Volume 18 — Wisconsin Reports

The facts alleged in tbe complaint will sufficiently appear from tbe opinion of the court. A demurrer to tbe complaint as not stating a cause of action against tbe defendant, was overruled, and tbe defendant appealed. argued, among other things, that tbe rights of tbe parties to tbe award and settlement mentioned in tbe complaint are to be determined by tbe express terms of such award and settlement.

The action in the circuit court was brought by Ball to recover $165 (with interest), as the contract price of a reaper and mower, sold by Mm to Gorman. Complaint not verified. After tbe time to answer expired, tbe plaintiff’s attorney filed tbe defendant’s written order upon wbicb tbe machine was furnished, and an affidavit of no answer, &c. Judgment was thereupon entered by tbe clerk in favor of tbe plaintiff for tbe amount named in tbe complaint.

APREAL from the Circuit Court for Bock County. This action was for damages for the negligent killing by the defendant of cattle belonging to the plaintiff.

C. Smith, against one Walker, which was pending in the circuit court for Rock county on the 24th of December, 1862, an order was made on that day referring the cause to W. C. Allen, Esq., to hear and determine. An appeal was taken from this order to the supreme court, and the order was reversed October 15th, 1868, and the cause remitted to the circuit court in November following.

Ejectment, for a strip of land lying near the middle of wbat was commonly known as Broad street in tbe city of Oshkosh The plaintiff claimed the premises- as part of lot 1, block E and lot 26, block D, in the 2d Addition to said city. The defendant claimed to occupy and use the premises as the property of one Miller, under a license from him.

The plaintiff, who was at the coiiimenccment of the action, and had been for more than seven years previous, a married woman living with her husband, commenced this action in 1863 to restrain the defendants from setting up any claim to certain lands in Shawanaw county (of which she claimed to be the owner in fee), and from cutting and hauling away the timber thereon; to restrain them from prosecuting certain actions for trespass commenced by them against persons employed by…

The case is stated in the opinion. The jury in the circuit court found for the defendant; the plaintiff moved for a judgment in his favor non obstante veredicto; but the motion was denied, and judgment rendered for the defendant for costs. The bond sued on was a promise of May to answer for the debt of Martineau. Had that promise not been in writing, it would have been void. E. S., ch. 107, sec. 2.

Action for the recovery of real estate. The plaintiff claimed under a tax deed executed April 16, 1855, to one Cone upon a tax sale made April 18, 1852, and a conveyance from Cone to himself. A copy of the tax deed was made a part of the complaint, and it was averred that said deed was recorded April 16, 1855.

This was an action to recover from tbe City of Milwaukee tbe amount of an assessment made upon a lot in said city for work done in filling tbe same under contract with tbe city. Tbe circuit court refused to receive any evidence under tbe complaint, and dismissed tbe same upon tbe defendant’s motion, on tbe ground that it did not state a cause of action.

The nature of the question presented by this case will appear from the opinion of the court. The writ of attachment therein referred to, recites that “ Whereas an application has been made for a writ of attachment against the property of John G. Olmsted, defendant in an action commenced in this court by the filing of a copy of summons, wherein Robert B. Bell is plaintiff,” &e. 1. The writ of attachment is void.

The verdict and judgment in this case were for the plaintiff ; and the defendant appealed. The grounds of the appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The receiver is an officer of the court by which he was appointed, and his possession is the possession of the court; so that in fact this action is against that court.

Tbis action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff. On appeal to the county court, the facts alleged in the complaint haying been proven, the jury, under the direction of the court, returned a verdict for the defendant; and judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the plaintiff appealed. argued that the running at large of swine is a nuisance at the common law, citing 3 Blacks.

The grounds upon which the plaintiff claimed a judgment against the defendant as garnishee for the city of Milwaukee, are stated by the… Held: they shall not in any case or in any manner be subjected to the payment of any other city debt than that to the payment of which it is [they are] so devoted i-n trust; nor even of that debt except upon the terms and conditions of such ordinance or resolution,” &c. On the 29th of July, 1863, the common council of Milwaukee passed the…

The case is stated by the court. Judgment iu the county court dismissing the complaint. contended that after tbe plaintiff failed to do tbe work upon bis contract, no further notice was required to be given by tbe commissioners before reletting. Charter, cb. 7, sec. 6, as amended by sec. 13, cb. 158, Pr. Laws of 1856. 2.

Tbe complaint in this action alleges that tbe defendants, as sureties for Cross Twinam and James Twinam, on &c., executed to one Halstead, tbe plaintiff’s assignor, a bond in tbe sum of $500.

The complaint in this action alleges, in substance, 1. That in January, 1861, the defendant executed bis note, payable to one Bogert or order, for $200 'at thirty days, with interest at 10 per cent., which was afterwards duly transferred to the Bodge County Bank; and that $30 of the principal, and interest upon the whole amount from date, remain due and unpaid. 2.

Tbe complaint alleges that at tbe time of tbe transactions thereinafter set forth tbe plaintiff was, and at tbe commencement of this action still continued to be, a corporation existing under and by virtue of tbe laws of tbe state of Connecticut, and was duly incorporated by an act of tbe legislature of that state entitled “ An act incorporating the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company,” approved June 12th, 1846, and was authorized to sue in all courts in said corporate…

The plaintiff brought this action as one of tbe heirs at law of John Davis, Sr., deceased, against John Davis, Jr., administrator of the estate of said deceased, to recover her distributive share of the estate.

The complaint avers that at the time the defendant committed the grievance hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was, and still continues to be, possessed of a certain premises in the city of Milwaukee, the eastern line of which is the thread of the Milwaukee river, and the southerly line is the north side of Point street; that the defendant was possessed of a parcel of ground on the opposite or southerly side of Point street; that before that time that portion of said street…

County. Action to reform a deed. The complaint alleges that in November, 1857, the plaintiff, and his brother Hinchliff Hinch-liff, and their father, William Hinchliff, since deceased, entered into an agreement by which said William agreed to convey to the plaintiff and his said brother, to be held by them in common, certain real property in Dodge county, to wit, the south-west quarter of the south-west quarter, and the southeast quarter of the south-west quarter, of S. 12,…

Foreclosure of a mortgage. Adolph Oroll, in 1858, made bis note for $200 to one Caróline Hartwig, and executed the mortgage in suit to secure the same. The note and mortgage were afterwards sold and transferred to the plaintiff; and the mortgaged premises were sold by the mortgagor to Martha Fink. Afterwards, to wit, on the 1st of October, 1862, this action was commenced against the mortgagor and wife and another person, but Martha Fink was not then made a party.

Action, for damages for personal property alleged to have been wrongfully taken from tbe possession of tbe plaintiff by tbe defendants and converted to tbeir use.

Tbe facts alleged in tbe complaint in this action and proven at tbe trial, will sufficiently appear from tbe opinion of this court.

The appellants, Wellington and others, were garnisheed in an attachment suit against one Platt, and their answers upon examination were filed in said circuit court about the 29th of April, 1862. On the 30th of the same month, the respondents docketed a judgment against Platt, in said action.

The plaintiff filed with a justice of the peace in said county his affidavit for an attachment against the property of the defendant, alleging therein that the defendant was “justly indebted to him in the sum of $54.85, on contract expressed, to wit, on a promissory note,” and that the defendant “ contracted'the debt under fraudulent representations. ” Thereupon the justice issued a warrant of attachment .in due form, except that it did not run in the name of the “ State of…

The defendants, as sheriff and deputy sheriff of said county, had seized a piano belonging to the plaintiff, under a writ of attachment against his property. This action was brought to recover the value of the instrument. A stipulation was filed containing an agreed statement of the facts, and the only question presented was that stated by this court.

The chairman of the board of supervisors of the town of Oakland in said county brought two actions before a justice of the peace of said town, in the name of the state of Wisconsin, against Ives and one Goodrich respectively, to recover from them the penalty prescribed by sec. 7, chap. 175, Laws of 1860, for keeping dogs not registered, numbered, described and licensed according to the provisions of that act.

Tbe complaint in this action alleges, in substance, that during tbe year 1856 and until August 18, 1857, Samuel H. Roys and Silas U. Pinney were partners in tbe practice of tbe law, under tbe name of Roys & Pinney, at Madison in said county ; that said partnership was extinguished by tbe death of said Roys, and that said Pinney still survives; that in said years 1856 and 1857, said firm performed divers professional services for tbe defendant at bis request, to wit, &c.;…

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in.leaving a train of cars on tbe defendant’s road near the Watertown station, the plaintiff having taken passage to that station.

This was an action of trespass, brought originally in a justice’s court, where the plaintiffs obtained a judgment for $31 damages, and $15 costs. On appeal by the defendant to the circuit court, the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $4 damages. Costs were taxed by the clerk at $148.75, and judgment for that amount and the damages entered in favor of the plaintiffs.

This action was brought under secs. 85-87, ch. 22, Laws of 1859, by the plaintiff as grantee in a tax deed, to bar the rights of the defendants, Anton Mohr and his wife, in the land described in said deed. The complaint was drawn in conformity to section 87 of said act.

The plaintiff, “ a resident householder, freeholder and tax payer in school district No. 6 in the town of Fitchburg, in said county,” brought this action on her own behalf and that of all other tax-payers in said district, against the district board, the several officers composing the same, and one Sarah Christie, to restrain the other defendants from paying the defendant last named any sum from the public school money in their hands as a compensation for teaching the…

The cause of action stated in the complaint herein will sufficiently appear from the opinion of this court. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the circuit court; and from this decision the plaintiff appealed. The contract of sale of the note .and mortgage “was consummated by writing,” and “ the presumption is that the writing contains the whole contract.” Van Nostrand v. Reed, 1 Wend., 432.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Judgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendant appealed. [No brief on file.]

The relief sought by the complainant in this action was, that an account might be taken of all crops raised upon the premises therein described during the year 1860, in order that the plaintiff’s share thereof, as administrator, might be ascertained, &c.; that a receiver might be appointed by the court to take charge of said crops until the final determination of the suit; that a just division of the same might be made between the plaintiff and the defendant Ketchum; and…

Lands of the plaintiffs having been occupied,for the defend-' ant’s railway, and awards made by commissioners under chap. 187, Laws of 1856, and chap 175, Laws of 1861, the plaintiffs appealed from these awards to the circuit court. See sec. 19 of said chap. 187, and sec. 2 of said chap. 175. The circuit court denied motions to dismiss the appeals; and from these orders the defendant appealed.

Tbis action was brought to recover from tbe City of Oshkosh, the amount due on a street commissioners’ certificate for work done under contract with the city in filling a street in front of a certain lot.

Action on a note in the following form ; “ Eor value received, I promise to pay Charles Wormley one hundred and fifty dollars, on demand — to be paid in meat, &c., out of my market. Erederiok Arnold.” The note was indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff. The answer alleges in substance, 1. A want of consideration for the note. 2.

Action to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, executed by Farmin, June 2d, 1852! Held: however, that even under the New York statute, a defendant claiming a paramount interest may not set it up by answer, and be bound by a litigation of his claim in that suit. See opinion of Deeito, J., p. 516.

This was an action to recover from the City of OshJcosh the amounts due upon several street commissioners’ certificates for work done under contract with the city in grading a certain street in said city.

This was an action to recover the amount due on street commissioners’ certificates for work done in improving streets in the city of Oshkosh, under contract with the city. The facts which distinguish the case from that of Finney v. The City of Oshlcosh, ante, p. 209, will sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and the defendant appealed.

Action upon an insurance policy. The insurance was to the amount'of $2000, on a stock of hardware &c. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the loss to the plaintiff from the destruction by fire of the property insured was $9127.84; that he had fulfilled all the conditions of the policy, and had duly demanded payment of the amount insured by the defendant, but the same had not been paid. The compaint therefore demands judgment for said sum of $2000.

. Foreclosure of a mortgage, executed in 1856. The mortgaged premises consisted of two parcels of land in the village of Whitewater, one of them a business lot and the other a lot occupied by the mortgagor, Dow, as his homestead. Before the sale, the defendant Dow served upon the sheriff a written demand that he offer for sale first the business lot, on the ground that he claimed the other as his homestead.

contended that the order of the circuit court directing the purchaser to pay the amount of the purchase money was simply an order, and not a judgment (15 Wis., 594, 59: E. S., ch. 140, sec. 28 ; compare ch. 187); that by the practice in England, New York and this state, such an order is to be enforced by imprisonment as for a contempt (1 Barb.

This was an action to restrain tbe board of supervisors, tbe treasurer and'tbe sheriff of Milwaukee county, from enforcing tbe collection of certain taxes assessed upon tbe personal property of tbe plaintiff for tbe year 1861, and wbicb are alleged to have been unjustly and illegally assessed, and to be much larger in amount than tbe plaintiff was justly liable to pay.

This action was brought against the defendant as receiver of the La Crosse & Milwaukee Railroad Company, to recover rent for a certain building in the city of Milwaukee, alleged to have been occupied by the defendant as assignee of a lease thereof from the plaintiff.

The sheriff’s certificate of service of the summons and complaint in this'action stated that they were served on the defendant “ by delivering to and leaving true copies of said summons and complaint with Henry S. Durand, the managing agent of said defendant.” Judgment against the defendant for want of an answer.

This action was brought to restrain the defendants from enforcing the collection of a tax upon the personal property of the plaintiff, which tax is alleged to have been unjustly andil-legally assessed.

Action for the contract price of cigars and tobacco sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff Answer, that the cigars were ordered by sample; that those sent were greatly inferior to the samples, and a greater quantity than the defendant ordered; that he had therefore refused to accept any part of them, notifying the plaintiff of his non-acceptance, and had stored them away subject to plaintiff’s order until they were destroyed by fire without fault of the…

Trespass to the close. Answer, that the alleged close was a public highway.

Ejectment, commenced July 9th, 1862. Answer, first a denial of all the allegations of the complaint except that the defendant was in possession of the premises at the commencement of the action. 2. That plaintiff claimed under a tax deed executed May 10, 1859, and recorded the next day, and defendant claimed the benefit of the statute limiting the time within which the grantee in a tax^deed might bring his action.

Action to restrain the city of Milwaukee and the treasurer thereof from conveying a lot in the said city under a-sale for the amount of an assessment made thereon in 1857, for the expense of grading the street in front of said lot; also to restrain any sale or transfer of the street commissioners’ certificate of such work, or the certificate of such sale, and to have said assessments and certificates declared void.

Action on a promissory note, indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff. Í he answer alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff was a married woman at the time of such indorsement and still continued to be such, and that her husband was a necessary party to the action. On the trial, the plaintiff read in evidence the note and indorsement, and rested.

This was an action founded upon an undertaking on appeal. The plaintiff’s intestate, in 1859, obtained in the circuit court for Milwaukee county, a judgment against Baruch S. Wiel, Eliza Adelaide Wiel, bis wife,. and others, foreclosing a mortgage and directing a sale of the mortgaged premises, and also that said Baruch S. and Eliza A. Weil should pay the amount of any deficiency in the proceeds of the sale.

Action to restrain tbe defendants (The Oily of Milwaukee, and tbe mayor and treasurer of said city) from enforcing tbe collection of a tax upon personal property of tbe plaintiff, alleged to form a portion of its capital stock. Tbe circuit court found for tbe plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly, and tbe defendants appealed.

Action for an assault and battery. When tbe jury was called, defendant challenged the array, on the ground that they were not drawn “ in conformity to the act regulating the same,5’ in this, that the city council of the city of Ripon, and the board of supervisors of the town of Ripon, had neglected to make out and file with the clerk the list of jurors prior to the last day of May, 1863, and the same was not made and filed until July following.

Action for damages for an assault upon tbe plaintiff by wbicb bis arm was broken and other injuries inflicted. Answer, that tbe acts of tbe defendant complained of were in justifiable self-defense.

The complaint in this action states that the plaintiff claims title to a certain tract of land therein described, by virtue of a conveyance made by the clerk of the board of supervisors of said county, under ch. 22, Laws of 1859, and the subsequent amendments thereto. The deed is set out at length, and is in the form prescribed by the statute.

This was an action for the recovery of a money judgment for about $16,000. The answer denied the causes of action alleged in the complaint, and set up counterclaims. There was a reply in partial denial of said counterclaims. Upon a trial in April, 1861, the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant for $1,788.14, the amount of counterclaim admitted by the reply, and judgment was rendered accordingly.

This action was brought in February, 1862, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendants Douglass Rutherford and Elizabeth, his wife, August 11, 1855, to secure payment of a note of the same date made by Douglass Rutherford to the plaintiff for $1,260 with interest at twelve per cent.

This action was commenced in justice’s court. Tbe corn-complaint alleges that on tbe 12tb of January, 1862, at tbe station on its railroad in tbe village of Fort Atkinson in said county, defendant received a certain quantity of potatoes in bags, in good order, of tbe value of &e., tbe property of tbe plaintiff, wbicb it agreed to convey to Chicago, Illinois, on that day, and by the next train going from Fort Atkinson to Chicago ; that said day was mild and warm, so that…

This was an action, under secs.- 35-37, ch. 22, Laws of 1859, to quiet the title to land claimed by the plaintiff under a tax deed executed in November, 1862, pursuant to a sale alleged to have been made April 14, 1857, for the taxes of 1856. The land described in the complaint is “ the south half of the northeast quarter of sec. 22 ” in a certain town of said county.

These appeals were taken from orders of said court refusing to set aside previous orders vacating j udgments in favor of the plaintiffs in the several actions. The question presented will sufficiently appear from the opinion of this court.

This was an action under secs. 35 et seq., ch. 22, Laws of 1859, to quiet the plaintiff’s title under a tax deed, to land in said county. Mohr demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that several causes of action were improperly joined therein. The court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff appealed.

This action was brought upon certain coupons annexed to bonds numbered from 112 to 119, 29, 80, 83, 96 and 97, issued by the Oity of Watertown in April, 1856, and alleged to have been issued in pursuance of ch. 128, Pr. & L. Laws of 1856.

Tbe action in tbe court below was brought by Christian Achtenhagen, as administrator of tbe estate of Otto Achtenha-gen, deceased, to recover damages from tbe City of Watertown under secs. 12 and 13, cb. 135, R. S. Tbe cause of action alleged in tbe complaint is, that tbe plaintiff’s intestate (who was also his son and an infant), while passing across a bridge over Rock river, within tbe corporate limits of said city, fell through a large bole in said bridge and was drowned,…

Silas Sears and Betsy M. Sears, his wife, executed - a mortgage to the plaintiff upon certain land in said county.

Action for damages for certain alleged- torts, commenced December 11, 1863. On tbe same day defendant was arrested by tbe sheriff of said county in obedience to an order of tbe county judge.

This action was brought to recover the value of goods, belonging to the plaintiff, destroyed by fire in the warehouse of the La Crosse & Milwaukee Eailroad Company, at Portage City in this state. The facts are stated in the second paragraph of the opinion of this court. The defendant, Crocker, was operating said road at the time when the damage to the plaintiff accrued, as a receiver appointed by the district court of the United States for-the district of Wisconsin.

The treasurer of the Gity of Janesville, in December, 1863, returned to the circuit court for Bock county a list of the lands in said city upon which the taxes of that year had not been paid, and applied to the court for judgment against said lands for the amount of the taxes, &c., as prescribed in sec. 5, ch. 7 of the city charter, approved March 25, 1858 (Priv. k L. Laws of 1858, ch. 108, p. 246).

In 1857, the defendant, Merrick, executed a mortgage to one William R Hitchcock, to secure the payment of $11,359.80 in three years, with interest.

Foreclosure of a mortgage, commenced in September, 1862. The mortgage was executed by R. N. Kimball to Ira Kimball, December 9, 1857, to secure a note of the same date for $8000, payable three years from date, with interest at twelve per cent The complaint alleges that the note and mortgage were duly transferred and assigned to the plaintiff, December 16, 1857, in consideration of the sum of $3000.

On the 12th of November, 1850, the City of Milwaukee issued sundry bonds for $1000 each, payable in the city of New York on the 12th of November, 1860, “… Held: Macomber v. Bun-ham, 8 Wend., 550; TJ. S. Bank v. Chapin, 9 id., 471; Lud-wick v. Huntzinger, 5 Watts & Serg., 51; Clay v. Drake, Minor (Ala.), 164; Kitchen v.. Branch Bank at Mobile, 14. Ala., 283 ; Henry v. Thompson, Minor, 209 ; Fisher v. Bidwell, 27 Conn., 863 ; Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. (U. S.), 12o. 2.

Lot three in block 83 in the city of Milwaukee was sold by the treasurer of said city, January 28, 1856, for the non-payment of a sum assessed against the same in 1855, in pursuance of a street commissioners’ certificate issued to Allison, Lewis & Co. for work done in filling said lot under contract with the city. At the sale the city became purchaser, and still held the certificate of sale at the commencement of this action.

The complaint alleges that on the 8th of September, 1855, at the city of Milwaukee, a contract in writing was made between Levi J. M errick of the first part, and the city of Milwaukee (through certain street commissioners) of the second part, by which Merrick agreed, among other things, to grade ' Wells street and sidewalk in front of and adjoining lots 14, 15 and 16, block 53, and Sixth street and sidewalk in front of and adjoining lots 1 and 8, block 171, and lots 11 and…

Action to foreclose a mortgage. On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, among other things, a notice of lis pendens, to which there was attached an affidavit of one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, stating that, on &c., he filed a notice, of which that was a copy, in the office of the register of deeds of said county; and also a certificate of the register of deeds of said county, which stated that, on &c., there was filed in his office “ a notice of pendency of which…

Action on an insurance policy, issued by tbe defendant in October, 1861. Tbe property insured is alleged to have been destroyed January 5, 1862.

In 1863, the defendant Webster was sheriff of said county, and the other defendant, Wason, his deputy. One Knox, who had obtained a judgment in tbe circuit court for said count j against one Allmeyer, caused execution to be issued thereon; under which Wason, about the 22d of May, 1863, seized an omnibus as the property of Allmeyer. Mayer thereupon brought his action before a justice of the peace to recover possession of the omnibus and damages for its detention.

Ejectment. Attached to the summons as filed was an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney that, on &c., he served a copy of the summons on the defendant by delivering the same to his wife at his usual place of abode; but it did not appear from said affidavit, or otherwise, that defendant could not be found. Judgment was afterwards taken against the defendant as upon default; from which he appealed.

This was an action by the payee of a bank check against the drawer.

This action was commenced in the circuit court of said county in 1861.

Milwaulcee County. This was an action by L. F. Waldo to redeem mortgaged premises from the lien of the mortgage. A motion of defendants to dismiss the bill of complaint for want of prosecution, was denied, and the defendants appealed.

Court for Milwaukee County. This action was brought to recover from the defendant as sheriff of said county, damages for his failing to levy an execution in his hands issued on a judgment in favor of the plaintiff Knox, against one Allmeyer, until he had levied upon tbe property of said Allmeyer another execution alleged to have been placed in his hands subsequently to that in favor of the plaintiff The plaintiff’s judgment against Allmeyer was recovered January 9, 1863, and…

This action was brought by tbe plaintiff as tbe owner of certain lots in tbe city of Milwaukee,' to baye certain street com-' missioners’ certificates of' work done in constructing a sewer in front of bis lots under a contract between the city and tbe defendant Burnham, and also certain special taxes assessed upon tbe lots for tbe amounts named in said certificates, declared void, and to restraiñ tbe sale of the lots for such taxes.

This action was brought in June,. 1863, against George South-well, Jr., Daniel 0. Johnson, James S. Brown, Thomas L. Ogden and Alexander Mitchell, to enforce a lien alleged to exist in favor of the plaintiff upon a building owned by the three defendants last named, for work done and materials furnished in constructing such building by the plaintiff as sub-contractor.

•APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaulcee County. Section 18, oh. x, of the charter of the City of Milwaulcee (Laws of 1852, ch. 56) provides as follows: “ The common council shall cause to be established, under the direction of the city surveyor, the grade of all streets, sidewalks and alleys in said city, and shall cause accurate profiles thereof to be made, one of wbicb shall be filed in tbe office of tbe register of deeds of Milwaukee county; and should the grade so…

This was an action against the City of Milwaukee, the treasurer of said city, and the Milwaukee & Superior Railroad Company, to procure a certain note and mortgage in the hands of said treasurer,… Held: the substance of which will appear from the second paragraph of the opinion.

This action was brought to bave a sheriff’s certificate of tbe sale of certain land on execution declared void, and to restrain tbe defendant Schober, tbe purchaser at such sale, from disposing of said certificate or receiving a sheriff’s deed for the land ; and also to restrain the sheriff from issuing such deed.

One Coe obtained letters patent from tbe United States for a certain “ improvement in barrows,” and in 1860 assigned tbe right to make and sell tbe same in tbe state of Illinois to Blanchard and Arnold, the defendants in this action. In part payment therefor, the defendants executed to Coe their two notes, each for $466.66.

Action to reform a bill of sale. The complaint alleges that, on &c., tbe defendant agreed to purchase of the plaintiff, for $3000, certain personal property belonging to the plaintiff and then being upon the premises occupied by it, which property was then shown to defendant, and was all the property of the plaintiff then remaining on said premises; that the defendant agreed to execute therefor his four promissory notes for $750 each, payable to the order of one Perkins and…

Ejectment for “ the south twenty-eight feet” of a certain lot in the village of Humboldt, in said county. On the trial, the plaintiff put in evidence a plat of the village of Humboldt, from which it appeared that neither boundary line of the lot in question ran due east and west, but two of them ran east by thirty-eight degrees north, the others being at right angles with them.

The plaintiff in this action recovered, in October, 1858, against B. S. Weil and Eliza A. Weil, his wife, a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage, and for the sale of the mortgaged premises, to make the sum of $1187.

James Besley died in June, 1855, leaving a will, in which, after bequeathing a certain note to James G. Besley, one of his sons, he added: “ I give and… Held: under tbe old law, and perhaps even under our statutes, as a trustee; for tbe executor only toot tbe personalty. Bo-gert v. Heriell, 4 Hill, 492, 495, 50*3, 507, et seq. Tbe policy of our law requires that persons so taking and bolding trust property should give bonds for its proper management. James G* Besley did so.

The complaint in this action avers that in October, 1863, the plaintiff recovered in said circuit court a judgment against George D. Dousman for $4576.85 damages, in an action on express contract; that the judgment was duly docketed with the clerk of said court in November following, and execution duly issued thereon, on which the sheriff made return of nulla lona ; that the judgment remained wholly unsatisfied at the commenement of this action ; that said defendant George…

Swain brought bis action of ejectment in the court below, in April, 1854, against Oomstoclc, for a certain lot in the city of Milwaukee. On the trial he showed his chain of title from the United States, through Byron Kilbourn. He also called the defendant as a witness, who testified that he occupied the lot in question at the commencement of the action.

This action was brought to recover tbe value of goods of the plaintiffs, stored in the depot of the defendant at Beaver Dam, and alleged to have been lost, to the plaintiffs through the defendant’s… Held: if a bailee for hire ; but these are sufficiently stated in the

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and taken up by appeal to said circuit court, where a verdict was found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to this court.

Foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate executed by Twrner. Thayer and others were made defendants as subsequent incum-brancers, but did not appear. Thayer was personally served with the summons, but the other defendants who were in default, were served by publication.

Action on a note made by defendant to plaintiff, April 16, 1861, for $230 at thirty days, with interest at 10 per cent.; on which there was claimed to be due abalance of $217, with interest from June 20, 1861. Answer, general denial, and payment.

Ejectment, for lot 49 in tbe town of Stoekbridge, in said county. Tbe premises were allotted to tbe plaintiff in 1843, in pursuance of tbe act of congress approved March 3d of that year, and a patent was issued to him in 1860. Tbe defendant claimed under a deed from tbe plaintiff to one James Joshua, executed in 1845.

<p>APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Sheboygan County.</p> <p>Tbis appeal was. from, a judgment foreclosing a mortgage of real estate.</p>

* The plaintiff, haying obtained a judgment in said court against the Marine Bank of Milwaukee and two other defendants, and issued execution thereon, commenced proceedings in January, 1862, under sec. 91, eh. 134, R. S., to reach certain property of the bank in the hands of John S. Harris.

The plaintiff having brought his action in said court to recover possession of certain personal property, the defendants admitted the taking and detention of the property, but justified on the ground that they took and detained it as marshal and deputy marshal of the United States, by virtue of an execution issued out of the district court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, on a judgment rendered in that court against-the plaintiff.

Replevin, commenced in a justice’s court. The plaintiff’s affidavit for a seizure of the property, and his complaint, stated the value at $92.

Catharine Ferber brought the action in the court below against Jean P. Watry, and obtained a verdict and judgment. The principal error relied upon by the plaintiff in error to reverse said judgment, will sufficiently appear from the opinion of this court.

Foreclosure of a mortgage on real estate, executed by James S. Ghurch and wife, August 9, 1852, to tbe La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company, to secure a note of tbe same date made by James S. Ohurch to said company.

This action was brought in February, 1863, by Claude Fery against John, Matthias and Adelheide Pfeiffer. The complaint alleges that on the 1st of October, 1861, John Pfeiffer and the plaintiff entered into an agreement or lease which they caused to be reduced to writing; and what purports to be a copy of said lease is set forth in the complaint.

Ejectment, for a lot of land forming part of tbe east half of tbe nortb-east quarter of a certain section of land in said county. Tbe defendent Artemisia White claimed title to one undivided half of tbe premises, and obtained a judgment affirming ber title thereto; to reverse wbicb tbe plaintiff below brought tbe cause to this court on writ of error.

Ejectment. Trial before the court without a jury. The plaintiff offered in evidence two certificates, one of which was as follows : “ Receiver’s Office, Menasha, Wis., October 9th, 1858.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, tbe plaintiff obtained an order restraining tbe defendants from committing waste upon tbe mortgaged premises.

Tbis was an action against tbe sheriff of said county, for damages for bis refusing to execute a writ of assistance.

Ejectment. The judge, in his finding, stated separately the facts found and his conclusions of law thereon, and directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a general exception “ to the decision of the judge.” Judgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendant appealed.

This action was brought in 1863, against Stephen Dillingham,, James T. Dillingham and Joseph Swift, to recover damages for the flowage of the plaintiff’s land by a mill dam alleged to have been maintained by them during the three years preceding. and also compensation for the right to fiow in future, «fee.

Action for trespass in breaking the plaintiff’s close, in the town of Marshfield in said county, throwing down his fence, and cutting his trees.

This action was brought in August, 1847, by Albert Esta-broolc and William Bromley against Messersmith, sheriff, and one Carter, deputy sheriff, of said county, for the wrongful taking and conversion of certain goods alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs.

Foreclosure of a mortgage executed by defendant to one Wallis, upon two parcels of land containing respectively twelve and nineteen acres.

This was an action against Brittan, as maker, and Ritchie, Newcomb and Doolittle as indorsers, of a note payable to tbe order of Doan, Xing & Go. Tbe indorsement was in blank.

In August, 1853, an attachment issued attbe suit of Gorwith against the property of the State Bank of Illinois, in this state, and the writ was executed upon certain lands of the defendant in La Payette, Grant and Iowa counties.

This appeal was from an order overruling a demurrer to tbe complaint. The substance of tbe complaint, and tbe grounds of demurrer, are stated in tbe opinion of this court. to tbe point that tbe plaintiff could only sue for himself, cited Adams’ Eq., 819, 820; Bou-ton v. City of Brooklyn, 15 Barb., 375. ... 2. To tbe point that there was a misjoinder of defendants, they cited Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow., 702. 3.

On the 3d of September, 1861, a judgment was docketed in said circuit court in favor of Ann McDonald against Thomas Fahey, for #1438 damages, and $50.33 costs.

Tbe plaintiffs, constituting tbe firm of Flanders & (7o., of Chicago, commenced tbis action on tbe 31st of May, 1858, in said court, by writ of attachment against tbe defendants Michael Sherman and Joseph S. Wilson, who constituted tbe firm of Sherman & Wilson, doing business at Prairie du Obien in tbis state. Tbe action was for an indebtedness upon notes executed by tbe defendants.

Action by Charles and Burton Minister against Garrison, Jackson and Worthington, partners under the name of Orestes Garrison & Go.

On tbe 5th of December, 1859, Peter Grover filed bis affidavit in said court, stating that a judgment was rendered therein at tbe November term, 1858, in an action wherein* affiant and one Bancroft were plaintiffs, and A. M. Shannon and Seth Thompson (the defendants in this action) were defendants; that by said judgment defendants were perpetually enjoined from maintaining a certain dam across 'Waupacca river, in such a manner and at such a height as to flow back the waters…

Groix County. Action for damages for the unlawful taking from the premises of the plaintiff, by the defendant, of a horse belonging to plaintiff, and for the improper and negligent feeding and driving of the same, which are alleged to have caused its death. The defendant denied both the unlawful taking and the improper and negligent use, and alleged that he hired the horse of the plaintiff.

Action to recover certain installments of interest on a promissory note executed by the defendant July 1, 1856, to the Watertown and Madison Bailroad Company, payable ten years from date, with interest payable semi-annually.

This was an action for the recovery of real estate, commenc-ecL for the plaintiffs by Messrs. Abbott, Gregory & Pinney. There was indorsed upon the complaint, when the same was filed, an afiidavit of Mr. Pinney that he was a member of said law firm, and that they had “received written authority” to commence the action.

On the 1st of July, 1860, one Armstrong became disabled in the town of Westfield, in Saule county, having no means with which to support himself or to pay for board, or necessary aid or medical attendance. Complaint having been duly made to the supervisors of said town, they expended $100.50 in necessary care, support and medical attendance for said Armstrong. At the time of his so becoming disabled, Armstrong had a legal settlement in the town of Beedsburg in Sauk county.

This action was commenced before a justice of tbe peace. Tbe complaint alleges that on tbe 11th of April, 1863, tbe plaintiff, Mary E. Edson, received an order on the defendant as treasurer of School District No. 7, &c., for $50 in payment for services rendered by tbe plaintiff to said school district as teacher therein, which order was drawn and signed by the clerk, and indorsed by the director of said school district; that the order was thereupon presented for payment to…

The action below was brought by Martin Tinlcer and his wife Janette against Henry Charlesworth, for an assault and battery upon Janette.

Action on a bond and mortgage executed by Alexander Mc-CIurg to the plaintiff, April 10th, 1858.

This action was commenced before W. B. Hibbard, Esq., a justice of the peace in said county, by F. F. Wheeler and H. B. Wheeler, for goods sold and delivered by them (under the firm name of F. F. Wheeler & Go.) to the defendant.

Trespass to the close, commenced in the circuit court for Columbia county, and transferred to the J uneau. circuit court for trial.

Belden was an agent of the plaintiff at Milwaukee on and prior to November 15th, 1861, empowered to receive payment of premiums on policies, interest upon loans, &e. On that day Mabbett and Lamberton, as sureties, with Belden, as principal, executed a bond to the company in the sum of $1,000, conditioned for Belden's duly accounting to the company monthly, and whenever requested, for all its moneys or other property in his hands, and paying over all moneys received for it,…

This cause was before this court on demurrer to the complaint, and is reported in 16 Wis., 57, where the substance of the complaint is stated, and the contract upon which the action is founded is set out in full. The defendant having answered, the case was tried by the judge, without a jury, and brought up by this appeal on exceptions to the findings of fact as well as conclusions of law. The defendant retained Messrs.

The plaintiff, as administratrix of her son, Willis Moseley, deceased, commenced her action in October, 1860, in said county court (under secs. 12 and 13, ch. 135, E.. S.), to recover damages for injuries done to said Willis (resulting in his death), on the La Crosse and Milwaukee railroad, on the 26th of September, 1859.