Volume 12 — Wisconsin Reports

EBBOB to tbe County Court of Dane County. Tbe complaint of Lincoln, tiie plaintiff below, alleged that the defendant, Dobbins, was indebted to Mm for money laid out and expended by him, and for work done and performed by him and his wife, for the defendant, at Ms request, and for a promissory note executed by one Francis Massing, payable to the plaintiff, and by Mm sold and delivered to the defendant, at Ms request, the several items of wMch indebtedness were as follows:…

This was an action under wbat is commonly called tbe “ Mill Dam Act,” commenced in 1859.

The complaint of Davis, the plaintiff below, which was filed in November, 1858, alleged that he was a resident of the state of Wisconsin: that during the summer and fall of 1856, and the following winter and spring, the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company entered upon certain real estate, of which the plaintiff was seized in fee, of the value of $5000, being lots 3 and 14 in block 3, in D. H. & T.’s addition to the city of Portage, and eleven acres adjacent…

This was an action to set aside a tax certificate issued upon a sale of a quarter section of land in tlie county of Out-agamie, for the non-payment of taxes assessed foj.’ the year 1856, and to restrain Johnston, the clerk of the board.of supervisors, from executing a deed for said land to the defendant, Morrow, who was alleged to be the holder of the certificate.

The complaint was the same as in the case of Moss vs. The Board of Supervisors of Outagamie Oounty, ante, p. 26, and a demurrer to the complaint was overruled, from which decision the appeal was taken.

<p>APPLICATION for a Mandamus.</p> <p>Tbe case will appear sufficiently from tbe opinion of tbe court. . _</p>

<p>Upon a judgment for damages for the wrongful and fraudulent misapplication and conversion of school land certificates, deposited as security for a loan, an execution against the person may he' issued, after the return of an execution against property, unsatisfied in whole or in part.</p> <p>The defendant in such a caso is not entitled to exemption from imprisonment der section 16 of Article X of the constitution of this state, which provides that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on a contract, expressed or implied.”</p> <p>Where a sheriff is of opinion that the property of an execution defendant will not sell for enough to pay the expenses of the sale, he may, at his peril, refuse to levy upon it, and stating the facts, return the execution unsatisfied; and such return isp'imufaeie sufficient to authorize the issuing of an execution against the person.</p> <p>Where a petition for a habeas corpus alleges that the petitioner is confined in jail on an execution against his person, which was issued irregularly, or in an action in which the petitioner was not liable to arrest, the return of the jailer is sufiicient, if it shows that the petitioner is held by virtue of an execution against his person, which is valid upon its face, and which is produced and a copy of it annexed to the return; and the petitioner should allege by way of answer or avoidance, any facts which would show that the imprisonment, though apparently lawful, is really not so.</p>

Dressier sued the defendants, Davis, Glarh, and Stone, before a justice of the. peace, for injuries caused by the negligent driving of a wagon along a public street, in the city of Milwaukee, demanding, in bis complaint, judgment for one hundred dollars. Trial before the justice, and judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed to the county court.

A full statement of the facts out of wlicli this suit arose, may be found in 4 Wis., 154; 5 id., 62; and 6 id., 28; and it is deemed necessary to state here only so much of the evidence presented on the last trial, as gave rise to questions not previously decided by the supreme court in this case.

TLe complaint in tbis action, which was filed in May, 1857, alleged that the plaintiff, Streubel, had performed labor to the amount of $536, on section 17 of the defendants’ railroad, under the… Held: that tbe remedy might lawfully be abolished as to existing as well as future contracts, absolutely or conditionally, by means of insolvent laws. Sturges vs. Orowninshield, 4 Wheat., 122, 200, 201; Mason vs. Hcdle, 12 id., 370; Beers vs. Haughton, 9 Peters, 329.

APPEALS from tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county. These cases depended upon substantially tbe same state of facts, and were beard and decided together. Tbe principal case was as follows: Alleman and Ootton filed a bill in equity, in February, 1857, against Nelson Both,, Volkert W. Both, S. S. Oonover and one Donovan, to enjoin proceedings upon executions, which bad been issued upon a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, Nelson Both, against the complainants.

-AUEE AL from the Circuit Court for Mihoaulcee County. This was an action to recover possession of forty acres of land, situate within the present limits of the city of Milwaukee. On the trial in the circuit court, judgment of nonsuit was entered against the plaintiff. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.

This was an action to recover back money paid by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendant, and for other relief.

' This was a suit in equity, commenced in March, 1854, Toy the complainant Bird, for the purpose of dissolving an alleged copartnership between himself… Held: used and treated as such by Morrison, as well as- by Bird and the others. It can make no difference in law or in equity, whether the property was put into the concern by the individual partners as capital stock, or was purchased with money contributed by the partners, as capital stock for company uses and jrarposes.

This was an action to enjoin Daniell, tbe appellant, from selling or removing a wooden dwelling bouse from a lot in tbe city of Milwaukee.

The complaint in this case stated, that in May, 1856, the defendant, Hoover, made a subscription for five shares of $100 each, of the capital stock of the Milwaukee and Beloit Eailroad Company, to be paid at 'such times as the directors of said company should prescribe, &e., with a condition that the subscription should not be binding until the sum of $100,000 should be subscribed to the capital stock of said company, in the city of Milwaukee, independent of corporate aid;…

The complaint in this case was exactly similar to that in the preceding case of Downie vs. Hoover. The defendant filed an answer containing several grounds of defense. The first was a denial of the organization of the Milwaukee and Beloit E. E. Co.; the second, a denial that at the time of the pretended election of directors of said corporation, in March, 1856, there had been $50,000 of the capital stock thereof subscribed, as required by law, to authorize such election.

This was an action commenced in April, 1858, to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of four notes, two only of which were due at the commencement of the suit, the others not falling due until January, 1859. The notes and mortgage were executed by Oribb and Appleton, to one Mygatt; and the complaint alleges that the notes were assigned by tbe payee to tbe plaintiff.

<p>Where a motion is made during the progress of a cause, it is irregular to order that the costs allowed on a denial of the motion be entered in the final judgment in the action. The payment of such costs is to be enforced by a special proceeding, to be taken according to the provisions of chapter 149 of the Revised Statutes of 1858.</p> <p>A judgment may be entered against any one or more of several defendants, wherever a several suit might have been brought, or a several judgment upon the facts of the case would be proper; and that without regard to the character of the complaint, and whether it alleges a joint or several liability.</p>

The complaint of Solomon Adler, the plaintiff, alleged: 1st. That the defendants, dole, Thomas, Reed and Cogswell, on, &c., forcibly and wrongfully took from the possession of the plaintiff, and carried away certain goods of the value of $4,000. 2d. That the defendants, on &c., forcibly and wrongfully arrested the plaintiff, without any reasonable, lawful or probable cause, and held Mm in custody for about two hours. 3d. That the defendants, on, &c., wrongfully and forcibly…

Complaint to restrain tbe defendants from digging up tbe soil, and malting excavations and embankments across a tract of land belonging to tbe plaintiffs, wbicb, it is alleged, tbe defendants, wbo are insolvent, bave without color of right, commenced doing, and are threatening to proceed with, so as to binder tbe free passage of tbe plaintiffs from one part of their said land to tbe other, rendering tbe part so appropriated to such excavations and embankments entirely…

This action was brought in November, 1858. The complaint alleges, that the plaintiff is an infant; that sometime in the year 1851, an insurance upon the life of Margaret Ann Clark, the mother of the plaintiff’ was effected in the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, for the sum of two thousand dollars, for his use and benefit; that by the procurement of the defendant, the policy of insurance was made out and issued to said defendant, as the guardian of the plaintiff,…

This was an action. to recover a tract of land in Dane county.

The plaintiffs helow, who composed two firms, doing business under the names respectively of /Sackett, Belcher & Oo. and Widdefield, Cohn fy Co., sued the defendant Welch for trespass in taking and carrying away from a building occupied as a store by one Harding, certain goods, alleged to belong to the plaintiffs.

This suit was commenced on the 4th of June, 1856, to recover the possession of lot No. 28, in the north ward of the city of Green Bay. The declaration was in the ordinary form in use before the enactment of the code. Plea, the general issue. The cause was once before in this court, and is reported in 6 Wis., 410, and came on again for trial, at the October term, 1858, in the Brown circuit court, when, by stipulation between the parties, the following facts were admitted.

The complaint alleged, that on the 15th of May, 1855, the defendants, Tank and Verbech, were partners, under the name of the “Howard Foundry,” and in that name, in consideration of $5,300, to be paid, one-fourth, as defendants should require it during the progress of the work therein-after named, one-fourth after the same was duly completed, tried and approve^ by the plaintiff, and the balance in three and six months thereafter, agreed with the plaintiff to construct and set…

This was an action of quo warranto, brought in this court by the attorney general, in the name of the state, on the relation of Tesch, to determine by what warrant the 'defendant held the office of treasurer of the city of Milwaukee, and to determine also-the title of the relator to the same office.

Indictment for murder. The caption of the indictment was as follows: “State of Wisconsin, County of Portage, ss.

The plaintiffs in error sued out a common law certiorari from the Pond du Lac circuit court, to bring before that court the transcript of a judgment rendered against them in favor of Potter, before a justice of the peace..

Benoni B. Gillett filed bis bill in equity in March, 1848, in tbe district court of Wisconsin Territory for tbe county of La Payette, to compel tbe defendant, Bobbins, to convey to bun tbe N. E. qr. of tbe N. W. qr. of sec. 32, town 1 M, E. IE., in that county, wbicb tbe bill alleges tbe defendant purchased at tbe public land sale in 1847, at tbe TJ.

Action on a promissory note, brought by Moyer, the payee, against Cook, the maker.

The Dodge County Mutual Insurance Company insured °yers against loss by fire, upon a barn and its contents, for five years from tbe 18th. of November, 1856. These having ^ee11 J-estL’°ye(J by üre in July, 1858, and the company hav-ing refused to pay the loss, Rogers brought this action to recover the sum insured.

This action was brought by the “ Fox Biver Yalley Railroad Company” for money due on a subscription to its capital stock.

On tbe 5th of June, 1854, a writ of attachment was issued out of tbe circuit court for Bock county, in favor of John M. Keep, against Charles B. P. Wentworth and… Held: and a judgment against the garnishee only exposes the personalty held by him, to sale on execution running against the property of the defendant in the attachment; in other words, the property is, by this proceeding, discovered and released from the pretended claim of the garnishee, and exposed to seizure.

Tbe plaintiff, Joanna Sauntry, sued, before a justice, to recover tbe price of a small quantity of mineral ore, and obtained judgment for $12 96 and costs, from wbicb tbe defendant appealed to tbe circuit court.

EEEOE to the Circuit Court for Oalumet County. This action was tried in November, 1854, and the defendants had a verdict. There was a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court, and judgment entered against the plaintiff for costs. The record does not show that any exception was taken to the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for La Fayette County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court,</p>

Tbe writ of error in this case was issued ou tbe 28th day of October, 1859, to reverse a judgment rendered in tbe Jackson circuit court, on tbe 14th of January, 1857. A motion was made to quash tbe writ of error, upon tbe ground tbat it was barred by tbe statute of limitations. Tbe statute of limitations in force at tbe time a suit is instituted, governs and limits tbe right of action.

. Action by Dunbar against Sarnesberger, before a police justice of the city of Prescott, on a promissory note, dated June 12th, 1858, due the last day of January, 1859, for fifty-five dollars, with twelve per cent, interest from date, executed by the defendant to Henry Sorns, and alleged to have been endorsed by said Sorns, and delivered to the plaintiff. Answer, 1. A general denial. 2.

Action on a promissory note. Demurrer to the complaint, on tbe ground tbat it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Judgment for plaintiff. Tbe tions of tbe complaint, and tbe objections made to' it, are stated sufficiently in tbe opinion of tbe court. in support of their objections to tbe complaint, cited Parlcer vs. Totten, 10 How. Pr.

Tbe complaint in this case, which was filed in February, 1859, alleged tbe wrongful erection and maintenance by tbe defendant, of a mill dam, by means of wbicb tbe plaintiff’s land bad been overflowed during six years next before tbe commencement of tbe suit, demanding judgment for $5,000 damages, and also that tbe dam be abated and the defendant be restrained from maintaining any dam by which the plaintiff’s land should be overflowed.

This was an appeal from an order of .confirmation of a sheriff's sale of land under a judgment of foreclosure.

Bill for specific performance of an agreement to convey land. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. Tbe circuit court found for the plaintiffs, and made a decree accordingly.

Action by Moyer as assignee of a note for $1150, made by Gunn to one Manning, dated June 25th, 1857, payable six months after date, bearing 12 per cent, interest from date. Answer, usury, payment of the principal before suit brought, and a counter claim for $8 80. There was no reply.

This was an action to recover damages under the mill dam _ law. The complaint shows that the plaintiff, in 1856, conveyed certain lands to the defendants J. L. fy S. 0.

EEEOE to tbe Circuit Court for Fond du Lac County. Trespass, by limothy L. Gillet against Phelps, Vedder and Van Burén, for taking a stock of goods.

At tbe trial of tbis cause tbe plaintiff was nonsuited. clerk, in taxing tbe defendants’ costs, disallowed certain fees claimed by them, for travel and attendance as witnesses on their own bebalf. On appeal from tbis taxation, tbe court directed tbe costs to be taxed as claimed by tbe defendants, from wbicb decision tbe plaintiff appealed.

TMs action was brought in July, 1859, by Abigail Green, a married, woman, by ber next friend, to have an assignment by ber liusband of certain school land certificates set aside, and tbe certificates delivered up to Her. THe facts averred in tHe complaint are as follows: THe plaintiff was married to Henry H. Green in 1882, and they lived together as Husband and wife until May, 1859.

<p>A mortgagee of personal property who sells the same after default, under a power of sale contained in the mortgage, is accountable to the mortgagor for the surplus, after the debt and all reasonable costs and expenses are paid.</p>

County. Tbe complaint of Wood, tbe plaintiff below, alleged, that on tbe first day of March, 1858, being indebted to tbe defendant, Dulce Mowry, in tbe sum of $625, be executed to bim a note therefor, payable in nine months from date, with interest at twelve per cent, per annum from its date until paid, and at tbe same túne, as collateral security for tbe payment of tbe note, deposited with tbe defendant four school land certificates, embracing a quarter section of land in…

REPORTED from the Circuit Court for Bodge County, for the opinion of this Court. The defendant was indicted in the circuit court for Dodge county, in September, 1859, for permitting gaming with' cards for gain upon his premises. There were three counts in the indictment, of which only the first and second need he stated here.

REPOSTED from the Circuit Court for Juneau County, for the opinion of this Court. Indictment against Martin, Jacob, Franz, Agnes, Mary and Theresa Kneifle, in the circuit court for La Crosse county. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Tire complaint in this case alleges “ that during the month of February, 1859, said A. J. Olark, one of the plaintiffs, was imprisoned in the jail of Milwaukee county, charged with an offense against the laws of the United States;” that said Roseline N. then was, and now is, the wife of said A. J. Clark, and that the defendant then was, and ever since has been, the sheriff of said county; “ that on or about the 15th day of February, 1859, the said defendant, having as such…

The nature of this action is stated in the opinion of the court. The defendant justified the taking of the property as sheriff, by virtue of a writ of attachment issued at the suit of one Reed, against the property of Joseph Newman, who had jireviously executed to the plaintiff in this suit, the chattel mortgage, under which he claimed the property.

This was an action to recover of the defendant for labor performed and material furnished for him by the plaintiff, in making a fill on lot 6, block 45, in the 3d Ward of the city of Milwaukee, and on the street and sidewalk in front thereof, for which the complaint alleges the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff thirty cents per cubic yard, amounting to $421.80, to be paid when the work was completed, which was on the 30th of March, 1859. The answer was a general denial.

Chapin applied to the circuit court for Rock county, for an order upon Mosher, to show cause why the sheriff of said county should not receive the sum of $1,612 74 (which had been tendered to him by Chapin), in full satisfaction of a decree made by that court for the sale of certain premises mortgaged by one Chase to Mosher, and subsequently sold by the former to Chapin, and, at the time of the application, advertised for sale by the sheriff, under said decree.

The complaint in this case, wMch was filed in 1859, alleged that the plaintiff, Platto, had an estate, as tenant for a term of years, in certain premises therein described, which term would expire on the first day of May, 1861; that he was entitled to the possession of said premises; and that the defendant unlawfully withheld the possession thereof from Mm.

The facts of this case are so fully stated in. the opinion of the court, that it is not necessary to state them here at length.

This action was brought in August, 1859, on a promissory note for $2,000, dated December 1st, 1857, made by tlie defendants, payable to tbe order of the plaintiff, twenty-eight months after date, with interest at 12 per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually. The plaintiff claimed to recover $240, being the two installments of interest which became due December 1st, 1858, and June 1st, 1859.

Erom this order Newland and Daniels each appealed to the circuit court for that county, and that court made an order, in which, after stating that the cause had been brought on to trial, without a jury, by stipulation of the parties, and that the allegations and proofs of both parties had been duly heard and considered, and that it appeared that there were no sufficient grounds for reversing said order, it directed the appeal to be dismissed, with costs. 6r. W. Foster, for…

Action by Olapp against Upson and Strickland, as partners, upon a promissory note executed in tlie name of “Strickland & Co.,” and payable to the order of tlie plaintiff. Strickland suffered default, and Upson answered under oath, denying bis execution of said note, or that be was a partner of Strickland at the time when the note was executed. On the trial of this issue, the depositions of the plaintiff and one Allen were read in support of the action.

On tbe 7th of January, 1859, the defendants Diedrich and Henry Upraann, confessed judgment in the county court of Milwaukee county, in favor of the Second Ward Bank, for the sum of $2,104. Execution was issued upon the judgment, January 29, 1859, and returned March 17, 1859, with the following indorsements: “ Received Eeb’y 1st, 1859, at 9 A. M. Filed March 17th, 1859.” “Milwaukee county, ss.

This action was instituted in this court, by If. R. Orton and Geo. M Bryant, under the statute concerning “ actions against the state,” to recover for services as attorneys in defending certain actions brought against the school land commissioners in this court. The case is stated sufficiently in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to recover the amount of a railroad stock subscription. Held: and still held, said ten shares ready for the defendant upon his making payment therefor; that said company, before the 2d of November, 1855, located their depot at Burlington, west of the east line of the land of Joseph Eey, in said agreement referred to; that various calls had b.een made by said board of directors, for the payment…

Indictment against Byrne and Kinney, as inspectors at a general election in the city of Madison, for knowingly recéiv-ing and sanctioning the reception of an illegal vote.

. The nature of this case appears sufficiently from the opinion of the court. conten dec! that an appeal Jay from the order of the court denying the motion to vacate the judgment for irregularity in the summons (E. D. Smith, 349), and that the summons was irregular. 1 Code Rep., 118; 2 id., 75; 4 How. Pr. R, 154; 5 id., 233, 241. contended that the order did not involve the merits of the action or any part thereof, and cited 10 How. Pr. R., 89, and 4 id., 329.

<p>EEEOE to tbe Circuit Court for Portage County.</p> <p>Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

Indictment against Peglow and one Eranz, for murder. Plea, not guilty. They bad separate trials, and tbe former was found guilty of murder. Tliere was no bill of exceptions signed or filed. Tbe record entry as to tbe judgment or sentence pronounced, appears in tbe opinion of tbe court.

Franz, indicted jointly with Peglow, for murder, as stated in the preceding case, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. There was no bill of exceptions made.

<p>The statute -which provides that where a mortal wound shall be given in one county, by means whereof death shall ensue in another, the offense may be prosecuted in either county, is not in conflict with that provision of the constitution which secures to a person accused, the right to a trial by a jury of the county or district wherein the offense was committed.</p> <p>Where a mortal blow is struck in one county, and death ensues therefrom in another, that court, in either county,which first takes cognizance of the offense, has exclusive jurisdiction thereof, and no other court can acquire any jurisdiction of it, except by a change of venue, as provided by statute.</p>

A motion was made by the respondent to dismiss the appeal, for the want of a printed case, as required by the rule of this court.

Borngesser sued Harrison in March, 1860, before a justice of. the peace in the city of Milwaukee, upon an account fox $47 36.

An. alternative writ of mandamus was issued in tliis case, requiring tlie defendant, who was the register of deeds of Green Lake county, to… Held: and that by the return made to the clerk of the board of supervisors in Eond du Lac county, by the canvassers of the votes in the different wards and towns, it ap- . peared that the whole number of votes given upon the question, was 4,910, of which 2,525 were “for detaching Ripon,” and 2,885 “against detaching Ripon,” showing a…

This was a prosecution for bastardy, commenced before a police justice of the city of Milwaukee, on the complaint of one Jane McAfferty. The defendant entered into a recognizance for his appearance before the circuit court of Milwaukee county, upon trial in which he was found guilty.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court. contended that the provisions for appeals, (chap. 139, R. S.), apply only to civil actions, and that this is a quasi criminal action, in which a summary method of arrest and punishment is authorized, and in which the proceedings are not for the benefit of any private individual, but are designed to protect the people against loss for the maintenance of the bastard, the supervisors of the town being authorized to make the…

, of tbe city of Portage to provide for tlie assessment, equalization and collection of a special tax to defray the expense of certain work alleged to Rave keen done by the relator under an ordinance of said city, or to show cause, &c. The davit of the relator showed that on the 1st of April, 1857, two-thirds of the owners of lots upon a certain portion of one of the streets of the city of Portage, made application in due form to the mayor and council of that city, for the…

By an act of tlie legislature, the electors of the county of Buffalo were authorized to vote, at the annual election on the first Tuesday of April, 1860, upon the question of the removal of the… Held: and by the same officers who should then canvass and declare tbe result of tbe votes given at such general election. 2.

<p>A writ of error should be returned by the inferior court or the clerk thereof, with the record, and in order that it may be so returned, thé writ itself should be left in the custody of the inferior court.</p> <p>Where a writ of error was served by delivering an attested copy thereof to the judge and clerk of the inferior court, and showing them the original, and the judge annexed to such copy, and .certified up under the seal of his court, a transcript of the indictment and proceedings in the cause, (the original writ being filed in this court by the attorney of the plaintiff in error, with proof of such service,) it was held, that the record had not been duly brought into this court, and that the writ of error should be dismissed.</p>

Action by David Drake and J. L. Stark, for tbe recovery of an undivided fourth of certain land in'Milwaukee county. Tbe defendant admitted bis possession of tbe land, and claimed title thereto. On tbe trial, tbe plaintiff proved that one Pliny Drake died intestate at Milwaukee, in April, 1838, seized in fee of tbe land in controversy, leaving , surviving him bis mother and nine brothers and sisters, bis sole heirs at law.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court. as to the relation in which the members of the band stood to the contributors, and as to the power of courts of equity to control the funds of voluntary associations, and to prevent a perversion of gifts to uses not intended by the donors, cited 4 John. Ch. R., 186; 1 Pars, on Con., 101, 872; Story’s Eq. Jur., § 1190; Burr. Law Die., title “Trusts;” 19 Yt., 410; 7 id., 241; 11 id., 296; 9 Wend., 401; 1 Sandf.

Graves, alias Davis, was indicted in the circuit court for Green county, for stealing a horse. Plea, not guilty. The venue was changed to the circuit court for Dane county, where the prisoner was convicted.

<p>APPLICATION for a Mandamus.</p> <p>The case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. contended tbat tbe orders beld by tbe respondent were payable only out of tbe jail fund of tbe county, and tbat it did not appear from tbe complaint, bow tbat fund was to be furnished with money to meet demands upon it, or bow tbe respondent was injured by tbe payment of orders filed subsequently to bis own. 2. Tbe Code has not enlarged tbe power of tbe courts to grant permanent injunctions. H. Y. Life Lns.

In this case an application was made by the respondent ^01'ai1 order, the nature of which application, and the grounds upon which it was made and was resisted, will appear sufficiently from the opinion of the court.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The co-defendant of Wiltse was one Tymeson, whose name was signed, as auctioneer, to the advertisement by Wiltse of the sale of the note for $5,000, pledged to him as security for the loan of $2,000. 1.

This was an action to enjoin the city of Kenosha from collecting a certain tax levied upon real estate in said city for the purpose of paying scrip issued by said city upon its subscription of $150,000 to the stock of the Kenosha and Be-loit Railroad Company.

The Central Bank of Wisconsin sued Enowlton and another, as successive indorsers of a bill of exchange. The complaint did not aver that the plaintiff was a body corporate. Demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it did not appear on the face of it that the plaintiff had a legal capacity • to sue.

<p>EBBOB to the Circuit Court for Dane County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action to recover damages for a breach of warranty as to the quality and condition of a carpet purchased by the plaintiff of the defendants. Verdict for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence, overruled, the defendants excepting, and judgment upon the verdict.

iStacy and Thomas sued tbe Lane County Bank upon an alleged undertaking duly to }Dresent for payment a note sent by tbem to said bank for collection, and, if not paid, to take tbe proper steps to charge tbe indorser; breach, tbat tbe note was not duly presented for payment by said bank, nor tbe indorser duly notified' of its non-payment, by means of wbicb tbe indorser was discharged, and, tbe makers of tbe note being insolvent, tbe debt was lost. Trial by tbe court.

This was an action of assumpsit, (brought before the adoption of the Code), by an indorsee against the indorsers of a bill of exchange. The declaration contained the common money counts, with a copy of the bill sued upon, which was as follows: “ San Francisco, Oct. 6, 1854. At sight of this second of exchange (first and third unpaid),pay to the order of Phcebe Blatchley two hundred and fifty dollars, value received, &c. Adams & Co. To Messrs.

EKROB. to the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. This action was brought before a justice of the peace, and came to the circuit court by appeal.

The complaint in this action alleged that, on the 23d of ■December, 1856, the defendant Almira Vanhoosen, for the purpose of securing the payment of $316, with interest, according to the tenor of her three notes of that date, executed to one Francisco a mortgage upon forty acres of land in Jefferson county, which was duly recorded July 18, 1857; that she was the owner of said land by virtue of a certificate of sale issued by the commissioners of school and university lands,…

This action was brought by Dinsmore, as trustee for the Walworth County Ban!?:, against the Racine and Mississippi Railroad Company and others, to foreclose a mortgage upon two hundred and eighty-five 60-100th acres of land in Racine county, alleged to have been executed by said company to one Allen, on the 2d day of December, 1857, to secure the payment of a note of said company for $7000, and which note and mortgage were afterward assigned by said Allen to the plaintiff,…

<p>In an action to foreclose a mortgage given by a husband and wife to secure the payment of their bond (executed by her during coverture), it is erroneous to render a personal judgment against the wife as well as the husband, for any deficiency which may remain due after the sale of the mortgaged premises, unless it is shown in the complaint that the contract related io her separate property, and was one upon which she might become liable to a personal judgment.</p> <p>That part of the judgment of the inferior court, which is against the wife personally for such deficiency, may be reversed, and the residue of the judgment be affirmed.</p>

<p>The last clause of see. 29 of tlie Code, which declares that if the county designated as the place of trial in the complaint “be not the proper county, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried therein, unless the defendant, before the time of answering expires, demand in writing that the trial be had in the proper county,” relates not only to what precedes it, in the same section, but also to the preceding sections, 21 and 28, of the Code, and qualifies their meaning. If a defendant fails so to demand that the trial be had in the proper county, it may be had in the county designated in the complaint.</p> <p>An action was brought in the circuit court of Milwaukee county, to foreclose a mortgage on land lying in Washington county, and process was served on one of the defendants in Milwaukee county, and on the other in Washington county, where they respectively resided. The defendants did not appear to the action. Held, that the circuit court of Milwaukee county had jurisdiction of the action, and could render judgment of foreclosure therein.</p>

This action was brought to recover the amount of a subscription made by the defendant to the stock of the Kenosha and Beloit Railroad Company.

The case is stated sufficiently in the opinion of the court. contended that the allegation in the answer, that the defendants had not sufficient information to form a belief whether the indebtedness upon which suit was brought had been assigned to the plaintiffs, and whether they were then the owners of the same, did not amount to a denial but to an admission of the allegations in the complaint.

. Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. contended that tbe ordinance in question was void, as being unreasonable, and in restraint of trade. 1 Bacon’s Abr., “By-Law,” p. 545, and cases cited; Com. Dig., “ By-Law,” C. 6; 2 Kyd on Corp., p. 107; Parry vs. Berry, Comyns, 269; Dunham vs. Trustees of Rochester, 5 Cow., 462; Willcock on Mun.

Tbe complaint in tbis action alleged that, during tbe pen-^eiicy a su^ ^orec^ose a mortgage on a lot in Water-town, executed by Oostigan, one of tbe defendants herein, the mortgage was assigned to tbe plaintiff by the mortgagees, in trust for them creditors; that after judgment of foreclosure and sale in said suit, tbe mortgaged premises were advertised for sale; that at tbe time of such advertisement, said mortgagor was, and ever since bad been, insolvent, owning no…

EBBOB to the Circuit Court for Dane County. This action was brought by Joint School District No. 7, of Burke, Blooming Grove, Cottage Grove and Sun Prairie, to recover damages for an injury done by the defendants to a school house in said district, and to perpetually enjoin the defendants from removing said school house, as it was alleged they had threatened to do while the school was in session therein.

Anderson and Rdwards sued Morris for negligence in allowing tbe schooner Amelia to be removed from bis county, after be bad lawfully taken possession of it, as sheriff, under certain legal proceedings, instituted by them against one Carswell, to recover possession of said vessel. On tbe trial, tbe plaintiffs, for tbe purpose of showing their title to tbe vessel, offered in evidence tbe following entry in tbe docket of a justice of tbe peace: “ Henry Taylor vs. Schooner Ameba.

This was an action by Richards, Smith, Garret Vliet, Jasper Vliet, to vacate a judgment entered against them the circuit court for Milwaukee county, on the 10th of Octo-her, 1857, in favor of the Globe Bank. The following is the statement of the facts, as found by the judge of the circuit court: “ First. The judgment complained of was for $5,000 and costs, and was entered upon a warrant of attorney to confess judgment.

This case was reported in 9 Wis., 70. On a motion for a rehearing, which was denied, Dixon, C. J. delivered the following dissenting opinion: