Volume 18 — Illinois Reports

The defendant in error filed his bill against the plaintiffs, to enjoin tlie plaintiff's from prosecuting an action of ejectment against Walter S. Akin and David Rotramel, for the recovery of forty acres of land which the defendant in error claims under the will of his father, Robert A. D. Wilbanks, deceased.

Defendants in error sued plaintiff in error in an action of debt. Declaration claims $1,943.62 debt, and $100 damages. Two counts on two sealed instruments of writing. Plea—non est factum. Motion and leave given by court to amend declaration upon the trial, by inserting in each count thereof “ without defalcation, for value received, payable and negotiable at the Bank of the State of Missouri,” upon the allowing of which amendment defendants applied for a continuance.

Burk, McKee & Go. recovered judgment against the defendants, Edward H. Ridgway and Eli D. Anderson, deceased, for $300 or thereabouts, and costs, at the April term, 1842, of the Jefferson Circuit Court. The plaintiffs, at September term following of said court, recovered a judgment against the same parties for $1,000, or thereabouts, and costs of suit. Several executions and venditioni exponas were issued in favor of the judgment creditors.

This canse was submitted to Underwood, Judge, on bill, answer, replication and evidence, at October term, 1854, of the Washington Circuit Court, who dismissed the bill at cost of the complainant, and he sues out this writ of error. The opinion of -the court furnishes a statement of the case.

<p>APPEAL FROM RANDOLPH.</p> <p>Although a court not having jurisdiction cannot take it by consent of the parties, and its judgment is a nullity; yet, if on appeal from such court to a court having original jurisdiction of the matter, the parties voluntarily appear and consent to a trial, the judgment in the latter court will be binding.</p> <p>All actions, local or transitory, against any county, must be commenced in the circuit court of such county.</p> <p>The mode of satisfaction of a judgment against a county, is that provided by the statute, and a direction of that mode of satisfaction in the judgment is proper.</p> <p>Execution does not issue against a county.</p> <p>A written opinion in the circuit court, in a matter against a county, where the circuit court has original jurisdiction, is unnecessary.</p>

This cause was tried before Beecher, Judge, and a jury, at May term, 1856, of the Jefferson Circuit Court. verdict and judgment for plaintiff below, for $1,044.66. The defendants below prayed this appeal. See opinion of the court for a statement of the case.

Tms cause was heard at October term, 1855, of the Perry Circuit Court. The opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case.

This cause was tried before Breese, Judge, a jury having been waived, at August term, 1855, of the St. Clair Circuit Court. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This decree in this case was entered at October term, 1854, of the Hamilton Circuit Court, Baugh, Judge, presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the judge.

This bill shows that, in 1851, Jesse Lane and wife conveyed to Phelps the south half of the northwest quarter of section 36, and the north half of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 35, and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 35, 33 N., R. 3 E. (160 acres.) That real consideration was a promise to provide for and maintain said Jesse and wife, during their lives; that afterward Jesse Lane was diseased of dropsy; that then a written…

This was an action in assumpsit for a breach of promise to marry. Plea — general issue. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff for $250. The cause was Med before Breese, Judge, at October term, 1855, of the Clinton Circuit Court.

This cause was tried by Parrish, Judge, ivithout the intervention of a jury, at September term, 1854, of the J ackson Circuit Court. The court found for the defendant, and entered judgment for costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff below then sued out this writ of error.

This was a bill filed to quiet title, and alleges that complainants are owners of certain land in fee simple m said county and in possession of the same. That they derive title as follows: Said Sarah is heir at law of Amelia Masterson, who died seized of the same. That said Amelia was formerly Amelia Ranier, and became seized of said land by an order made by the county court of Monroe county, of partition at the May term, 1817, between the heirs of Jesse Ranier.

The bill in this case shows that appellee commenced by petition, for partition of lot number six, in the town of Nashville, in Washington county, and that appellant would he denied his equitable rights; and asks for a partition of the lot, so that the south part, which adjoins other land of his, shall he set off to him. Bill also alleges that appellant improved that part of lot six adjoining his other land, with the expectation of acquiring the same.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of liorse stealing, at the Massac Circuit Court, at June term, 1855, Parish, Judge, presiding.

The order of partition, in this case, was at October term, 1855, of the Washington Circuit Court, Underwood^ Judge, presiding. The statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

This was an action, upon a promissory note, to recover the . sum of $925, and interest. The plea to this action is stated in the opinion of the court. The demurrer to the plea was sustained, and the court, at August term, 1856, of the St. Clair Circuit, Bbeese, Judge, presiding, gave judgment for the plaintiffs below.

Tins was an action on special contract, averring: the declaration alleges that Snider was to quarry seven hundred yards of stone, and deliver the same to McClelland as fast as quarried, which McClelland was to remove, paying therefor one dollar and ten cents per yard, to be measured in the wall of certain buildings which McClelland was to erect for the Illinois Central Eailroad Company.

The defendant, William H. Short, as executor of Lydia Kirby, deceased, filed his petition in the circuit court of Jefferson county, against Mary Napper, Jonathan Ogden, guardian, and Mary, Sarah, and Eliza Jane Kirby, minor heirs of Lydia Kirby, deceased, for the sale of the real estate of which Lydia Kirby died siezed, to be applied to the payment of her debts.

This ease originated in the county court of Pike county, and began by citation on appellant, guardian of Walter Sinklear. The plaintiff claimed allowance for $112, thus : Walter Sinklear Dr. to Henry Emert. March ith, A. D. 1853. Vermifuge, 25c.; Bateman’s drops, 10c., etc. etc.; and two years’ board, at $1.00 per week; in all $112.00. Trial and suit dismissed at plaintiff’s cost, and appeal taken to the Pike Circuit Court, by plaintiff.

This, as a certified case, was submitted a year ago to this court. • The supreme court, on the 24th of January, 1856, refused to entertain jurisdiction of the certified case; a notice was prepared by the attorneys of the plaintiffs, that they would file a declaration in the detinet in this case, more than ten days • before the next term of the circuit court of Scott, to be holden the first Monday in April, 1856, and that the plaintiffs would insist on a trial of the cause at…

Roney filed a Mil in chancery, in Scott Circuit Court, against Joel Bruce, Michael Brown, and William C. Stryker.

Oh 25tli Eebruary, 1853, appellant commenced an- action of forcible detainer, against appellee, before a justice of the peace of Pike county, to recover a piece of land in said county, described in an affidavit then filed before a justice.

In April, 1844, James Fielden filed in the circuit court of Cass county, a bill in chancery to foreclose a mortgage, making Mary R. Carr, formerly Reavis, William, Carroll, Daniel, Therese, Isham, Mahala Reavis, Jr., and Sarah Reavis, heirs at law, Mahala Reavis, widow, and James Berry, administrator of Isham Reavis, deceased, parties defendant.

This cause was tried before Walker, Judge, at the April term, 1855, of the Brown Circuit Court. The opinion of the court recites the facts of the case.

This was • an action of debt, brought in the name of the sheriff of Morgan county, against the appellant and his security, for the penalty of a replevin bond. Process was served upon the appellant only.

Thebe was a verdict and judgment, in the Clark Circuit Court, for the defendant in error. The opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case.

<p>APPEAL FROM McDONOUGH.</p> <p>A foreign record to be admitted in proof, as against an estate, should be authenticated as directed by the act of congress.</p> <p>The fact, that the debtor and creditor both resided in the same, but another state, will not prevent the operation of the statute of limitations, under the statutes of 1849 and 1861.</p> <p>The death of the debtor, docs not arrest the running of the statute of limitations.</p>

Appellee, at the May term of the Calhoun Circuit Court, filed his bill in equity, against appellant, stating that on 9th June, 1851, he executed to appellant a penal bond for $200 conditioned that appellee or Mrs. Mary M. L. Miller, should, upon payment by appellant of $50, on or before 1st November, 1851, and $50 on or before 9th June, 1852, with six per cent, interest from date, convey and assure to appellant, by good and sufficient quit-claim deed, the northwest 10, town…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Morgan Circuit Court, to recover for a bill of merchandise, amounting to $305.62. Plea, non-assumpsit; verdict and judgment for defendant in the court below. A new trial was-refused. See opinion for a statement of the case.

On the 4th of October, 1853, M. Masters and L. Berry entered into articles of partnership, in the business of keeping livery stable, under the style of Masters & Co., which continued until the 12th of August, 1854, when Masters died, intestate.

This was a bill in chancery. On the 4th day of April, 1853, the appellees filed their bill, setting forth, that in the month of February, 1853, Arasmus D. Bishop was the owner of several pieces of real estate in Belvidere, Boone county; that the said Arasmus D. Bishop then intended going to California, and applied to the appellant for a loan of $400.

This was a declaration in ejectment, filed by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, on the 14tli day of October, A. D. 1856, in the circuit court of DeWitt county, to recover possession of lot number 10 in block number 50, in the town of Mount Pleasant, in said county and state, and setting forth that the plaintiff claims said premises for a term of four years, from and after the 1st day of July, A. D. 1856.

This was an action on the case, for .a malicious prosecution, instituted by Ritchie against McBean, the plaintiff in error, and taken, by change of venue, from Massac to Pulaski county. Issue was joined upon the plea of general issue. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for $650 damages, and a judgment upon the verdict. A motion for a new trial was overruled. The opinion of the court is founded upon an erroneous instruction, which is copied into the opinion.

This cause was commenced at the October term of the Fulton County Circuit Court, 1855, by William Craig, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Hiram Wentworth, deceased, and William Wentworth, heir at law of the said Hiram Wentworth, who filed their bill in chancery against George N. Walker and others, setting forth the facts that one Albert E. Wentworth was, on the 24th day of May, 1854, appointed administrator of the estate of Hiram Wentworth, then lately deceased,…

This was an action in assumpsit by appellee against appellant. Declaration contains common counts for work and labor, etc., and no other counts. Pleas, non-assumpsit. Pleas, set-off. Pleas, payment.

<p>The opinion of the court gives a full statement of the case.</p>

Critchfield sued Horton originally, in 1853, before a justice of the peace in Knox county, Ohio, on a claim of $60 for medical services. Trial was had by jury and a verdict returned for defendant, Horton, when judgment was rendered for costs against Critchfield.

Tete bill shows that complainant is a resident of Cass county, Illinois, and had resided there more than one year next before the filing of the bill; that the parties intermarried on the 13th of January, 1853; that the respondent is incurably insane, and was insane at the date of the marriage.

This was a bill in chancery filed by Warner against Trenchard, alleging that in January, A. D. 1854, he rented to Trenchard a certain portion of his farm and that Trenchard entered into articles of agreement with him (Warner), by which Warner agreed “to furnish the house where Trenchard then lived, and the lots and stables and firewood for his use, and fifty acres of land to be tended in corn, land to be well broke, in good time, and planted in due season and tended well,”…

<p>This case was taken to the first grand division, and by consent of parties changed to the second grand division.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, in the circuit court of Brown county. The declaration contains two counts. The first special, and is in the usual form.

This was an attachment suit, commenced by the plaintiff in error, against the. defendant in error, in the circuit court of McDonough county. The affidavit was filed on the 16th of September, 1856, setting forth a cause of indebtedness, and that the defendant was not a resident of this state. Bond was filed, and a writ of attachment issued, which was made returnable to the next term, commencing on the 13th day of October, 1856.

A writ of scvre facias on a bail bond in a criminal case, was issued from and returned to the Fulton Circuit Court against John Hartman and Abraham O. Baughman, which was served on Baughman and non est iwoentMS as to Hartman. The defendant, Baughman, demurred to the sci.fa.; the court sustained it and discharged him. From this judgment the people bring the case to this court by writ of error.

This is an action of assumpsit upon the following agreement: “ I have this day sold to J. W. McGee, of Beardstown, Illinois, five thousand bushels of good, round, merchantable, white or yellow corn, to be shelled, fanned, cleaned and delivered in good order, on board of canal boat or boats, at Point Isabel, Illinois river, on or before the 15th day of August next, at the option of said J. W. McGee, at thirty-four cents per bushel; said boat or boats to be furnished by said…

This was an action of debt commenced by the appellees in the Gallatin Circuit Court, upon an administrator’s bond. A trial was had at December term, 1854, of the Gallatin Circuit Court, and the jury found for the appellees the sum of $4,296.25. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The court, thereupon, entered judgment for the amount found by the jury.

Suit in ejectment brought in the Adams Circuit Court, at the October term, 1853, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants in error, for the recovery of a lot of ground, described as thirty-three feet off of west side of lot six, in block three, in the town (now city) of Quincy, county of Adams, State of Illinois. Declaration in usual form. Plea of not guilty by defendants. Tried by a jury, before Sibley, Judge, at the October term, 1855.

This was an action on the case, brought by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, for obstructing the street leading from his hotel, in Vandalia, and thereby preventing the passage of travelers to and from his hotel, and also preventing boarders from coming to his hotel.

Silas Gbattae died in 1852, and left a widow, Elizabeth Grattan, and three heirs at law, viz.: the plaintiff, Charles, and Philip D. B. Grattan and Azariah B. Grattan, who are minors, and of whom the said Elizabeth is guardian. Said Silas Grattan died seized of real estate, worth, exclusive of widow’s dower, $400, and upon his decease said Bincldey was appointed his administrator.

This was an action on the case against defendant as common carrier. Declaration contains three counts, substantially the same—alleging delivery of goods and loss of same by negligence of the defendants. Plea not guilty and issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by George W. Ewing against Esther Ewing, William G. Ewing, Jr., Mary L. Guthrie and her husband Charles W. Guthrie, Lavinia A. Bond and her husband Charles D. Bond, Catharine E. Ewing, Sophia C. Noel and her husband Smallwood ¡Noel, Louisa Sturgis and her husband Charles E. Sturgis, William Sturgis, Susan Hood, William A. Ewing, and George W. Ewing, Jr., setting forth that the complainant and one William G. Ewing, deceased, were, in the…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by plaintiffs against defendants, in the Brown Circuit Court, at the October term, A. D. 1855, upon the following promissory note: $120.69. New York, March 26, 1851. Six months after date, we promise to pay to the order of James Williams, one hundred and twenty dollars, sixty-nine cents, value received. HURDS & NETELER. The declaration contains a special count upon the note, the money counts, and a count on an account stated.

Dais was an action of assumpsit by defendant against plaintiff, in the McDonough Circuit Court, upon a subscription to the stock of said company, for $2,000, for twenty shares, on two acts of subscription of ten shares each. Die declaration contains three counts; the first two counts each on one subscription, of ten shares; the third count for subscription' money • and amount stated.

<p>Tms was a cause commenced in the county court of Fulton county, at the March term, A. D. 1855, on petition of Nathan Beadles, setting forth that the administratrix had filed an inventory or account current in the estate of William C. Walters, deceased, setting forth also that the personal estate was exhausted, and that there still remained large amounts against the said estate unliquidated. That he was one of the creditors, and that there was real estate belonging to the estate not yet disposed .of, and praying citation against Marville C. Walters, the administratrix, and an order compelling her to apply for a decree to sell the real estate to pay the debts, etc.</p> <p>Citation issued, service was had, and the administratrix, at a .subsequent term of that court, filed her inventory and account current, as prayed in the petition. At a still subsequent term she filed her answer, setting forth these facts, and that she had ■applied the personal effects in payment of her specific allowance, and the first class debts. And that all the real estate of which the said William C. Walters died seized of, was seventy-two and a half acres, which he occupied during his life as a homestead, and on which he lived at the time of his death; and seventy-two acres of timber land, lying near, but not adjoining thereto, and used for the purpose of supplying the homestead with wood, timber, etc. That it was necessary to the enjoyment of the homestead.</p> <p>That she was the widow of the said William C. Walters. That an heir to the said Walters had been born since his decease. That the widow and heir had continued to occupy the said seventy-two and a half acres, homestead, as aforesaid, since the death of the said William C. Walters, except when she went to her father’s during the sickness, occasioned by her confinement. That she did not leave the same with the intention of abandoning it, but returned to it as soon as her health would permit, which was in about eleven months after her departure therefrom, and went to receive the care and attention of her friends; and set up claim to the real estate as a homestead, under and by virtue of an act of the legislature of the State of Illinois, entitled “ an act to exempt homesteads from sale on execution,” approved February 11, 1851, and in force July 4, 1851. And that the demand of the petition was contracted after the 4th day of July, A. D. 1851. That she was entitled to dower out of the said real estate; and that, subject to her right of dower, the real estate was not worth to exceed $1,000, and that she occupied the same as a residence for herself and child.</p> <p>The petitioner then filed his replication admitting all the facts stated in the answer, except that the absence of the widow from the premises was a mere temporary one, which he denies, and alleges that the same was an abandonment of her right to claim, under the provisions of the act to exempt homesteads from sale on execution; and that the widow left the same with the intention of not. returning, and her return was to prevent the sale of the premises to pay debts of the estate, etc.</p> <p>TJpon this, the .cause was set down for hearing at the June term, A. D. 1855, of said court. And after hearing of the allegations, proofs, etc., a decree was rendered refusing to grant the prayer of petitioner as to the homestead of the said W alters; and it was furthermore ordered, that the said administratrix petition that court for leave to sell, to pay the debts of said estate, the seventy-two acres of timber land, and that the administratrix pay the costs in course of administration, etc.</p> <p>From this judgment the petitioner appealed to the circuit court of said county. Proper process issued from the circuit court, and finally, at the February term, A. D. 1856, of that court, the cause was set down for hearing.</p> <p>Upon the trial of the cause, the petitioner proved that the two pieces of land were about one mile apart, and that the widow had rented the farm to one Myers, sometime in April, 1854, the lease to expire March 1, 1855, without making any reservation of any part of the house or land, she being on the premises when the same was rented, but not when the tenant took possession. And that she left no furniture there; and •that Alexander Freeman acted as the agent of the widow, and came and received the rents, and said he was agent, and talked to the witness about renting to him another year, but never-did hear Freeman say he was agent in the widow’s presence.</p> <p>The petitioner then proposed proving, by this witness, what Freeman said; to which the defendant objected, on account of the insufficiency of the proof of agency, which objection was overruled by the court, to which ruling the defendant then excepted. The witness then stated that Freeman said that the widow would rent, provided she could retain the premises without coming back on to them again; and that, to the proper enjoyment of the premises, there ought to be timber with the place.</p> <p>And that the child was born at her father’s, some six or eight miles from the premises, where the widow remained while he occupied the same, but she and the child returned to the farm in March, 1855.</p> <p>The defendants then proved that Walters lived upon the seventy-two and a half acres, and died there, and was his homestead; that there was no timber land adjoining the homestead; that the seventy-two and a half acres was necessary to the proper enjoyment of the homestead; that the widow of said Walters, the defendant, being unwell, in consequence of her approaching confinement, it was necessary for her to go home to her father’s house, where the child was born who was heir to the said Walters by his marriage with defendant; that she got well and went back to the homestead in March, 1855, as soon as the tenant to whom she had rented left-</p> <p>Upon cross-examination, witness stated that he was renting the farm; that the widow occupied one room in the house and furnished it, and used it as a residence for herself and child; that she kept her things there, and had for sometime previous to the trial; that her health was very poor for two or three months after her child was born. Witness pays her one-third of the produce raised as rent for the farm, and that this arrangement was made because she wished to hold the premises, and for no other reason.</p> <p>The defendant then called Alexander Freeman, who testified that the physician, at the decease of Walters, stated that it was necessary that the widow should have careful attention. In consequence thereof she rented out the place, and went to witness’ house in March, 1854, and the child was born June 20th. of that year, and she remained unwell three or four months after her delivery, and was obliged to keep her bed a considerable portion of the time before her confinement, after she went to her father’s. It was thought unsafe, in her condition, for her to stay alone on the place. This was the reason why she went to her father’s.</p> <p>She had a garden on the homestead in 1855, and rented the rest; remaining on the premises part of the time during that year, and kept her things there.</p> <p>At the May term, 1856, of that court, the court rendered a decree ordering the administratrix to apply to the proper tribunal for leave to sell both pieces of land for the payment of the debts of the estate by a given day, etc. The defendant now prosecutes a writ of error to this court, and assigns the following causes for error:</p> <p>1st. That the circuit court erred in allowing the statements of Freeman with the existing proof of agency.</p> <p>2d. That the court erred in decreeing that the seventy-two and a half acres was subject to the payment of the debts of the estate.</p> <p>3d. That the court erred in ordering the administratrix to apply for the sale of any of the land for the payment of the debts of the estate.</p>

This was an action originally commenced by the appellee against the appellant, before a justice of the peace of Hancock county, under the statute relative to forcible entry and detainer, and removed to the circuit court of said county by appeal.

This was a suit brought by appellee against appellant, before a justice of the peace of Pike county, to recover the amount of a promissory note. Judgment on trial in justice’s court for appellant. Taken by appeal to circuit court. At September term of Pike Circuit Court, in 1855, a trial was had in said court, and jury,returned a verdict for plaintiff, the present appellee. Appellant entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

This was an action of ejectment, by the plaintiff* in error against the defendant in error, to recover the west half of the northwest quarter of section one, township one north, of range one west of the fourth principal meridian. The cause was tried by Thompson, Judge, of the tenth judicial circuit, in Fulton county, at the February term, 1856, a jury being waived, and the issue found for the defendant, who had judgment for his costs.

This was a proceeding commenced by Westfall, by petition, for partition, in the McDonough Circuit Court, stating that Mary Eliza Johnson was an infant, and entitled, with others, also minors, to one-eighth of the property to be partitioned, and praying process, which was made returnable on the 22d of October, 1849. The petition was amended on the 26th of February, 1850.

The plaintiffs in error, sued the defendant below in the St. Clair Circuit Court, March Term, 1856, in an action of assumpsit—damages, $35,000. Declaration contains four counts.

Assumpsit, by plaintiff below, on a written contract in relation to building a court house. Plea, non^assimipsit, with notice that plaintiff did not perform; and a second plea that plaintiff did not perform.

Osr the 10th of August, 1853, complainant filed his bill in chancery, in the Gass Circuit Court against the Delaware M. S. Insurance Company, Peter Sweat, David Logan, John Q. Van Hess, Benjamin E. Poney and Charles P. Dnnbaugh.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by plaintiff to recover the south half of southeast quarter 27, 9 S., 2 W., claiming title in fee. Declaration served second of April, 1855, and rule to plead entered at Hay term, 1855, of said court.

This decree was rendered by J. M. Wilson, Judge, of the Court of Common Pleas, at January term, 1857. The opinion of the court gives a sufficient statement of the case.

The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The decree complained of was entered by J. G-. Wilson, Judge, at Hay term, 1856, of the Kane Circuit Court.

The opinion of the court furnishes the facts in the case. The demurrer to the plea was sustained by J. M. Wilson, Judge, at September term, 1856, of the Common Pleas Court.

<p>The bill in this case was dismissed by Randall, Judge, at December term, 1856, of the Grundy Circuit Court.</p>

Tms was a suit in chancery commenced by John Y. Far-well, appellant, against Thomas D. Lowther, appellee by bill of complaint filed in the Cook Circuit Court, on the chancery side thereof, to enforce the specific performance of an alleged contract of sale of certain lots of land in the city of Chicago. Said suit was tried before Manierbe, Judge, at October term of said court, A. D. 1856.

The facts of this case are set out in the opinion. The verdict in this case was found before Manierre, Judge, at November term, 1856, of the Cook Circuit Court.

This cause was tried before Drury, Judge, and a jury, at October term, 1856, of the Lee Circuit Court. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant in error, plaintiff below, for ninety dollars and costs.

The statement of the case is made in the opinion of the court. The case was tried before Sheldon, Judge, and a jury, at September term, 1855, of the Winnebago Circuit Court. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, the appellee in the court below. ihe motion for a new trial was overruled. The plaintiff below brought this appeal.

This case is stated in the opinion of the court. The cause was tried before. Cotton, Judge, of the LaSalle County Court, and a jury, at December term, 1855, of that court. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below for $371.34, and costs. A motion for a new trial was denied. The county court refused to instruct the jury, that the plea in abatement was not waived, by the filing of the plea of the general issue.

The opinion of the .court furnishes a statement of the case. This cause was tried before Hollister, Judge, at October term, 1855, of the Bureau Circuit Court. Hopkinson was found guilty, and prosecutes this writ of error.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon before the Eecorder’s Court of the city of Chicago, E. S. Wilson, presiding. He sued out this writ of error upon the statement of the case, as disclosed by the opinion of the court.

The indictment of the plaintiff in error, for the murder of Eoman Morris, was found in the county of Lake. Held: in and upon the right side of the head, and the right jaws, and in and upon the back of the neck and spine of him, the said Roman Morris, did, then and there, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought, strike, beat and wound, giving to the said Roman Morris, then and with the stick aforesaid, several mortal…

Turrill and Haven commenced a suit in attachment against Plato, in assumpsit, swearing to an indebtedness of $302; the declaration concluding in damages to $500. Process made returnable to May term, 1856. Motion for judgment, of dismissal entered 30th July following, for want of declaration. A declaration was filed November 13th, 1856. A motion for dismissal was made in March, 1857, because no declaration was filed till after commencement of second term after suit commenced.

The application, in this case, was as follows: “ Respectfully respresents unto your honors, Yan H. Higgins, of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, that he was, on the fifteenth day of October, A, D. 1855, together with Bolton F. Strother, who has since sold all his interest to Yan H. Higgins, seized in fee, and that he was, long before, and ever since has continued to be, the owner, in fee simple, either in his own right or in connection with said…

In May, 1845, Sheber leased from William S. Moss, a lot in Peoria, for ten years, with the privilege of purchasing the same within that period at the sum of five hundred and fifty dollars. Sheber, in the mean time, to pay rent at the rate of $66.00 per year and all taxes. Sheber took possession and erected buildings which would rent for from $150.00 to $200.00 per year.

<p>This case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>The opinion of the Judge gives a statement of the case.</p>

<p>This cause was heard before Lelakd, Judge, at November term, 1853, of the La Salle Circuit Court. See opinion for a statement of the case.</p>

Thtr action was heard before Manierre, Judge, at November term, 1856, of the Cook Circuit Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>ERROR TO LA SALLE.</p> <p>A bill for an injunction to stay the opening of a highway until the right could be determined at law, in a suit pending, was dissolved in the court below; the complainant in the bill brought his writ of error and obtained a supersedeas; and asks an order to have the injunction revived until the suit at law shall be detertermined: Meld, That as the facts would authorize an injunction if presented to this court, that an order should be entered reviving the original injunction, and that notice be given accordingly.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, by summons, issued in favor of the above named appellee, against the said appellants. The declaration is on the common counts: First, against the defendants, as partners, doing business under the firm name of S. B. Pomeroy & Co. Second, against them as partners doing business under the firm name of C. S. Parmlee.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Cook Circuit Court by the defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, against the plaintiffs in error, for damages for not furnishing-certain railroad iron for plaintiffs below to carry, according to a contract alleged to have been made between the parties. It was tried at the ¡November term, 1855, before his Honor, Judge Manierre, and a jury, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs for $5,364.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by attachment. There was a judgment by default upon the proceedings, as stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding on the part of the city of Peoria, under the several acts incorporating that city, to open Washington street, from Liberty street to the northerly line of Lisk’s addition. The county court (before which the proceeding was had) appointed the commissioners, who were sworn, and made their assessment and report, which was confirmed.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration is as follows: Hezekiah M. Wead, who sues for the use of the Illinois Central railroad company, plaintiff, complains of Charles W. Zimmerman, who was summoned, etc., defendant, in a plea of the case on promises, for that the said defendant heretofore, to wit, on the 7th day of November, A. D. 1855, at and within the county and state aforesaid, made his certain note, in writing, of that date thereby, by the name of O. W.…

This declaration contained several counts. 1st count—On note payable to Morris P. 2d count—On note made to plaintiff by the name and addition of Moses -P., administrator, etc.; plaintiff avers he is the same person mentioned as the payee. 3d count—Money count for interest. 4th count—Work and labor; materials, goods, wares and merchandise; money had and received; money lent; amount due on an accounting. Lamar and Strakey file the general issue.

On the 24th April, 1856, plaintiffs in error filed a bill in the Boone Circuit Court, against the defendants in error, charging the sale, on the 10th October, 1855, of goods to the defendant, Joseph W. Foster, to the sum of $2,080, on a credit, taking his note at six months therefor; that he then falsely represented .himself to be the owner and in possession of goods, wares and merchandise, and debts due him that were good, to the amount of $5,000; owned a house and lot in…

This was an action of ejectment, brought by Hough against Hastings, to recover the S. W. qr. Sec. 15, T. 33 hi., E. 1 E. 3d P. ¡M¡., which Hough claimed in fee. The declaration, which was in the usual form, was filed at the ¡November term, 1856, of the La Salle Circuit Court. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Oh the 23d of March, 1855, Blanchard filed his petition in the Peoria Circuit Court, against Frederick B. Gunn, Samuel Gates, and Sylvester S. Philley, to enforce a mechanic’s or furnisher’s lien, to the amount of $964.51, against lots 8 in block 1, and 2 in 46, in the town of Chillicothe, in said Peoria county.

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.</p> <p>Appraisers for the condemnation of land for the use of the Galena and Chicago Union Railroad Company, receive but one appointment, and when once sworn under it, their proceedings will be valid, although they maybe directed to make a reappraisal.</p> <p>The act requiring a copy of the appointment of the appraisers to be recited in the report, will be complied with, if the appointment is attached to the report, and is made a part of it.</p> <p>The power of the company to condemn land, for a paint shop, etc., is recognized. Conclusions of fact cannot be inquired into upon certiorari.</p>

Oh the 14th February, 1856, the plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error before a justice of the peace of Peoria county, on the following note, viz.: “Peoria County, Hoy. 18, 1841. Twelve months after date, for value received, I (or we) promise to pay to Hoyes D. Bartholomew, or order, for the use and benefit of Betsey Bartholomew, the sum of twenty-five dollars, with six per cent, interest from date.

<p>This cause was heard before Thompson, Judge, at March term, 1857, of the Warren Circuit Court. The opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case.</p>

This was an action in assumpsit for goods, wares and merchandise.

<p>APPLICATION FOR A MANDAMUS.</p> <p>Silver or gold coin of the United States, coined prior to the first day of June, 1853, is a legal tender for ,all ¡debts, according to their nominal value, for any sums whatever.</p> <p>To put a bank in default for non-payment of specie, the protest should aver that the specie tendered in payment of its bills, if greater in amount than five dollars, and of the denomination of quarters, was of the coinage authorized by the law of 1S63. Without such averment, there is not an appearance of default to justify the auditor to proceed against the bank.</p>

Appellant filed his declaration in trespass, for shooting a colt. Defendant filed the general issue. Trial by jury at September term, 1856, of La Salle County Court.

July 25,1855, Carlisle filed Ms bill against Grove, Comstock and Daugherty, setting forth that, in 1852, while he was absent from Peoria, Mrs. Carlisle made a contract with Bestor for lot eleven in Mills’ Addition to Peoria, for $250, last payment to be made in three years; that she paid $50; that, on complainant’s return in the spring of 1853, he paid Bestor $183, and took deed in her name, at her request, with covenants of warranty.

This was a bill in chancery, filed in the La Salle Circuit Court, by Patrick Welch, complainant, against Phineas D. Cooley, David Brown and John P. McCahan, respondents. The hill charges, that on October 13th, 1855, Phineas D. Cooley made and delivered to Patrick Welch a bond for a deed for the land therein described. Which bond was filed for record, December 12, 1855, at 11 o’clock, A. M., and duly recorded in book 45, pages 717 and 718, of records in La Salle county.

The declaration in this case charges that Madison street, in the city of Chicago, was and is a common public highway and thoroughfare, of which the city had the care and management, and was bound to keep free and clear of, and from all obstructions and hindrances to free passage.

The relator, in his petition, sets out the establishment of the court for the cities of La Salle and Peru, under the act of the general assembly, approved February 18, 1857, and that it has jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court, except in cases of murder and treason, the appointment of Churchill C. Coffing as judge of the court, his acceptance, etc., the appointment of Daniel Evans as clerk of the comt, and his acceptance, etc. That Evans was to perform for the said…

This is an appeal from the assessment of damages made by commissioners appointed to lay out a state road, under the act of February 11th, 1853. Ho damages were assessed to appellee. The assessment was made by commissioners who were duly sworn, etc., and returned by them to the county court of Peoria countv. The appeal was taken by filing this note with the clerk of the county court. John Harvey, who is owner of the S. W. qr. Sec. 33, T. 11, B. í E., and the N. E. qr.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the heirs at law of Onslow Peters, by then1 next friend, John Hamlin. The cause was submitted to the court, Powell, Judge, presiding, without the intervention of a jury. The court found for the defendant, Spillman, and the plaintiff appealed.

This was a suit in equity commenced in the Eock Island Circuit Court, by George L. Davenport, Bailey Davenport, and Susan M. Goldsmith, devisees under the will of George Davenport, deceased, against James Lindsay, and others, heirs of Thomas Lindsay, deceased, to correct a mistake in a deed, and to enjoin certain actions of ejectment.

This cause was tided before Eeland, Judge, and a jury, at March term, 1855, of the Bureau Circuit Court, and resulted in a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error, finding him guilty of a violation of the ordinance, and fixing his penalty at seven dollars. The opinion states the facts of the case.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the Peoria Circuit Court, March term, 1852, by complainant against defendants. The bill alleges that, on the 7th day of August, A. D. 1838, John Doran, being the owner in fee simple of É. W. 32, 11 hi., 7 E., in Peoria county, executed a mortgage on said tract of land to one Stephen Lee, to secure the payment of $300 in one, two and three years, which notes were given to Lee in payment for said tract of land.

The application in this case was made to J. M. Wilson, Judge, and was denied by him at April term, 1856, of the Common Pleas Com*t. The opinion of the judge recites the material facts of the case.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the appellee against the appellant. The action was upon a promissory note, made by the appellant, in the words and figures following, to wit: §400. Chicago, March 10, 1856. Sixty days after date, I promise to pay to the order of George Wilder, four hundred dollars, at Exchange Bank. Value received. (Signed) E. W. GRIFFIN.

This was au action of replevin in the cletinet. The defendant pleaded non detinet; a plea averring that property was hi one Sexton, and that certain persons had recovered judgment against Sexton in the United States Court for the ¡Northern District of Illinois, upon which execution had been issued, and that the marshal had levied upon these goods by virtue thereof, and a plea of property in Sexton and not in the plaintiffs.

The motion to abate this suit was made before Davis, Judge, and was decided by him at March term, 1857, of the Peoria Circuit Court. The opinion gives an abstract of the case.

This was a proceeding in La Salle Circuit Court against appellant, by scire facias on recognizance.

This was a suit commenced before a justice of the peace by the town officers of St. Charles, for the violation of an ordinance prohibiting the sale of liquors, for a failure to pay penalties, a certain sum, not exceeding one hundred dollars. A judgment was rendered before the justice against defendant for one hundred dollars debt, and costs of suit. The defendant appealed to the circuit court.

The opinion of the court gives a statement of the case. A final decree, upon bill, answers, exhibits, and proofs, was rendered by J. M. Wilson, Judge, at the April vacation term, 1856, of the common pleas court, for complainant, ordering that injunction be made perpetual, and that Coughron be restrained from collecting the judgment of seventh September, 1848, and that Church, the sheriff, be enjoined from making deed, etc.

The substance of tlie declaration is stated in the opinion of the court. The instructions are also there, at length. At November term, 1855, Manierre, Judge, presiding, a jury was sworn to try the issue joined in the case between Joseph J. Schroyer, plaintiff, and John Frink, Martin O. Walker, Gr. Kimball, 0.

This cause was tried at November term, 1856, of the Warren Circuit Court, Thompson, Judge, -presiding. There was a verdict and judgment for the appellee. A motion for a new trial was denied. The opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Churchill Coffing and John H. Coffing, against Edmund D. Taylor, in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, on the 3d day of April, 1856. The bill sets forth, that in the month of December, 1847, Edmund D. Taylor, Isaac D. Harmon, and the orator, Churchill Coffing, entered into copartnership, for the purpose of carrying on mercantile and other business at Peru, Illinois.

Bill for injunction filed November, 1855, in Whiteside Circuit Court, alleging that complainants, or the ancestors of such as are minors, being desirous to secure the prompt completion, on or before the first day of October, 1855, by the Sterling Hydraulic Company, of a good and sufficient dam across Rock river, at the town of Sterling, and a canal or head race connected therewith on the west side of the said river, severally, on or about December 25,1852, executed and…

The .opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case. The cause was submitted to the Peoria Circuit Court at March term, 1857, Davis, Judge, presiding, who gave judgment for the defendants below, appellees here.

This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold, work and labor, and on an account stated. Plea the general issue. The summons was returnable in February, 1855, and the plea was filed at the March, term following. At ¡November term, 1855, the defendant applied to have the cause continued upon his affidavit, which stated, in substance, that prior to the last term of the court he caused the deposition of Nathan Cole, of St. Louis, Missouri, to be taken and filed.

This was an action on a lease, made by the trustees of canal to Granger, in September, A. L>. 1845.

This was a forcible detainer before a justice, appealed to the Common Pleas, and thence to this court, the appellant being plaintiff in both of the courts below. Ho question arises as to the formalities of the proceeding.

This was an action of assumpsit for professional services, in prosecuting, defending and soliciting divers causes; also, for examining records in public offices, abstracting title to lands, drawing, copying and engrossing conveyances, deeds and writings ; also, for journeys and attendance; also, for acquiring, by purchase, for and in the name of defendant, the title to divers pieces and parcels of land, of great value, to wit: of the value of two hundred and fifty thousand…

This is an action of ejectment for the recovery of the possession of lot number- 5, block 6, in Rew Boston, Mercer county, Illinois, commenced in the circuit court of that county by the plaintiffs hi error against the defendant in error, at the October term, 1852.

Parks, who is an attorney, sued the appellant in case, averring that the appellant was the owner of a railroad pass-. ing from Aurora, in Kane county, through Batavia to Junction, in Du Page county; that he took passage on board the cars of the company from Aurora to Junction aforesaid, and was wrongfully expelled therefrom by the conductor of the train.

This action was originally brought against one Bradner Smith, the tenant in possession of certain lots in the city of Galena, holding under Dickenson B. Morehouse, the administrator of one ilobert P. Guyard, deceased. The said More-house became the co-defendant in the court below, and brings this case into this court by appeal.

Tuis is a bill in chancery, brought by 0-orton and Negtis, complainants, against Esmay; defendant, to compel the specific performance of a contract between said parties, for the sale of several quarter sections of hand in Henry county.

The statement of the case, in the opinion of the court, is sufficient to a proper understanding of the questions decided. The proof is too voluminous for publication here, and would not be instructive.

The facts of this case are presented in the opinion of the court. At April term, 1856, of the Bureau Circuit Court, it was decreed that Downing’s deed to Gordere should be set aside and vacated, and that Downing convey to Gordere by a quit claim deed.

It is alleged by the appellant that the pleas are bad because they show no sufficient consideration to support the contract set up in the pleas. The case shows that defendant had contracted to deliver to plaintiff corn, at tlie mouth of Sandy, or at Fenn’s warehouse in Lacón, in case anything should happen that plaintiff could not get a boat to take the corn from Sandy.

An agreement, as follows, was filed in this cause in the Kane Circuit Court, I. Gr. Wilson, Judge, at May term, 1855. [[Image here]] It is agreed by the parties to this suit that the same be dismissed at the defendant’s costs, to be taxed by the court, the plaintiff having received full satisfaction for all damages in said suit. May 14, 1855. W. B. PLATO, Attorney for defendant. On same day judgment was rendered for plaintiff for his costs, to he taxed by the court.

The plaintiff sued defendants in the Will Circuit Court in case. The declaration contained two counts; the first alleging that the plaintiff was possessed of a flouring mill in Will county; that the defendants, on the first day of May, 1853, and on divers other days, obstructed and diverted the water of the stream on which said mill was situated, by which plaintiff was injured.

Moran filed his affidavit, stating that he had entered into an agreement with the agent of the steamboat Clarion to run as her master, at one hundred dollars per month, and that the boat was indebted to him for extra services, as pilot. The indebtedness sworn to was five hundred and fifty-four dollars. The boat and furniture were levied upon by the attachment issued, upon the affidavit.

<p>This was an action of ejectment, brought by Harding against Butts, for E. half S. E. 20, 11 H., 3 W., in Warren county. Declaration filed October term, 1853. Plea not guilty. At April term, 1853, jury waived, and trial by court, and judgment rendered fro forma for defendant.</p> <p>Bill of exceptions shows: Defendant admitted possession, and that the premises sued for were vacant and unoccupied until 1852.</p> <p>The plaintiff then offered in evidence a deed, in due form, duly acknowledged, made by the auditor, conveying said land to if. Myers, dated 21st of October, 1835.</p> <p>Also, a deed conveying the same land to John Fleming, made by M. Myers and Charlotte Myers, his wife, dated J une 6,1836, properly acknowledged.</p> <p>Also, the will of John Fleming, with the probate thereof, and certificates and letters of administration attached, date of probate being 23d of June, 1837. The language of the will, so far as relates to the point in controversy, is as follows:</p> <p>“I give, demise and bequeath unto my executors, hereinafter named, and the survivor and survivors of them, all the real estate and personal property of which I shall be seized, or to which I shall be in any way entitled, at the time of my decease, with full power and authority to sell said estate or property, or any part thereof, and to reinvest the same in such manner and mode as my said executors, their survivor or survivors, shall deem fit and expedient upon the trusts,” etc.</p> <p>The will then named Christopher ET. Kiersted, Edward W. Dunham, and the sons of the testator, John and William, as his executors. The letters attached to the said will show, that to John A. Fleming and William H. Fleming, the execution of said will was granted by the surrogate of the city of Mew York on the day of probate.</p> <p>The plaintiff also offered in evidence the deposition of John A. Fleming, who swears that he is a son of John Fleming, and that his name is John A. Fleming; that John Fleming died in 1837, leaving ten children, named John A., William H., and eight others, none of whom bear the name of John or William; that Kiersted and Dunham declined to qualify and to act as executors of John Fleming’s will, and never acted as such; that he and his brother William EL qualified as such executors in 1837, and acted as such; that, by their agents, Moore, Morton & Co., as such executors, they paid the taxes for 1840, and 1841, and 1842 on said land; that he was authorized, by William, his brother, to sell the land, and sold the same to Charles Morton, and conveyed to Morton, with his brother, as executors; that the copy of said will offered in evidence is a true copy of the last will and testament of his father, John Fleming.</p> <p>Also, the deed, dated 2d of September, 1844, made by John A. and William II. Fleming, executors of John Fleming, deceased, to Charles Morton, for the land in controversy, properly acknowledged.</p> <p>Also, a deed, dated 30th of May, 1848, from Charles Morton to plaintiff, for said land, properly acknowledged, all of which evidence the court admitted, to which several rulings defendant excepted.</p> <p>The plaintiff then offered in evidence the statement of Lucius Kingman (defendant admitting that said statement, by agreement of parties, was to be admitted and regarded as a deposition legally taken), and defendant then objected, but the court ruled that the statement should be received, and defendant excepted. Lucius Kingman stated, in said statement, that Charles Morton paid the taxes on the said land for the year 1843, under a contract of purchase from the executors of John Fleming; that he paid the taxes on said land, for the year 1844, for said Morton; that Morton paid the taxes assessed on said land in 1845, and also those assessed in 1846, and that all said payments were made claiming under the title derived from executors of Fleming.</p> <p>The plaintiff then offered tax receipts for the taxes assessed on said land from collectors of Warren county, in the respective years, showing that the taxes of 1840 were paid by J. A. and W. H. Fleming; of 1841, by heirs of J. Fleming ; of 1842, by heirs of J. Fleming; of 1843, by heirs of J. Fleming; of 1843, by 0. Morton; of 1845, by C. Morton & Oo.; of 1846, by 0. Morton & Co.; and the collector’s hook for 1844, in which the name of L. Kingman, 20tli of February, is placed opposite the said land in a column headed “ Collector's Return.” The defendant then admitted that the taxes for 1844 on said land were paid by L. Kingman, and that the signatures of the different officers to the different tax receipts were genuine.</p> <p>The court admitted in evidence the several tax receipts and collectors’ books.</p> <p>The defendant then admitted that he was in possession of the lot, claiming under a conveyance from one William Daugherty, dated 19th of March, 1852, to John H. Wheeler, conveying the said land, and said Daugherty, professing and claiming to be the brother and only heir of Daniel Daugherty, the patentee, to which was attached, as proof, the affidavit of Daniel Daugherty, nephew of said William Daugherty.</p> <p>The plaintiff then offered in evidence the deposition of Daniel Daugherty, which the court admitted.</p> <p>In said deposition, Daniel Daugherty, the nephew, swears that Wheeler, who got up the title, got all his information from him; that William Daugherty knew nothing about the right of his brother to land; that he knew DanielDaugherty, the supposed soldier; that he was never, to his knowledge, in the war of 1812; that he only knew Daniel as a sailor; he. was Daniel’s nephew, and made the affidavit attached to deed.</p> <p>This was all the plaintiff’s evidence.</p> <p>Defendant then offered, in evidence, the deposition of the auditor, to which plaintiff objected, but the court admitted the same, and plaintiff excepted; plaintiff waiving the failure to file affidavit, etc. The auditor testified as to the listing of the said land, and attached a diagram, showing that no change was made after 1828 in listing, and no division of classes made. -</p> <p>The defendant then offered the deeds, connecting the said William Daugherty title with one Hamilton Honey, deducing title to Honey by a regular chain of conveyances; and plaintiff admitted that Eoney was the .landlord of the defendant; to the receipt of which deeds in evidence, plaintiff objected, but the court admitted the same in evidence.</p> <p>It was admitted that all taxes for the last four years, and now due, have been paid by both plaintiff and said Eoney.</p> <p>Defendant then offered in evidence the assessment list of real estate in Warren county, for taxes for the year 1847, which list had upon it the following indorsement: “Assessor’s Book of Beal Estate for the year 1847, filed August 2d, 1847.</p> <p>Daniel McBiel, OlerkP</p> <p>It was admitted that McBiel was, at that time, clerk of the county commissioners’ court of said county, and that said indorsement and signature were in his handwriting.</p> <p>This was all thé evidence in the case.</p> <p>Plaintiff moved for a new trial, court overruled the motion, and rendered judgment for defendant, to which several rulings plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>The case of Pilkington et al. against Ford, was also an action of ejectment, brought in the circuit court of Bureau county, Ill., to recover possession of the north-east quarter of section 10, in township 15 north, and range 7 east, of the fourth principal meridian, and tried by the court.</p> <p>The plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, gave in evidence:</p> <p>A deed from the auditor of state to Joel Wright, dated April 18th, 1835, on tax sale of 1833, for taxes of 1832.</p> <p>Deed from Joel Wright and wife to John Tilson, Jr., dated March 19th, 1835.</p> <p>Deed from John Tilson, Jr., to Joseph W. Moulton, dated April 25th, 1835.</p> <p>Deed from Joseph W. Moulton and wife to Charles F. Moulton et al., dated Bovember 18th, 1835.</p> <p>Deed from Charles F. Moulton et al. to Lemuel Lamb and Thomas Dunlop, dated. March 30th, 1838.</p> <p>Deed from Lemuel Lamb, and Thomas Dunlop and wives, • to Daniel H. Bevins and John Allstyne, dated March 18th, 1845.</p> <p>Deed from David H. Bevins and John Allstyne to John J. Thomas, dated September 1st, 1845.</p> <p>Deed from John J. Thomas and wife to Bufus Ford, the plaintiff below, dated September 13th, 1854. .</p> <p>All of the above deeds recited the land mentioned in plaintiff’s declaration, and were admitted without objection.</p> <p>The plaintiff proved the payment of taxes on said land by his grantor, John J. Thomas, for the years 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852 and 1853.</p> <p>The defendant admitted the land to have been vacant and unoccupied during the several years that said taxes were paid, and that they were in possession of said land at the commencement of this suit.</p> <p>The defendants, to maintain the issues on their part, gave, in evidence, a certificate from the auditor of state, showing that the north-east quarter of section 10, in township 15 north, and of range 7 east, of the fourth principal meridian, were not listed for the years 1831, 1832 and 1833, which was admitted by agreement.</p> <p>The plaintiff then admitted that the auditor’s deed was not good as an absolute conveyance of title, but he offered it, in evidence, as color of title made in good faith.</p> <p>The parties, by their counsel, restricted themselves to one question, and that was the construction of the ninth section of chapter twenty-four of the revised statutes, entitled “ Conveyances.”</p> <p>The plaintiff claimed and contended that a person having color of title, made in good faith, to yacant and unoccupied land, and had paid all taxes legally assessed thereon for seven successive years, by virtue of said ninth section of chapter twenty-four of revised statutes, became the owner thereof, and that the land became his in fee simple.</p> <p>The court decided the plaintiff was entitled to recover, to which decision the defendant excepted.</p> <p>The defendants moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled by the court, and defendants excepted.</p> <p>The appellants assign for error that the court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff’s, contrary to the law and the evidence.</p>

This bill, filed by Catharine Getzler, in Cook Circuit Court, states that, on the 12th of July, A. D. 1854, the defendants, Saroni and Isaac H. Archer, filed their bill in chancery in said court, complaining that in October, A. D. 1851, Andrew Getzler, one of the now defendants, became indebted unto them in $110, and being then also largely involved -in debt to other persons, did, January 1st, 1853, abscond, with intent, etc., to the injury of the said complainants therein,…

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the possession of the undivided half of the south-east quarter of section number twenty, in township number eleven, north of the base line of range number seven east of the fourth principal meridian, in Peoria county.

The petition of plaintiffs in error, as executors of the last will and testament of Joseph Machín, deceased, states that said Joseph Machín, during his life time, on 27th of September, 1852, made and delivered unto William E. Bryan, a contract, under seal, for the conveyance of certain land, for a valuable consideration.

Casper Rink and Elizabeth Rink sued George K. Slater in trespass, for an assault and battery on Elizabeth Rink. Action brought at the May term of the Kane County Circuit Court, 1856, and tried at the succeeding November term thereof. I. G. Wilson, presiding. The defendant pleaded, son assault demesne, to which the plaintiffs replied, de inguria (issue thereon).

At the April term of 1856, of the Peoria Comity Court, the plaintiff, as the next friend of the heir of Janies Eaman, sued the defendant in assumpsit, and filed, as the foundation of his claim, a statement in substance: That, in June, 1850, defendant agreed to sell to James Eaman a described piece of land, on which Eaman paid Buck $175, and agreed, by bond, to convey the land when Eaman should pay the balance of the purchase money, $125.

Cooper sued Caswell before a justice of the peace on an account amounting to $61.05. The cause was submitted to a jury, who found for Caswell, and the justice taxed the costs to Cooper. Cooper appealed to the circuit court.

Plaintlfe commenced an action of ejectment against Stephen Wookey for the north-east quarter of section 23, in township 9 north, 8 east, in Peoria county. Declaration and notice served on the 25th' of February, 1857. After the service of the declaration, and before the filing of the same in the circuit court, Stephen Wookey died.

<p>APPEAL FROM WARREN.</p> <p>The visible and exclusive appropriation and use of a tract of land claiming the whole under color of title, or a deed purporting to convey the whole, is, in law, an actual possession of the entire tract, except so far as adverse possession may exist.</p> <p>Whoever has the title to unoccupied land is deemed to be in possession for all purposes, in defense or protection of Ms rights.</p> <p>Whoever is in the actual possession of land claiming the fee, is presumed to have it, until the contrary appears, and may maintain an action for an invasion of his possession against any one, but him who has the legal title or right of possession.</p> <p>Actual possession of land may arise in any of the ways of improving it, which show an intention to appropriate it to a useful purpose, which, in their nature, in connection with the claim of right, indicate an exclusive use and control of the property, and this may be extended to woodland, although disconnected, if used for farm or homestead purposes.</p> <p>An occupation of land in such manner as to inform the neighborhood of its exclusive appropriation, will carry the possession to the extent of the title.</p> <p>Forcible entry and detainer cannot be maintained against one who has taken possession lawfully of previously unoccupied land, claiming title, by another who has invaded that possession, also claiming title to the land, especially if the first occupant entered with the intention of making useful improvements, and has shown an honest purpose.</p> <p>Title is immaterial, in a proceeding for forcible entry and detainer, except to show the extent of the possession. Deeds may be read in evidence to prove boundaries or extent of possession.</p>

Harwood & Co. filed their bill in the Common Pleas of Cook county, stating that Ellis & Sturgis, of Cincinnati, had given them a draft upon H. A. Tucker & Co., of Chicago, for the sum of $2,000, to meet which a like sum had been sent by express to meet this particular draft.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Hathaway against Bich, at the October vacation term of Cook Circuit Court. The defendant below, by his attorneys, filed a demurrer to the declaration of said plaintiff below, on the 28th day of October, in said October term, which was not answered by said plaintiff below.

This was an action of ejectment to recover the following premises: beginning, at the north-west corner of west half north-east quarter section 18, township 39 H., B. 14 east, and running thence south 1G0 rods to south-west corner thereof; thence east 14 rods 7 links; thence north 50 rods; thence east 6 rods; thence north 110 rods; thence west 20 rods 4 links to place of beginning.

<p>The said William filed his bill 11th of -November, 1852, stating his marriage in May, 1833, with defendant, and that they lived together from thence till the 1st of September, 1850, as husband and wife, when she willfully and wickedly deserted him, at Chicago, and willfully absented herself from him, without excuse, for two years prior to the filing his bill.</p> <p>Summons issued in usual form, on which is the following return :</p> <p>“ Executed the within writ by leaving a copy of the within at the dwelling house of John McCawley, with a female white person, over twelve years of age, informing her of the contents thereof, said plaee Toemg designated by plaintiff, November 5th, 1852. Service, 50 cents; copy, 50 cents; return, 10 cents; mileage, 5 cents. (Signed) W. L. CHUECH, Sheriff,</p> <p>By D. T. Wood, Deputy.”</p> <p>Margaret’s default was entered, and the bill was taken as confessed, proof was made, and thereupon a decree, dissolving the marriage contract.</p> <p>The error assigned is that the decree is imguiar and void, because the defendant below had not such notice of the ■ suit as is required by law.</p>

This suit was brought to February term, 1856. Declaration contained four counts, upon a policy of insurance, which, with the conditions, so far as is necessarily connected with this case, is as follows : By this policy of insurance, the Peoria Marine and Fire Insurance Company, in consideration of forty dollars, to them paid by the assured hereinafter named, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do insure Lewis Smith, Esq,, & Co., against loss or damage by fire, to the…

This is an action commenced by Farnsworth against the bank of Peru, upon a certificate of deposit, on the back of which is indorsed, “Pay to order of E. R. Farnsworth, John Farnsworth.

On the 20th day of Hay, 1854, the defendant, Young, and others, were brought before Charles Williams, a justice of the peace of Knox county, for the “ crime of stealing from the store of J. B. F. Chesney, and the store of A. Lattimer, on the 17th day of April, and at other times in the months of April and May, 1854.” On the same day, the defendant, George Young, applied for a postponement of the examination of the case to the 22d day of May, which was granted, and he and…

This case is stated in the opinion of the court. There was a trial by jury, and a finding for the defendant. There was a motion for a new trial, which was denied by Hollisteb, Judge, at February term, 1856, of the Marshall Circuit Court.

_ Oh the 11th day of April, 1857, the appellants filed their bill in the McLean Circuit Court, setting forth the following facts, to-wit: On November 29th, 1855, Walker entered, at the land office at Danville, Illinois, the S. E. quarter of section 33, T. 22 N., of E. 3 E., in McLean county, which is the land in controversy, and obtained a certificate of purchase, and on February 22d, 1856, Walker conveyed by deed, to Smith, an undivided half of said land.

<p>APPEAL FROM COOK.</p> <p>A feme covert may redeem from sale her equitable estate in property conveyed by her husband and herself to secure the payment of money loaned to the husband, where the possession continues with the husband and wife, by occupancy as a homestead.</p> <p>A conveyance of real estate, under certain conditions, and marked by peculiar transactions, will be treated as a mortgage.</p> <p>A husband may, through the medium of another, acting as trustee, vest in his wife, the use and equitable estate in property, the legal estate of which would remain in the trustee.</p>

This was an appeal taken from the judgment of a justice of the peace in Peoria County, to the county court. The county court dismissed the appeal, for the want of jurisdiction in such cases. The appellee in that court assumed that the law of Feb. 9,1855, in so far as relates to jurisdiction of appeals from justices, is unconstitutional.

The record shows that summons was issued at the suit of Forest against Cook, May 9,1854, and returned on July 5th, 1854, as having been served on May 12, 1854. A declaration was filed on the day the summons issued, and rule was entered requiring the defendant below to plead within ten days after service of a copy of the declaration. A copy of the declaration was served with the summons.