. Bicknell brought suit against Pierce and Prutsman, and recovered judgment against Pierce alone. The facts, and questions of practice arising in the case, are stated in the opinion. The action was tried at the March Term 1872 of the district court. Pierce brings the case here on error. 1. The motion to compel the plaintiff below to separately and distinctly state the causes of action in his petition ought to have’been sustained.

Error from Neosho District Court. The commissioners of Neosho county determined that Morris was elected to the office of register of deeds of said county at the general election in November 1871. Vanlanmgham gave notice that he would contest said election, and served and filed the statement and gave the bond as required by § 89 of ch. 36, Gen. Stat.

M'ror from Wyandotte District Court. Injunction brought by McMahon to restrain and enjoin Welsh as county treasurer from collecting certain taxes on 120 acres of land in Wyandotte county, and from assigning a tax-salé certificate of said land duly issued to the county for the unpaid taxes, interest, and charges levied on said lands for the year 1870.

Error from Shawnee District Cou/rt. Lee brought suit to recover $1,777.37 balance due on a lot of cattle sold and delivered by him to Hunter, and interest on said balance, and also $2,249.87 damages alleged to be sustained by reason of Hunter’s refusal to receive other cattle under, a contract between the parties. The nature of the defense, and the averments of the answer, and instructions given and refused, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee Bisiriet Qomi. Trespass, brought by O. V. Thayer against Greer to recover damages committed by the horses, cattle and hogs of defendant to the growing crops of plaintiff.

M'ror from Brown District Court. Grover sued, the Railroad Company before a justice of the peace.

Error from Wilson Distriet Court. Mandamus, to require Eussell as clerk of the district court, and J. C. Gr. Held: although fraudulent votes .shall hctvebeen received. Theremedy in such a case is to purge the polls by striking out the fraudulent votes if possible.” 68 Penn. St., 336.

Error from Labette District Cowrt. Action brought by. Wood, under § 594 of the civil code, to quiet title.

Error from Montgomery District Court. Action by Foster, to establish a trust, and compel trustees -to convey title. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. A demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition was sustained, at the .August Term 1872 of the district court, and plaintiff brings the case here. 1. The prevention of litigation is a valid and sufficient consideration, and the law favors the settlement of disputes.

Error from Greenwood District Court. The decision in this case involves only questions of practice ; and the facts upon which they arise are fully stated in the opinion. The district court, at the September Term 1872, gave judgment in favor of Billson & Jones and against Hodgson, and the latter brings the case here.

Error from Doniphan District Court. Ejectment, brought by Bixby, to recover 160 acres of land. The principal question here is as to the sufficiency of the evidence introduced by Bailey to show the validity of the judgment rendered in 1865 in favor of Dana Fox against Bixby, and upon this question the faots are fully stated in the opinion.

Error from Miami District Cowrt. The action below was commenced by John A. Chambers, to quiet his title to 160 acres of land in Miami county..

Eh’ror from Sedgivielc District Court. Brockett & Houck, as partners, sued J. E. Martin and E. P. Waterman, alleging that one William H. Roark was a justice of the peace of Sedgwick county, and Martin and Waterman were sureties on his official bond; that Schlichter & Co. obtained a judgment before said justice against one Hall for $61.30, which judgment was by Schlichter & Co. assigned to plaintiffs; that one Longsdorf entered himself as surety for the stay of execution on…

Error from Wyandotte District Cov/rt. Sharp gave his note to Barker, bearing interest at the rate of .twelve per cent, per annum, and secured said note by mortgage. One condition stated in the mortgage was, that if the “taxes or assessments of every nature which are assessed or levied against said premises” should not be paid at the time when the same was by law due and payable, then the whole of the mortgage-debt should immediately become due and payable.

Error from Atchison District Court. Injunction, brought to restrain Parker, as county treasurer from selling certain lots in the city of Atchison for delinquent city assessments.

<p>Sidewalks; Contract — Streets, Graded and Ungraded; Power of Cities. A city of the second class has power to stipulate in one contract for making •sidewalks on several streets, and to assess the cost thereof upon the different lots fronting on such sidewalks, according to the front foot thereof. And snch a city has power to 'make a sidewalk on a street before it is graded. [Parker v. Challiss, 9 Kas., 155, cited and followed.]</p>

Error from Douglas District Court. Action for the partition of lands, commenced by Bennett, as plaintiff, against George E. Hutchinson and Sarah F. Hutchinson, and others, as defendants. Held: “As the law now stands, all married women have the capacity to make a will. What real or personal property passes by the will, and what does not; is clearly a matter which has nothing to do with the probate in this class-of cases, more than any other.

Erren' from Leavenworth District Court. This action was commenced in the district court by the Kansas & Missouri Bridge Company to recover from Hunt $2,000 alleged to be due from him on assessments made by the plaintiff’s board of directors on the amount of stock subscribed for by Hunt in said company.

Error from Cherokee District Court. The transcript filed in this case contains over two hundred pages. It contains the pleadings, an order granting a temporary injunction, the order of reference, the testimony taken by the referees, the depositions, and the referees’ report.

<p> Error from Shawnee District Cowrt. </p> <p>Action by Carter as assignee of William Collins upon an account for rent. On the trial evidence was given showing Collins’ ownership of the premises, the use and occupation thereof by School District No. 23, Shawnee county, and the value of such use and occupation. Other facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff had judgment at the June Term 1872, and the School District brings the case here on error.</p> <p>The assignment by Collins to Carter of his claim for the rent in question is not such a “written instrument” as §108 of the code provides “shall be taken as true, unless the denial of the same be verified by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney.” The legislature never intended to force a party to verify his denial of an allegation in a pleading about the truth of which he has, and from the very nature of the case can have, no knowledge, or admit the same to be true. We do not believe said § 108 admits of such a construction. The fair construction and meaning of the statute is, that where a party to the suit is alleged to have “executed” or “indorsed” a written instrument, his denial thereof shall be verified, or the allegation shall be taken as true. If our construction is correct then the assignment of Collins to Carter was improperly admitted as evidence-without any proof that the signature of Collins was genuine, and that the Collins who executed it was the Collins who owned the premises for the use of which Carter seeks to recover. Who can say but the William Collins who owned the premises in question may call for his rent at any future day? We think the section of the code above referred to only applies to the execution or indorsement of written instruments sued upon.</p> <p>If § 108 of the code means anything, it means what it says; and, under it, the court did right in admitting the written assignment in evidence without proof of its execution. A section intended to prevent parties from pleading a falsehood ought not to be construed as inviting such pleading. If the allegation of the execution of the instrument were true, the other party should not deny it. If it were untrue, the party should so affirm under oath. If it was believed to be untrue, the denial could be verified on belief only. Section 111, code.</p>

Error from Shawnee District Cov/rt. Action brought by Avey. The petition filed in the court below stated that the plaintiff desired to ride on the railroad of defendant from 'Wakarusa to Topeka, and applied to the agent for a ticket; that through the fault and negligence of defendant it had failed to supply such agent with tickets, and at the time of such application the agent was not provided with them; that thereupon the plaintiff went upon the cars of defendant and…

Error from Saline District Cowrt. Phelps had judgment at the November Term 1872 of the district court, and Couse brings the case here. Motion by Phelps to dismiss petition in error, for reasons stated in the opinion.

Error from Douglas District Court. Simpson brought ejectment against the U. P. Bly Co., E. D., in 1868, to recover the possession of certain lands in Douglas county. The action was tried at the February Term 1870. Verdict and judgment for Simpson, and the Bailway brings the case here on error. The proceedings in this court are stated in the opinion.

Error from Washington District Court. The county attorney of Washington county brought suit against A. D. Lane, Percival Perdue, and W. PL Cottins, as sureties of Frank Lane in a recognizance given by said Frank Lane as a witness in a criminal case pending in the district court. The criminal action had been continued until next term, and Frank Lane was required to recognize for his appearance to appear and testify as a witness on the part of the state.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Coleman brought three suits as plaintiff, two against Ferdinand Arn alone, and one against Ferdinand Arn and Fritz Arn. Each of these cases was referred by the court to three r'eferees. Other facts and proceedings are stated- in the opinion. Judgment was given in favor of Coleman in each case, at the June Term 1872, and the Arns bring the cases here on error. The three cases were heard and considered together. 1.

Ffrror from Clay District Court. Action against Dorman Bloss, as principal, and Hiram Bloss, as surety, on a forfeited recognizance given in a criminal action. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The defendants demurred to the petition. The district court, at the November Term 1872, overruled the demurrer and gave judgment against the defendants, who bring the case here on error. * The suit is upon what is claimed to be a forfeited recognizance.

Error from Doniphan District Court. The principal facts in this case are set forth in the opinion of the court, infra. The notes sued on, and mentioned in the opinion, are three in number, amounting in the aggregate to $1,680. Except as to amount, and time of maturity, they are alike. The first note is as follows: “$590.00. November 10th, 1865.

Kror from Marshall District Cowt. Action by Koester- to foreclose a mortgage. The proceedings in the court below, and the respective claims and equities of the several defendants to and in the mortgaged premises, are fully stated in the opinion. Judgment of foreclosure and sale was rendered by the district court at the November Term 1872, and Kirkwood, one of the defendants, brings the case here on error.

Error from Jaolcson District Court. Foltz brought ejectment. The action was tried before A. M. C., judge pro tern., at the April Term 1872 of the district court. Merrill had judgment, and Foltz brings the case here on error.

K'ror from, Brown District Court. Miles brought his action for verbal slander, alleging that Harrington “ maliciously intending to injure the good name and character of the said plaintiff and to cause it to be believed that he had been guilty of the crime of larceny, on the 20th of July, 1871, in a certain discourse which he then had of and concerning the plaintiff, and in the presence and hearing of' divers- good people, falsely and maliciously spoke . and published of and…

Error from Labette District Court. Mrs. Lee sued Loveridge before a justice of the peace for-money loaned, and recovered judgment. The district court, at the July Term 1872, reversed said judgment, and Mrs. Lee brings the record here for review. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The judgment of the justice should not have been reversed. No error is apparent upon the record; but if error existed, as alleged, it' was fully waived by subsequent appearance and answer. 2.

Error from Franldin District Court. Action by plaintiffs to compel specific performance.

Error from Douglas District Court, Simpson obtained an order of injunction restraining the Railway Company from making use of a case made in the district court, or a transcript thereof, such case having been made in an action wherein Simpson was plaintiff, and the Railway Company was defendant. ■ The petition and proof on which said injunction was allowed, shows that the case, the use of which was so enjoined, was presented to the district' judge in vacation by an attorney…

Error from, Douglas District Court. Injunction, brought by Killam against theOity of Lawrence, the Board of Comm/r’s of Douglas Co., and Paul B. Broohs, county clerk of said county, to enjoin and restrain said clerk from executing and issuing tax-deeds for three lots sold by the treasurer of said county for delinquent special assessments levied on such lots by said city for constructing sidewalks in front of said lots, and to set aside and declare void the said special…

<p>1. Failure to Preserve Testimony ; Presumption in famor of Judgment. Where the record fails to show that all the testimony is preserved, and where (the case being tried by the court) there are no findings of fact separately made, but only a general finding for defendant, and no motion for a new trial, the supreme court cannot determine whether the finding is supported by the evidence or not.</p> <p>2. ----In such a case if there are disputed questions of fact going to make up the plaintiff’s claim of title, this court will not consider alleged errors in the admission of the evidence of the defendant.</p>

Error from Doniphan District Court. The City of Troy filed its petition in the district court in March 1872, against the Atchison & Nebraska Rid.

Error from Leavenworth District Cov/rt. Action by McLanathan on a policy of insurance, to recover for damages sustained by fire, and by reason of exposure of property subsequent to the fire. The action was tried at the September Term 1872. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the Insurance Company brings the case here on error.

Error from Atchison District Court. This was an action for malicious prosecution, brought by Smith against Marbourg and Lea. M. and L. as partners, had at a prior time sued Smith for slander, and the record shows the case to have been dismissed. The record or order of dismissal is copied in the opinion, infra. For the bringing of that action Smith brought this suit against them for malicious prosecution.

Error from Brown District Court. . McMartin brought suit, on certain notes which Lichty had given him, and which were unpaid. Said notes were given as a part of the purchase price of a mill in Dixon, Illinois, and payment of them was secured by a mortgage on the mill. Lichty, after having paid McMartm $16,000 of the purchase price, sold the mill to one Wood; and in the deed to Wood it was stipulated that Wood should pay off the mortgage as a part of the purchase price.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Plaintiff in error, Mrs. McKee, bought of defendants in error lot No. 24, in block No. 45, in the city of Leavenworth, for $6,050, and paid $2,050 in hand, and for the $4,000 unpaid executed two notes, secured by mortgage on said premises, payable respectively in one and two years, with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent, per annum.

Error from Wilson District Court. Action brought by Davis, February 21st 1871, against Andrew Akin, C. G. Akin, Henry Akin, and Charles M. Akin, to recover damages sustained by reason of the mill-dam of the defendants flowing the waters of the Verdigris river back upon and over plaintiff’s lands, to compel defendants to abate or lower their mill-dam to a certain point, and to perpetually enjoin and restrain defendants from raising and maintaining their mill-dam, etc. The…

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Ejectment, brought by Feeney to recover the undivided one-sixth of 166.70 acres of land. Said tract of land was patented in 1859 to John D. Brown, a Wyandotte Indian. Said Brown and wife conveyed the whole tract to their six children, Plezekiah, Leander, Eliza, Rebecca, John and Lucinda.

Error from Doniphan District Court. Action by Ryan to recover damages for a breach of the contract set out in the opinion, infra. Ryan alleged that he made the conveyance, and fulfilled on his part all the conditions of said contract, but that the.

Error from Marshall District Court. Ejectment, brought by Sherry, to recover possession of two lots in the town of Marysville, (formerly Palmetto.) Plaintiff claimed title in fee simple. Sampson answered, alleging title in himself. The action was tried before the court, .without a jury, at the October Term 1872. Other facts are stated in the opinion. Judgment for defendant, and Sherry brings the case here on error.

Error from Johnson District Court. On the 23d of, January 1872 Milhoan commenced his action by filing in the district court the following petition; \_Title.'] The said Thomas E. Milhoan, plaintiff, complains of said David H. Mitchell, A. Smith Devenney, and James W. Green, defendants, for that on the 19th of-December 1870 the plaintiff was the owner in fee simple of the .following described land situate in Johnson county, to-wit: [describes 130 acres of land;] and that he…

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. The Board of County Commissioners of Bedgvdck Co. filed their petition in this court for a writ of mandamus to compel IP. W. Bailey, as county clerk of Harvey county, to perform the duty prescribed by § 6, ch. 97, Laws of 1872, and apportion certain taxes upon certain taxable real property detached by said ch. 97 from Sedgwick county and attached to and made a part of said Harvey county.

Error from Leavenworth District Cowrt. Action to foreclose a mortgage, brought by Lang against Deitrieh and wife. Lang had sold the mortgaged premises to Deitrieh, and the notes and mortgage sued upon were given for the unpaid purchase-money of said premises. The notes were signed by Charles Deitrich, only.

Error from Leavenworth Eistriet Cowrt. This was an action originally brought by Me Grato before a justice of the peace, on a bill of particulars charging Lobenstein with negligence, and claiming damages therefor. The case was removed by appeal to the district court, and there tried at the December Term 1872. MoGraw had judgment for $75 damages, and costs of suit — from which judgment plaintiff in error brings the cause to this court. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1.