Volume 19 — Illinois Reports

The appellants filed their bill at the October term, 1855, of the Gallatin Circuit Court, against the appellees, alleging that John Reed, Sr., the father of complainant, Nancy Ann, died seized of certain real estate, described in complainant’s bill, leaving Margaret Reed, his widow, and the complainant, Nancy Ann, and John Reed, Jr., children of the said John Reed, Sr., and Alexander Reed, grandson, and Rebecca Bowles, the granddaughter of said John Reed, Sr., who is now the…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to the Marion Circuit Court, by Samuel E. Dickens, as assignee of Joshua E. Dickens, against the present plaintiff in error, to recover the sum of one hundred and ten dollars, the amount of a promissory note, dated November 25th, 1854, and payable thirteen months from date.

This cause was tried by Parrish, Judge, and a jury, at April term, 1857, of the Jackson Circuit Court. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, by Blanchard' against Wood. Wood pleaded specially, that he was acting as coroner, and made the levy complained of by virtue of his office, and by virtue of an execution placed in his hands as such coroner. To this plea there was a demurrer, which was sustained in the court below, on the ground that there was no such officer as coroner known to the constitution and laws of the State of Illinois.

This was an action on the case, commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant for carrying away from him his slave Joseph, a man of color, whereby he lost his slave and his services. The declaration was filed in the Alexander Circuit Court, at October term, 1855, and contains eight counts.

This cause was tried before Underwood, Judge, without a jury, at April term, 1852, of the Monroe Circuit Court. The court found the defendant guilty, but did not find the estate of the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment for plaintiffs, but did not order a writ of possession. Defendant below brings the case here.

This was a bill filed by Geisler, March 7th, 1857, to foreclose a mortgage, and decree rendered at May Term, 1857, by default.

This was an action of debt, commenced by ordinary summons in the Circuit Court of Gallatin county, on the 13th day of May, 1856, at the suit of the School Commissioner of said county, for the use of the inhabitants of Township No. 9 South, of Range No. 10 East, against Orville Sexton, the plaintiff in error, and John A. McClernand.

<p>ERROR TO WASHINGTON.</p> <p>This cause was tried before Breese, Justice, at October term, 1856, of the Washington Circuit Court. The statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.</p>

This action was brought before a justice of the peace of Hamilton county,, where a judgment was recovered in favor of the defendant in error. The plaintiff in error took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county, and Beecher, Judge, to whom the case was submitted, again gave judgment in favor of the defendant in error, at May term, 1856, of the Circuit Court.

Welles and his wife had verbally contracted with Crabtree to sell him a piece of land for one hundred and fifty dollars; fifty dollars was paid at the time of the bargain, and Crabtree was to have a deed when he should pay the other one hundred dollars.' Crabtree tendered the remaining one hundred dollars, but Welles refused to make the conveyance.

In this cause, plaintiff iu error, together with others, entered into a joint and several bond of recognizance for the appearance of one Lane, to answer a criminal charge.

This cause was heard before Parrish, Judge, at December term, 1854. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

The decree in this case was rendered by Parrish, Judge, at October term, 1855, of the Pulaski Circuit Court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>ERROR TO MONROE.</p> <p>These actions were originally commenced before justices of the peace, to recover compensation for services performed as school teachers! The cases were taken by appeal to the Circuit Court of Monroe county, and were there tried before Breese, Justice, who gave judgment against the school trustees. The trustees appealed to this court. On the trial of the cases, certain schedules and certificates were offered in proof, which, the bills of exceptions state, “ were by consent to be made a part of the record.” These papers are not copied into the bills of exceptions. The originals of these were produced at the hearing of the cause in the Supreme Court.</p>

The town, of Ashley was incorporated by a special act of the legislature of this State, under what is called the Carlinville Act. The act incorporating Asbley was passed at the last session of the legislature of this State.

<p>Tlie Circuit Court can correct a clerical error, made in copying a decree, by supplying an omission, which was evident from the minutes of the court; but if it does not appear that it was the intention of the court to insert the particular clause omitted, the proper remedy is by error to the Supreme Court, where the erroneous decree may be corrected.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit in the Randolph Circuit Court, brought by the appellee, who was plaintiff below, against the appellant, defendant. The cause was tried by the court, by consent of the parties, at the September term, 1857, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $185.64, by Breese, Justice.

This was an indictment, found by the grand jury, at the May term, 1857, of the Circuit Court of Hardin county, charging Robert Davis, the plaintiff in error, with the murder of Seth Taylor. The indictment alleges, in substance, that Robert Davis, on the fifth day of September, in the year 1856, struck Seth Taylor upon his head, with a large stick, thereby inflicting upon said Taylor a mortal wound, of which said mortal wound the said Seth Taylor died.

Appellants were appointed by the Circuit Court of Hamilton county to defend a criminal indicted for “ forgery,” who desired counsel, and was unable to employ any, for his defense. At the subsequent term of the County Court of Hamilton county, the appellants laid in a claim of twenty dollars each, against the county, as a fee for defending said criminal, which the court refused to allow.

This cause was tried at September term, 1857, of the Franklin Circuit Court. The defendants below, plaintiffs here, were convicted and fined fifty dollars each. A motion to quash, and also for a new trial, were made, and overruled. The cause was tried by Parrish, Judge. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.

This was an action of assumpsit, instituted at the September term of the Massac Circuit Court by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error.

<p>APPEAL PROM MARION.</p> <p>This was a trial, in the Circuit Court, of an action for slander. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, for two hundred and seventy-five dollars. The bill of exceptions states that the court gave the instructions as modified— “ Thereupon the court proceeded orally to explain and qualify said instructions to the jury.” The cause was tried before Breese, Justice, and a jury, at September term, 1857, of the Marion Circuit Court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO CLAY.</p> <p>The defendants in error filed their bill in the Olay Circuit Court, praying to annul sale of certain lands in Sec. 16, sold by Moore, as school commissioner, to John L. Taylor, in February, 1854, and praying for injunction to restrain Taylor from waste.</p> <p>The plaintiffs in error prosecute a writ of error, to reverse that decree.</p> <p>The following matters appear in the bill:</p> <p>In 1837, all of Sec. 16, T. 3 N., R. 8 E., was offered for sale, without the preliminary steps having been taken, and contrary to law; but only the S W. quarter of SW. quarter, was then sold ; that the tracts were appraised at little over $1 per acre ; that the lands thus remained till 1852 or 1853, when they became greatly enhanced in value by the location and work upon the O. & M. Railroad which crossed them; and that, at the filing of the bill, the lands were worth from $7 to $15 per acre. That in November, 1853, L. S. Hopkins, school commissioner, in pursuance of a petition for that purpose, directed the trustees to have a re-survey and re-appraisment of said land, who failed to do so for want of a surveyor, etc.</p> <p>That Taylor applied to Enoch Moore, school commissioner, in Eebruary, 1854, to purchase said lands at the appraisement of 1887 ; that Moore at first declined to sell, but afterwards, through the intimidations and importunities of Taylor, and after a treaty of some two weeks, Moore sold him the lands for the sum of $837, taking note, mortgage, etc., when said lands, in fact, were worth, and would have sold, at public sale, for from $5,000 to $6,000. Bill prays that the sale be annulled, and set aside as illegal, fraudulent and void — also for injunction to restrain Taylor from cutting timber, etc.</p> <p>Taylor answers, and admits that, in 1837, the lands had been appraised and offered for sale; denies that the proceedings therein were illegal, and avers they were according to law; admits that the location of the O. & M. Railroad may have enhanced the value of the lands, but denies that the lands were worth the values claimed in the bill; that most of said land was swampy, subject to annual overflows ; and, at the time of his purchase, there were government lands of equal value adjoining, subject to entry at $1.25 per acre ; denies that any petition was presented to Hopkins for re-appraisement, and that any such directions were given as charged in the bill; denies all persuasions or importunities, but admits that Moore declined at first to sell him the land, until satisfied, from examination, that Taylor was entitled to purchase; denies all fraud and collusion, and claims to be the legal and rightful owner of said land, and shows deeds for the same from the governor of the State; denies all matters not expressly admitted.</p> <p>Moore answers ; admits the sale, and maintains it was lawful and right. Denies all knowledge of any petition being presented to Hopkins for re-appraisment of said land; admits that he delayed completing the sale to Taylor, until he had fully investigated the matter, and satisfied himself that it was his duty to do so; denies all fraud or collusion, and denies all intimidations, importunities and persuasions, and avers that all he did was in good faith. Denies all matters not expressly admitted.</p> <p>There was a general replication to answers, when cause was heard upon bill, answers, replication and evidence. A decree was rendered, which sets forth that, at the March term, 1855, the cause was heard on bill, answers, replications and written and oral testimony, and that the court found the following facts, to wit:</p> <p>1st. That said Sec. 16, having been partially surveyed and platted, according to the minor subdivisions, and appraised as the laws provided, was offered for sale in 1837, under the law then existing, and that only the SW. quarter of the SW. quarter was sold.</p> <p>2nd. That at the time of the survey and appraisment, under the laws, they were appraised at various prices, from $1.25 to $3.00 per acre.</p> <p>3rd. At that time the country was sparsely settled, and a large amount of public lands were subject to entry at $1.25 per acre.</p> <p>4th. That in 1852, and subsequently, the O. & M. Railroad was located through said Sec.; that the country had settled and improved to a marked extent, and the lands became greatly enhanced in value, being heavily timbered, and having a good mill site, and were worth from $2.50 to $15 per acre.</p> <p>5th. That Luther S. Hopkins, at this time, was school commissioner, and the inhabitants of said township petitioned him to have a re-survey and re-appraisement of said land, which he directed them to have made.</p> <p>6th. That steps were taken towards such end, but owing to disappointment was deferred.</p> <p>7th. That shortly after such directions for re-surveying, Hopkins was succeeded as school commissioner by Moore.</p> <p>8th. That Moore was aware of the condition of the land, and of its great value, living only seven or eight miles therefrom.</p> <p>9th. That shortly after Moore came into office, Taylor, who was-fully apprised of the situation of said land, survey and appraisement, as aforesaid, applied to purchase said land.</p> <p>10th. That Moore refused to sell said land, but, upon being threatened with a prosecution by Taylor for neglect of duty as an officer, and after repeated arguments of said Taylor, that he was compelled by law to sell to him, and that, after continued importunity by Taylor, Moore sold him the land for $837, and caused it to be conveyed to him, taking note and mortgage.</p> <p>11th. That at the time of such sale, the land was worth from $2,800 to $3,500.</p> <p>12th. That during the treaty for purchase, Moore did not consult the plaintiffs or the agents for the inhabitants, nor any portion of the inhabitants: which were all the evidence before said court.</p> <p>The decree then orders that the sale by Moore, and the conveyances of said land to Taylor, are illegal and fraudulent as to the inhabitants of said township No. 3 N., R. 8 E., and the same be taken to be void, etc.; that the deeds be cancelled and annulled, and the record thereof be declared invalid; that the notes and mortgage given by Taylor, be surrendered, etc.</p> <p>The defendants (plaintiffs in error) specially excepted to the decree, and, among others, assigned the reason that the testimony of the witnesses was not preserved in writing, and that the conclusions of the court, as set forth in the decree, were not warranted by the statements of the witnesses.</p> <p>The plaintiffs in error assign the following grounds of error, for which they say the decree should be reversed :</p> <p>The want of equity in the bill.</p> <p>The insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree.</p> <p>The omission to preserve the oral testimony, in proper form, to be examined and considered by this court.</p> <p>The granting of relief to the complainants.</p> <p>The insufficiency of the decree, being contrary to law.</p>

Brown sued Strait & Crews before a justice of the peace, in Wayne county, and recovered a judgment against them. They took an appeal to the Circuit Court; the case was there submitted to Baugh, Judge, without the intervention of a jury, who found for Strait & Crews, and rendered a judgment against Brown for costs. Brown thereupon brought the case to this court by writ of error. The bill of exceptions shows, that one Collins was indebted to Brown in the sum of forty dollars.

CLAIR. The plaintiffs declared against defendants in assumpsit, declaration containing one special and the common counts.

This case originated before a justice of tte peace, on a demand for fifty dollars, claimed by the plaintiff of the defendant, the defendant being a town of the county of Pike, under the township organization law. A judgment for thirty-five dollars and forty-one cents was rendered against the defendant by the justice, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Pike county.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by Webster against Payne, on the 8th June, 1857, on a promissory note.

On tke 26th day of January, A. D. 1857, complainants, Daniel Finch, Robert W. Finch, Thomas Walworth and Sarah Walworth his wife, Harriet King, Culvert Woodburn and John B. Woodburn, John Mason and Joel Mason, filed their bill in chancery, in the Circuit Court of Madison county, Illinois, setting forth that one Joel Finch, now deceased, being indebted to one William Martin, late of said Madison county, in the sum of $580.84, on the 18th day of September, 1843, had a…

This was a petition filed at the November term, 1857, of the Adams Circuit Court, by appellee, as administrator, against appellants, praying an order of said court to sell the real estate, of which said William Hopkins died seized, to pay his debts.

<p>A recognizance taken by a justice of the peace for tbe appearance of a party, when certified, approved and delivered to the clerk, of the Circuit Court, becomes a record of such court.</p> <p>A plea of nil debet to a scire facias upon a recognizance, is not a good plea; the matter is a record, and imports absolute verity, and no averment can be taken against it.</p> <p>A plea which avers the death of the principal in the recognizance, must, in order to make it good, state the time of his death.</p> <p>The proper qualification of a justice before whom a recognizance is taken, or his conduct at the investigation, in refusing a change of venue, cannot be inquired into upon a scire facias.</p> <p>A judgment of forfeiture upon a recognizance is not, in this State, for a sum of money; it is followed by a scire facias, calling upon the sureties to know why judgment should not be awarded against them for the amount of the recognizance, to be followed by execution.</p>

On the 1st September, 1852, appellant made his note for payment to appellee, at ten years’ date, for $4,000, and interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, payable annually, on which $700 of principal and interest, up to June 1st, 1855, was credited, and appellee sued appellant in assumpsit for $702.50, for installments of interest up to September 1st, 1857. As to four-tenths of the interest sued for, appellant pleaded in bar that note was not given for money loaned.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the Monroe Circuit Court, April 30,1854. The bill alleges that said Ann M. was the widow of Thomas Osborn, deceased, and as such entitled to dower in the lands of which he died seized; that he was seized in his lifetime of certain lands described, in said county, which land was claimed in possession of Horine. Bill prays for the assignment of her dower in said land.

This was an action in assumpsit on two promissory notes of defendants to one Bosworth, assigned by him to the plaintiffs without recourse. To which the defendants pleaded, 1st. Non assumpsit and issue. 2nd. Notes made to Bosworth in consideration of sale and delivery, by plaintiffs, of a certain reaping and mowing machine, which, before commencement of suit on notes, was returned, accepted, and contract cancelled. 3rd.

This suit was instituted on. a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: Danville, Ills., March 27, 1857. $6,500. Eorty days after date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of D. Clapp, at the Stock Security Bank, sixty-five hundred dollars, in sight exchange, on New York city, or its equivalent, and if not paid at maturity, to forfeit and pay three per cent, per month thereafter, as liquidated, agreed and assessed damages.

This was an action of covenant instituted by the appellee against the appellant in the court below. On the 24th day of March, 1838, Bates conveyed to West, lot 4, in block 9, in Jones & Purkitt’s addition to Griggsville, for the consideration of one hundred and fifty dollars. The deed contained full covenants. On the 5th day of March, 1856, West was evicted from the premises by title paramount to the title conveyed by Bates.

This was an action on the case, brought by the appellees against the appellant, as common carriers, in the court below, for damage done to cattle of appellees, by delay in the transit while being carried from Urbana to Chicago, by appellant. The declaration'also contained a count in trover. The defendant pleaded- not- guilty, and gave notice of special matters to be relied on for the 'defense, and the case was submitted to a jury.

CLAIR. This was an action of assumpsit. The first count alleges, that on the 3rd of January, 1855, J. C. Foster made a note for two hundred dollars, payable to Gorman twelve months after date; that Gorman then indorsed and delivered said note to Joseph Barnes, and Joseph Barnes, on the 22nd day of March, 1855, indorsed and delivered said note to plaintiff; that Foster was wholly insolvent when note became due, whereby defendant became liable to pay it, etc., and undertook,…

The land in controversy was patented to Jesse McKee, who died in December, 1838, testate, appointing William McKee his executor, and devising his estate, after payment of debts, to his wife Jane, and his nephew Jerome McKee, with authority to executor, if personalty was not sufficient to pay debts, to sell such of the real estate as he should think most advantageous, to pay debts, and expressing wish that demand in favor of the executor should be paid first.

On the 22nd day of December, 1855, the plaintiff sued the defendants before a justice of the peace, in McDonough county, for one hundred dollars, account filed, for destroying and carrying away a bridge in said county, of the value of fifty dollars. Upon trial, the justice, on motion of defendants, dismissed the suit and rendered judgment for costs against plaintiff.

Erancina B. Tyler filed her bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of Hancock county, against Stephen H. Tyler, Hannah Tyler, Charles C. Tyler, and John H. Tyler, in which she alleged that she is the widow of Stephen H. Tyler, Jr., of said county ; that Tyler died on the 25th of January, 1855, in said county ; that said Tyler was born in Connecticut and resided there until 1835, when he removed to Illinois.

This was a motion to set aside a sale of real estate, and heard before Harriott, Judge, at the April term, 1857, of the Tazewell Circuit Court. A bill had been previously filed to foreclose a mortgage given by Snell upon lots No. 7, 8 and 13 in school section No. 16, town. 23, range 6 west of the 3rd p. m., also on lots 12,13,14, 15 and 16, in block 73, in Pekin, Illinois.

The appellee sued the appellant before a justice of the peace, and obtained judgment for $44, which was appealed, and the following bill of exceptions was submitted as an abstract of the case.

<p>Where a city charter confers power to levy and colleot taxes npon all property within its limits, property of a resident haying its actual situs without the limits of the city is not taxable.</p> <p>The place or situs of a vessel is the place of its registration and port from, which it regularly departs and returns.</p>

<p>appeal prom; coles.</p> <p>The opinion of the court gives a statement of the case. The cause was heard before Emerson, Judge.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit Court of Hancock county, by the appellees, against the appellants and others not served. The cause was tried at the October term of said court, 1857, before Sibley, Judge, and a jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the appellees and against the appellants, for $1,737.18 damages, for which and.costs the court rendered a judgment. The declaration contains one special and the usual common counts.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellees against the appellant in the court below, for damage done to hogs of appellees, by delay in the transit while being carried from Okaw to Chicago by appellant.

This was a proceeding instituted in the Clark Circuit Court, by William T. Adams, against Joseph Lane, James McCabe, Lewis Bradley and William Calvert, by action of assumpsit, at June term, A. D. 1857, of said court. The record shows that the summons issued in this cause was served upon all of said defendants, except William Calvert, who was not found.

The plaintiffs commenced an action of debt to the April term of the Schuyler Circuit Court, 1855, upon the following recognizance : State of Illinois, Schuyler County, ss. — Personally came before the undersigned, James L. Anderson and Edward Bertholf, favo of the justices of the peace within and for said county, R. C. Earnham and Nathan Moore, and jointly and severally acknowledged themselves to owe and be indebted to the people of the State of Illinois, in the sum of five…

CEAIR. This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the March term, 1857, of the St. Olair Circuit Court. The declaration has a count for goods sold, work done, money lent, money paid, and an account stated. Defendant, Eckert, plead the general issue, and gave notice of items of set-off: The issues of fact were tried by consent by the court, who found for the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was overruled.

Charles Sprague filed Iiis bill iu the Cass Circuit Court, showing that he is a resident of Cass county, and the owner of real estate situated in Cass county, and of personal estate, on which tases are regularly levied for county purposes.

This was a suit in ejectment, brought by plaintiff in error, in Circuit Court of Adams county, at the March term thereof, 1855, for the recovery of the S. E. quarter of S. E. quarter of Sec. 15 S., 1 N., R. 8 W. of fourth principal meridian. Declaration in usual form. Plea of not guilty. Jury dispensed with, and trial before the Hon. Joseph Sibley, Judge, March term, 1856. Judgment for defendant.

In this case a decree iu chancery was rendered at the November term of the Sangamon Circuit Court, A. D. 1856, in favor of the defendant in error, and against the plaintiff in error and others, on a bill to forclose a mortgage, executed the 26th day of May, A. D. 1852, by Ira C. Ash and Amanda V. Ash his wife, with Horace E. Ash, her trustee, to defendant in error, — the bill having been amended so as further to set up that the mortgage money was advanced by defendant in…

This is an agreed case, taken by appeal from Scott, from a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of said county, at the October term, A. D. 1857, which judgment was rendered upon the following state of facts: Sarah Crull, wife of George Crull, while a femme sole, in the lifetime of said John Peniger, deceased, rendered services for said Peniger, which claim for services became barred by lapse of time, and it was insisted by the appellees in the court below, that the case…

This suit was instituted to the Macoupin Circuit Court. The declaration contains two special counts : 1st. Eor that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the 22nd day of April, 1850, at, etc., the said defendant made his promise, in writing, for value received, and delivered the same to the plaintiff in the words and figures following, to wit: I do hereby agree to pay to Mr. Biehard A; Edey one hundred and forty-eight dollars and twenty-seven cents, provided I do not settle said…

This was a proceeding commenced in the Cass Circuit, by Henry H. Hall, for partition of the estate of his deceased father, making the widow and his brothers and sisters parties; asking that Eliza Newman, the sister who intermarried before she became twenty-one, be excluded from any part of the estate.

By decree of the Circuit Court of Greene, September term, 1853, the complainant was divorced from the said Cavil Hopper, for adultery, and, by consent of said Cavil, specified in decree for alimony, she was to have certain personal property, and he was to convey to her an equal undivided one-third part of 200 acres of land, so as to include dwelling-house and plantation then occupied by said Polly, at relative value to whole, with stipulation that his name might be used in…

It is hereby agreed, that a bond of the State of Illinois, which was issued under the second section of the act of the legislature, entitled, “An Act to authorize the refunding of the State debt,” approved Feb. 28th, 1847, was duly presented to the Auditor of the State of Illinois (Jesse K. Dubois), on the first day of January, A. D. 1858, by the said Bank of Bloomington, and payment demanded of him, of the same or so much thereof as the said Bank of Bloomington, as the…

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Correll and others against McDaniel and others, to set aside the will of William McDaniel, deceased. There was a trial, and the jury found that the paper produced was not the will of said William McDaniel. There was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. The children of Martha McIntyre are devisees under the will.

The relator, by Ms motion, asked the court to order that a writ of mandamus be issued, directed to the Governor, commanding him to issue to the relator new bonds of the State, for the arrears of interest due upon two certain bonds of the State of Illinois, described in an affidavit of the relator annexed to the motion, as the said Governor is required to do by an act of the General Assembly entitled “An act to fund the arrears of interest accrued and unpaid on the public…

This was a bill in chancery, heard before Harriott, Judge, at October term, A. D. 1857. Held: said D. M. Baily sold and conveyed said lots to said Reeves. That said Reeves afterwards commenced actions of ejectment against Wilkey, and William B. and Irwin B. Doolittle, which actions had been decided in favor of the complainants as to costs.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Lane against Lancaster, to recover damages for the sale of a mare, which was levied upon by an execution issued by Lancaster, who was a justice of the peace, and sold.

Mat 1st, 1856, Samuel Blattner presented affidavit of the death of Leanhart Weber, late of Canton Glaras, Switzerland, who died December 16th, 1854, while en route to Highland, Madison county, Illinois, leaving a will.

On the 15th September, 1855, a bill in chancery was filed by the appellee, in the Eulton Circuit Court, wherein Samuel M. Beckwith, of Madison county, New York, and the appellant, George Hunter, of Eulton county, Illinois, were made defendants, to compel a specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of the N.W. i 9, 8 N., 4 E. The bill charges that, sometime in the commencement of the year 1858, one of the defendants, Samuel M. Beckwith, authorized Dennis Saunders…

This was a suggestion for mesne profits, commenced at September term, 1857, of Pike Circuit Court, by Erskine against Hanley, by service of a declaration and notice, in due form, on Hanley.

The defendant in appeal commenced an action of covenant, against the appellant to the November term, A. D. 1855, of the Cass Circuit Court.

This was a proceeding instituted in the Coles Circuit Court, by Savilla Peeples, of the county of Edgar, against Samuel Peeples, of the county of Hancock, all in the State of Illinois, praying divorce, alimony, etc. The record shows that Savilla Peeples filed in the Coles Circuit Court, on the 18th day of February, A. D. 1856, her bill of complaint, in which she charges her intermarriage with Samuel Peeples, (whom she makes defendant thereto,) their cohabitation for a…

Plaintiffs sued the defendants in debt, before a justice of the peace, for penalties incurred in breach of ordinance relating to sale of spirituous liquors, and recovered a judgment of $40; from which the defendants appealed; and on trial in the Circuit Court, a verdict was found for the defendants, and judgment entered thereon in their favor.

To this declaration defendant below filed a special plea, alleging that, as to $50, part of the debt claimed in said declaration, and as to $90, part of the damages claimed therein, plaintiff actio non, because the plaintiff below, before said note was assigned to him, and after the accrual of the causes of action set out in the declaration, accepted from the defendant, on account of said note and said causes of action, certain articles of personal property, valued by them…

This is an action of replevin. The defendant in error commenced his suit against the plaintiff in error, in the Fulton Circuit Court, on the 28th Sept., 1857, by the filing of an affidavit which reads as follows, to wit: STATE OE ILLINOIS, 1 COUNTY OE EULTON.

The relators state that they are authorized to print the laws passed at the session of the twentieth General Assembly of this State, and have a right to demand of the Secretary of State true and perfect copies of all the laws passed at said session, which are in his possession and custody; that, on the eighteenth day of February, 1857, the said General Assembly being in session, passed a law, entitled “ An Act to create senatorial and representative districts, and apportion…

<p>ERROR TO MADISON.</p>

This was a suit instituted on the chancery side of the Cumberland Circuit Court, and was heard and decree rendered finally in that court, upon bill, answers, exhibit, replication and depositions of witnesses.

This was a suit in the Coles Circuit Court, commenced by attachment, at the instance of Vanmetre, the defendant in error, against one John TV. Hankins, in which the plaintiff in error, John Williams, was summoned as garnishee. The writ is without a seal.

EBBOB TO ED GAB. This was a proceeding instituted on the chancery side of the Edgar Circuit Court, by David W. Heisey against Julius A. Penn and Eliza C. Penn, John 0. Minor, Thomas Brock, Catharine Brock, St. Clair Sutherland, and George Stein.

In January, 1851, Nicholas King exhibited his bill in chancery, in the Circuit Court of Morgan county, for settlement of partnership accounts, and establishment of his title to lands in Iowa, against the personal representatives and heirs at law of his deceased brothers, Joseph King and William King, claiming that he was interested in the subject matters of the suit to the extent of three-fifths, and the estates of his said brothers each one-fifth, as partners.

<p>In a proceeding under the act of 1852, for obstructing a road or highway; if the jury find the party guilty of continuing an obstruction, it will he erroneous to enter judgment on such finding. A justice of the peace has not authority to hear and try a party for “ continuing ” an obstruction of a highway.</p>

This was an appeal, by the owners, from the assessment of damages for the condemnation of lot 85, in the town of Brooklyn, in St. Glair county, for the use of the Belleville and Illinoistown Railroad Company, said assessments having been made by commissioners appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. The court dismissed the appeal, on the motion of the defendants, on the ground that no appeal lay in this cause.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by appellant to recover of appellee, the possession, in fee, of the N. W. S. E. qr. sec. 24, T. 2 N., R. 6 W., in St. Clair county, Illinois, at March term, 1856. The appellee plead the general issue. Cause tried at the April term, 1857, of the St. Clair Circuit Court, before the court and jury, Snyder, Judge, presiding.

APPEAL EROM McDONOTJGH. This was a bill filed in McDonough Circuit Court, 7th February, 1854, by appellee against appellant, together with J. P. M. Buchanan and Jabez J. Piggott. Bill alleges that on the 27th of August, 1851, complainant was the owner in fee of the N.W. qr. of Sec. 17, T. 6 N., R. 1 W., in said county. Said premises were patented to Levi Cole, 1st Jan., 1818, and complainant holds by regular conveyances from patentee, derived through defendant, Piggott.

This was a case submitted to the Cook Circuit Court, on an agreed statement of facts, of which the following is a substantial statement: Prescott and Arnold owned pre-emptions, or, in other words, were entitled to purchase, at the appraisal, lots one, two, three and four, and also parts of seven and eight, in block seven, in the original town of Chicago.

The proceeding in this case shows the following facts: Abner Stark, in his lifetime, being seized of, in and to the N. W. qr. of the N. E. qr., and the N. E. qr. of the N. W. qr. of Sec. 25, T. 12 N., R. 14 W., in Clark county, Illinois, and on the 10th day of November, 1840, for the consideration of natural love, etc., and by way of advancement, conveyed said lands to his twelve children, viz.: William, Miriam Cooper, (then intermarried with J. P. Cooper,) Isaac, Milton,…

<p>APPEAL EROM MONROE.</p> <p>The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Breese.</p>

The defendant in error filed lier bill in chancery in the Eulton Circuit Court, on the 22nd of August, 1854, praying for a divorce and alimony from the plaintiff in error, and the custody of the children of the parties.

The bill in this case shows that Hillibert held a note on A. 0. Stark, dated January 1, 1838, for $1,316.12, due first January, 1840, with twelve per cent, interest after due, for which defendants gave the mortgage as security on 800 acres of lands in Clark county, of the same date as note. The bill prays for judgment and execution to sell the lands in the mortgage to pay the same.

At the April term of the Monroe county Circuit Court, 1856, Rogers brought suit on the following note, against Nelson L. Moore and Ambr. Hoener, and recovered judgment for $318.75: Twelve months from date, we, or either of us, promise to pay Austin E. Rogers, or order, five hundred dollars, and if not then paid, ten per cent, interest till paid, for value received. NELSON S. MOORE, JAS. N. MOORE, March 16, 1855. AMBR. HOENER.

The bill alleges that complainant, in the year 1841, being twenty-one years old, was living with his father, Robert Smith; that a contract was made between himself and father, by which complainant agreed to take care of, support and maintain his said father during the natural life of said Robert; and that, in consideration thereof, the said Robert, the father, agreed to sell, give and convey to complainant the farm on which he resided, and which is particularly described in…

<p>APPEAL EROM COLES.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.</p>

This was an action of trespass, brought by appellee against appellant and True Woodbury. The latter was not served with process. The declaration is in the usual form. 1st count, for an assault and battery of appellee’s wife. 2nd count, for an assault and battery of himself. To this declaration the appellant’s demurrer was filed, and overruled by the court. Appellant then filed three pleas: Not guilty, on which issue was joined.

In the case of Newland v. Marsh, the following statement, shows the facts of the case: This was an action of ejectment brought by the appellee against the appellant, to recover the possession of the N. W. 12, 2 N. 6 W., in Adams county. The declaration was served October 27,1856. Plea of “ not guilty” filed November 10,1856. By agreement, a jury was dispensed with, and the case submitted to the court for trial.

Before the April term of the Greene Circuit Court, A. D, 1854, attachments were issued by the clerk of that court against one William Pankey, at the suit of Duvall, Keighler & Dorsey, Shapleigh, Day & Co., Eddy, Jameson & Co., Manny, Weld & Drake, and many other parties, which attachments were levied by the sheriff of Greene county, on certain personal property' in the hands of Thomas Davis, Ransom Davis and John B. Choquette, who severally gave bond according to the statute…

This was a suit by attachment brought by Marshall against Laughlin as indorser of two certificates of deposit. Judgment was rendered at the April term, 1856, of the Coles county Circuit Court, in favor of the plaintiff.

This was an. action of debt, brought by appellant against appellee, as a surviving partner. The demand was for two hundred and five bushels of wheat, delivered by one Palmer either to the defendant as surviving partner of his father, and for their joint benefit, or to his father individually, on account of appellant. The dispute was as to whom the wheat was delivered, and if to the father, whether it had been settled for by him with the appellant.

APPEAL PROM: ST. CLAIR. The appellant before the Circuit Court where the case was pending, on appeal from the County Court, presented an account, and in order to sustain the second item of said account, produced the decree of the Surrogate Court of the county of New York. The defendant’s counsel objecting, the court, pro forma, sustained the objection, and excluded the said decree as evidence.

This was an action of ejectment brought to the March term, A. D. 1857, of the Adams Circuit Court, by plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to recover the S. W. 32, Township 2 S., 8 *W\, in Adams county aforesaid. The declaration was in the usual form. Plea not guilty.

This was an action of ejectment commenced on 1st day of April, 1856, by Linn against Montag, by service of a declaration in the usual form. The land in controversy was the S. E. 25, 2 S., 8 W., in Adams county. Declaration was filed in the Adams Circuit Court, on 2nd April, 1856, and on the same day, appellant plead not guilty, on which, appellee joined issue.

■ This was an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court pronounced upon a feigned issue, raised to try certain questions in relation to a judgment theretofore rendered upon a cognovit. The verdict of the jury was in favor of setting aside the judgment, and that court accordingly set it aside. The plaintiff who had obtained the primary judgment upon the cognovit, prayed an appeal to this court.

This cause was begun in Tazewell county, and the-venue changed to McLean county. Held: said bonds to be issued, or said subscription to be made, colleagued and combined with the Tónica and Petersburg Railroad Company, and the clerk of the board of supervisors; and, notwithstanding the bonds were not prepared and signed by the chairman of the board of supervisors, pretend to have procured the said clerk to make the said…

<p>ERROR TO TAZEWELL.</p> <p>This was a bill in chancery, filed by plaintiffs in error, alleging that, on second day of November, 1846, George Spurck and George A. Crook entered into copartnership in the mercantile and produce business, in the name of George A. Crook, under articles of copartnership of that date, providing that all personal and real estate, or any stock, or anything else purchased in Peoria, to be in name of said Crook, and that upon dissolution, an invoice of all stock, real estate and personal, to be equally divided, after making out each party’s account, debt and credit, and then Crook to draw out the amount of his capital over and above Spurck, with six per cent, interest on the same; each party to charge himself with what stock he may draw out of the concern at retail prices, except lot one, block three, in Water street, being property purchased of Chrisman: which articles were signed by both parties, with their seals. And immediately under the signatures and seals:</p> <p>The said Spurck, so long as the copartnership exists as above, is to pay one-half of the interest on the cost of the said property, now occupied by me and paid for out of my individual money, for the sole benefit of my wife and children.</p> <p>G. A. CROOK.</p> <p>It is mutually agreed and understood by us both that the said G. A. Crook, on the date mentioned, had in the concern $1,300, and said Spurck had no capital.</p> <p>G. A. crook;</p> <p>GEORGE SPURCK.</p> <p>That they entered into business in Peoria, and so remained until June 15, 1848, when they dissolved; that during said copartnership, they purchased from H. 0. Merriman lot three, in block twelve, Peoria, for $450, and took a bond to George A. Crook; that said lot was purchased for the partnership concern ; and that complainant Spurck paid of the same $225 for his half of said lot, and Crook paid the remainder.</p> <p>That said partnership, during its existence, made a clear profit of $6,000, which Crook acknowledged; that Spurck put in said concern $2,000; that upon the dissolution, they accounted together and settled amicably, and agreed that Crook should retain all the capital stock and profits. And Crook executed and gave to Spurck the following agreement:</p> <p>Peoria, June 15, 1848.</p> <p>I this day have agreed to give Ann L. Spurck a good and sufficient deed to eighty acres of land, known and described as the De Groff land (meaning the half quarter aforesaid). I also do make to the said Ann L. Spurck a good warranty deed to the north half of lot No. 3, in block 12, purchased of H. O. Merriman, and to finish off the house now being erected on said lot complete, except the plastering, according to the contract with the carpenters. Also, to give to George Spurck my note for five hundred dollars, payable in cash, notes, due bills or book accounts, as may best suit my convenience. To all the above, and the faithful performance of the same, I do hereby bind myself, my heirs and assigns, as witness my hand and seal this day. Said Crook obligating himself to pay all debts, dues and demands against said concern. G. A. CKO OK. [seal.]</p> <p>Which agreement was declared to be full and final settlement of said copartnership by said Crook.</p> <p>That Merriman has since conveyed said lot to Crook, in compliance with his bond; that Crook l’efuses to make the deed and pay the $500.</p> <p>That complainants, Spurck and wife, have conveyed the eighty acres called the De Groff farm to complainant, Thomas S. Dobbins, which bill prays for conveyance, etc.</p> <p>The answer of Crook admits the partnership, and time of its dissolution, 15th June, 1848, and says that, on that settlement, Spurck gave a receipt in full to respondent; denies purchase of lot from Merriman for partnership; denies that Spurck paid anything on lot; that the lot was purchased by respondent, with money of Martha M., his wife; that the south-westerly half of the lot was re-sold to Merriman, and the north-easterly half conveyed to William Spurck, in trust for Martha M. Crook, January 24,1849; and that Martha is the owner of the lot, and that respondent has no control over the same. Denies that the concern cleared $6,000, and denies that Spurck put into said concern any money; denies the contract or agreement set out in bill on settlement of said partnership; states that the De Groff farm also belongs to his wife, the title being held in trust under a deed from George Spurck to Hart P. Anchor, dated February 4, 1851. Knows nothing of the deed from Spurck and wife to Dobbins.</p> <p>That on the 19th September, 1848, Spurck and wife filed their bill in Peoria Circuit Court against respondent and Merriman, and on 28th April, 1851, their amended bill against respondents, Martha M. Crook, William Spurck and Hart P. Anchor, in which the complainants complain of the same identical grievances as in this bill contained ; that on the 9th March, 1852, and while said former bill was pending, the said parties submitted to Daniel O’Keefe all suits, litigations and differences between them, as sole arbitrator, whose decision was to be final and conclusive; that O’Keefe took upon himself the burden of the said arbitration, and April 15, 1852, made his award, whereby the said matters were fully settled, and that he awarded that the De Groff land should be conveyed by Crook and wife to Thomas Hughes, trustee for Ann L. Spurck, but in the award the arbitrator made a mistake in describing the land, as being the east half of N. E. qr. 25, 9 N., 7 E., instead of N. half of S. W. 25, 9 N., 7 E.; that in that part of said award in which it is stated that Crook and wife are entitled to retain possession, and without hindrance of Spurek and wife, of house on easterly-part of lot three, block twelve, the word north, before the word easterly, was omitted, and the said north-easteily half of said lot three was intended to be awarded to said Crook and wife ; that they have been ready to comply with said award.</p> <p>That on the 27th April, 1852, notice was served on Spurek and wife by Crook, that he had deposited with E. G. Sanger, master in chancery, the deed and notes secured by mortgage, in compliance with said award, to be delivered to Spurek upon his complying with said award. Also, Crook and wife executed to Spurek and wife their release, and gave the same to 0. Peters, counsel for Spurek and wife, which release the complainants are notified to produce on hearing; and further offers, if anything is left undone under said award, to do the same at his own cost; insists that the award is in full force, unreserved and binding; that the said suit in chancery between the parties was, by agreement, dismissed March 12, 1852, and the same is insisted upon as a bar to this suit.</p> <p>May 10,1854. Leave was given to complainants to file an amended and supplemental bill, which was filed May 10, 1854, wherein the complainants allege that it was the intention of Spurek and Crook that Spurek should have the north-east half of lot three, and that the description in said agreement as the northerly half was a mistake of both parties ; that both said lot and the De Groff farm were purchased with partnership funds ; that after the settlement of said partnership matters, Crook and Merriman adjusted the lot matter in manner following: Crook conveyed to Merriman the south-west half of the lot, and Merriman conveyed to Crook the north-east half of the lot, and thereby Crook became the holder, in fee, of said north-east half of lot three, and he should have conveyed the same to said complainant, George Spurek, but, on the contrary thereof, Crook conveyed the same to William Spurek, in trust for Martha M. Crook, wife of George A. Crook; that she paid nothing therefor, but the conveyance from G. A. Crook was voluntary, and made to defraud complainants.</p> <p>That in 1851, there were pending in Peoria Circuit Court a suit in chancery, and certain suits at law, between Spurek and wife and Crook and wife, which were referred to Edward Dickinson, John C. Elanagan and David Maxwell, referees; that said referees made and filed their award in said court, which award was set aside at March term, 1851, because of improper description of said lot three, it being described as northerly half instead of north-easterly half; that pending the reference it was verbally agreed that George Spurek should convey the DeGroff farm to Hart P. Anchor, so that the same should abide the result of the arbitration; that in pursuance of said agreement, Martha M. Crook did, in writing, request said Spurck to convey said land to said Anchor; that the conveyance was made, in which deed were several trusts, one of which was, that Anchor should convey said 80 acres to Ann L. Spurck, divested of all trusts, which deed defendants are notified to produce ; that Anchor made the deed to Ann L. Spurck, and made an exhibit, which deeds were in the hands of the referees, to be delivered to the proper parties, if they should determine in conformity with the terms and provisions of „ the deeds ; ■ an agreement in writing being signed by 0. Peters, as counsel for Spurck and-wife, and by L. B. Knowlton, as counsel for Crook and wife; that the arbitrators awarded that George Spurck was entitled-to the DeGroff farm, and the deeds were delivered accordingly; that the said agreement was made in good faith on complainant’s part, and they believe Knowlton had full authority to make the agreement for defendants; that Martha M. did assent to and direct that the arrangement for the deeds should be made; that-George A. Crook and Anchor, as trustees for Martha M. Crook, receive the rents of said house on lot three, and refuse to account-to complainants; that they have received rents from said house-at least $1,200, and the DeGroff farm $500 to $1,000; Crook refused to abide by award of arbitrators, and, on his motion, the award was set aside for the reasons aforesaid. And on the 9th September, 1852, the matters were submitted to Daniel-O’Keefe, sole referee, who made his award April 15, 1853; made an exhibit which was never perfected or delivered so as to-take effect, for the following reasons :</p> <p>1st. O’Keefe undertook to determine upon matters not submitted to him. He awarded that Crook and wife should convey the E. half N. E. 25, 9 N., 7 E., to which land neither party had any title or claim.</p> <p>2nd. O’Keefe undertook to appoint a trustee for Ann L. Spurck, and fix and determine declarations of trust, for which-he had no authority.</p> <p>3rd. Said arbitrator awarded that a suit in favor of Charles Hamilton and George A. Crook should be dismissed, it not appearing that any of the parties, except Crook, had interest therein.</p> <p>4-th. • The award was never perfected and delivered.</p> <p>5th. The award was procured by fraud on part of Crook; that Crook surreptitiously and fraudulently got possession of the agreement of the 15th of June, 1848, from said O’Keefe, before O’Keefe had an opportunity to examine it fully; that after the case was submitted, Crook held private interviews with. O’Keefe, and made false and fraudulent representations to him, by means of which abstracting the agreement and false representations, the arbitrator made an award $3,000 or $4,000 less favorable to complainants than otherwise. That Wm. Spurck also used improper means to influence said O’Keefe in the matter, after the submission.</p> <p>That O’Keefe was not sworn; that after the matters were fully submitted, Orook, without notice to complainants, introduced before the arbitrator pretended claims and demands, which had long before been settled and discharged; among which were three notes given by Crook and Spurck to B. For-tier, for $320 each, which were allowed by said arbitrator; all of which complainants could have rebutted if they had been informed thereof.</p> <p>Said arbitrator undertook to determine as to the costs in the former arbitration.</p> <p>That Crook, pending the arbitration, entered upon the De-Groff tract and removed the fences and improvements, and greatly impaired the same, and that thereby Crook has put it out of his power to fulfill the award.</p> <p>At time of original settlement, complainants gave to Crook a receipt in full, in consideration of the agreement given by Orook. That the suits were procured to be dismissed by Crook fraudulently. Crook is insolvent.</p> <p>That the agreement at the time of the dissolution is not in possession of complainants ; that it is either in possession of Crook or is lost, and prays leave to prove contents.</p> <p>Bill concludes with prayer for relief, etc., and for appointment of receiver.</p> <p>The answer of William Spurck, Martha M. Crook and Hart P. Anchor, filed January 9,1854, adopts the answer of George A. Crook, except as to the contract of June 15,1848, of which they know nothing. Admits that the said north-easterly half of said lot three is the proper description thereof, instead of northerly half. Denies that the money for the purchase of said lot was partnership money, but belonged to Martha M. Crook; admits that on 18th January, 1849, Merriman conveyed to George A. Orook, and that the title was vested in him as trustee for Martha M. That Jan. 24,1849, George A. conveyed to Wm. Spurck, in trust for Martha M. Crook. Admits that certain suits in chancery and at law were pending; that they were referred to arbitrators ; that they made and filed their award; that the same was set aside and declared a nullity. Admits that Martha M. Crook did request George Spurck to convey the DeGroff farm to Hart P. Anchor, as trustee for her, but denies any contract to convey said land to Ann L. Spurck.</p> <p>Admits that arbitrators awarded the land to Ann L. Spurck, but denies authority of Knowlton to make any contract respecting the land.</p> <p>Admits receipts of rents of house to about $T50. Denies fraud in deed from Crook to William Spurck, of house and lot. Admits he has no interest in it except as trustee. That O’Keefe made his award, which was binding. Denies that O’Keefe undertook to decide any matters not submitted, and that he exceeded his authority. Admits mistake in description of the DeGroff farm; that the case of Hamilton v. Crook was one of the suits submitted to O’Keefe ; that George Spurck was party in interest. Denies all allegations of fraud in obtaining award. Denies the private interviews, representations, etc., of both Crook and William Spurck. Don’t know whether O’Keefe was sworn or not, and that it is immaterial. Admits presentation of notes for allowance. Don’t know whether they were allowed or not, but says they were just. Admits that Martha M. Crook is a married woman, but insists that because she is so, she is not bound to violate her contract. Denies that Crook has depreciated the DeGroff farm by removal of fences and improvements. Admits that Crook has receipt in full of all demands of Spurck. Denies insolvency.</p> <p>Replication filed August 10,1854.</p> <p>James McFadden testified, that Bartholomew Fortier had certain notes of Crook & Spurck, given for part of lots in Bigelow & Underhill’s addition to Peoria, which notes were returned to Crook, the trade being annulled: Crook receiving $100 from affiant, and Fortier to give up the lots.</p> <p>Daniel O’Keefe. Was arbitrator between the parties. In April, 1852, the parties came before me with their papers and claims. I made out award, and required the payment of $30 before delivery — $15 from each of the parties. Spurck was ready to pay ; Crook refused. Knowlton took a copy of the award, agreeing not to give it to Crook. Peters paid me $30 and took a copy of the award. Crook and Spurck appeared before me and submitted their papers and claims, and among them an agreement, June 15,1848, a copy of which is attached to the deposition, and the same above referred to as the agreement of Crook to convey to Ann L. Spurck the said eighty acres and the said half lot three, which agreement was left with witness by Spurck, and which was taken from witness, as he was well satisfied, by Crook, without leave or consent of witness, and that he did not have said paper before him at time of making the award, thereby causing him to make a very different award from what he should have made if the paper been in his possession. And in consequence of the loss of that paper I awarded the house and lot to Martha M. Crook, when otherwise I would have awarded it to Ann L. Spurck. I searched at the time for the paper, but could not find it. I charged Crook with taking the paper in the absence of witness. After the parties had made their statements, Crook presented two notes signed by Spurck, which were allowed in the award; also there were three notes of $320 each, given by Crook and Spurck to B. Fortier, from which Crook had erased his name, and I allowed one-half of the notes against Spurck, and in favor of Crook. Crook furnished me the number of the land. I had frequent interviews with William Spurck by consent of both parties, and I made up the award upon his statements, thinking he knew more about the matter than I. He was not sworn. I was not sworn as arbitrator.</p> <p>A. L. Merriman testified, that George A. Crook and George Spurck were doing business as partners under the name of George A. Crook. The lot three in block twelve, was bought of brother of witness, in name of George A. Crook. Both Crook and Spurck negotiated for the lot, and as his recollection was, they gara their joint notes for the purchase money, $450. Spurck paid on the purchase of the lot, March 8,1848, $25, and May 8, 1848, $200, which was all that was paid on the purchase. But subsequently, H. 0. Merriman purchased the south-westerly half of the lot, with the building, and applied the balance of purchase money in that manner. Mrs. Crook never paid any of the purchase money, nor was her name mentioned in the original purchase. My brother paid Crook for the south-westerly half of said lot $1,100, including the balance of the purchase money due on the lot. The annual rent of the house on the N. E. half of the lot worth from $150 to $175.</p> <p>E. Dickinson. Was arbitrator with David Maxwell and J. C. Flanagan, in January and February, 1851. Think there was a paper shown us then, in substance an agreement to convey half lot three and the DeGroff farm to Ann L. Spurck.</p> <p>Thomas Hughes. Crook and Spurck were partners. At some period between 20th and 25th June, 1848, in a conversation with Crook, I asked him if he and Spurck had settled in full in such a manner satisfactory to both parties. He said he had understood him to mean everything between them was settled, both of a partnership and of a private character. Have seen an agreement between Crook and Spurck. Think that set out in the original bill in this case is a copy thereof. Witness went with Spurck to see Crook, and he demanded of Crook deed for part of the lot referred to in the agreement. Crook told him to go to Mr. Merriman and get his deed; that he had made arrangement with Merriman to let him have the same. We then went to Merriman’s office for the deed, and Merriman told us there was no deed for Mr. Spurck; that Crook had made no such arrangement. In May, 1848, Crook told me that they had cleared $6,000, including real estate and all their partnership business.</p> <p>Defendants moved to suppress depositions of Daniel O’Keefe, David Maxwell, A. L. Merriman and E. Dickinson, for reasons following:</p> <p>1st. No sufficient notice.</p> <p>2nd. Because the depositions are improper and irrelevant.</p> <p>To O’Keefe’s deposition:</p> <p>Because the whole object of his deposition is to impeach his own award, which the law does not permit.</p> <p>Upon hearing of which motion, the court overruled the motion as to all except O’Keefe, and suppressed the deposition of O’Keefe. To the decision of the court in suppressing said deposition the complainants excepted.</p> <p>Upon hearing, Hart P. Anchor testified. During pending of cause before O’Keefe as arbitrator, witness had conversation with Crook. Asked Crook if O’Keefe had decided the case yet. He said no, he has not. He has lost one important paper or agreement. I asked him if it was likely he would again find it. No, says he, he will never find it again. He said this in a sneering, laughing manner. On same day he said, that house will be awarded to Mrs. Crook. Says I, don’t be too sure of it; because Major O’Keefe is a man I place very little confidence in. Says he, I have made it all right with O’Keefe. I have got it all fixed. That house will go to my wife. He can’t make the award any other way. Speaking of the loss of the paper, he said, they have lost the important paper, and have nothing against me. I asked him if the paper was recorded. He said, no, sir, it is not. They have nothing to show against me. On cross-examination, I told Dobbins this about eight or ten months ago, after I had a quarrel with Crook. I did not intend to tell Dobbins or any one else if Crook had not acted the scoundrel with me. I believed when Crook told me that, he had stolen the paper. I waited for four years before I told of it. Crook always tells lies, never tells the truth. Still I believed what he told me about loss of paper.</p> <p>March 20th, 1858. The court rendered a decree dismissing the bill, discharging the receiver, and ordering all moneys by him collected to be paid to the trustee' of Martha M. Crook, from which decree the complainants took an appeal to this court.</p>

This was an action of debt brought to the September term, A. D. 1855, of the Cook county Court of Common Pleas, founded upon an appeal bond filed in the Cook county Court in proceedings of said Nelson C. Roe, as an insolvent debtor. The county judge took said bond in his own name, and brought this action.

This cause was tried before J. M. Wilson, Judge of the Cook county Court of Common Pleas, and a jury, at the June term, 1867, of said court. The opinion of the court furnishes a full statement of the case.

<p>A witness should not be permitted to characterize a paper as a letter of credit; the paper should be produced, or proper steps taken to have it produced, before its contents can bo established orally. (A letter of credit described, and its character specified.)</p> <p>An authority to draw, accept or indorse bills by an agent, may be presumed from acts of recognition in former instances; but these acts must be known to the party setting them up, if he intends to avail himself of such authority; and he must know that it was unrevoked.</p> <p>Where parties deal with an agent having written authority, they must inform themselves of its extent and its limitations. Yet the principal will be bound, if he causes others to believe the powers of the agent to be greater than the written authority expresses.</p> <p>Depositions used in a cause, should not be left with the jury, when they retire to agree upon a verdict.</p>

This was an action of ejectment by Merrick against Wallace, for the south-east quarter of section thirty-four, in township thirty-four north, of range three east of the third principal meridian. Declaration in the usual form. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at November term, 1857, and verdict for the defendant.

This was an action on the case commenced by Still against the railroad company.

This was an action on the case, brought by the appellee, for injuries to his person, alleged to have occurred by the negligence of the appellant, in running its cars. The injury was alleged to have been occasioned by a collision between the cars of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy train and the Galena train, at Wheaton, Du Page county, on the 27th of August, 1857. The declaration is in the usual form, for negligence, and the plea, not.guilty.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, in the Cook county Court of Common Pleas, on the ninth day of July, 1855, to recover possession of the brig Lowell, of Buffalo. The record shows the filing of the affidavit, the issuing of the writ, the bond to the sheriff, and the execution of the writ, by the taking and delivery of the brig to the said plaintiff. The declaration is in the detinet, and contains only one count.

This was an action of replevin commenced in the Cook Circuit Court, Manierre, Judge, presiding, tried by a jury, and a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff below sues out this writ of error. Replevin bond given and accepted by the coroner, the sheriff being a party to said suit. Writ executed by coroner, by putting said plaintiff in possession of the greater part of the property mentioned in said writ, and by reading the same to the defendants.

Emily Owen filed her petition in the Cook county Court of Common Pleas, on the 23rd day of December, A. D. 1855, to have her dower assigned to her in block No. 105, and block No. 108, in school section addition to Chicago.

The defendant in error brought an action on the case against the plaintiffs in error to the March term, 1857, of the Cook Circuit Court. The declaration contains four counts — the first two of which are upon the custom as common carriers for the loss of a “ trunk or valise ” and contents. The third count charges them as bailees. The fourth count is in trover. The defendants pleaded the general issue.

This cause was tried before Sheldon, Judge, and a jury, at April term, 1857, of the Winnebago Circuit Court. Verdict and judgment for five dollars and costs. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The Moores sued Archdale before a justice of the peace, from whose judgment Archdale appealed to the Circuit Court. Suit brought on account for $124.92, with credits of $40.81, indorsed, against which Archdale filed an off-set of $225, for damages growing out of the subject matter of the plaintiff’s account.

This judgment was rendered by Thompson, Judge, at the September term, 1857, of the Warren Circuit Court. The opinion of the court gives a statement of the case.

This action was in assumpsit, and brought into the County Court of La Salle county, by plaiutiff below against defendants below, to recover damages for the non-payment of a note executed by defendants in favor of L. De Puy, or order. Defendants plead the general issue, and special plea denying indorsement of note. Trial by jury and verdict for plaintiff. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment made by defendants and overruled by court. Judgment rendered for plaintiff.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs below against the defendant below, to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiffs to take possession of, and occupy, a farm. The defendant filed a plea of general issue, and also a plea of the statute of frauds, that the contract sued on was by parol, and was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.

In tlie first count of the declaration, the plaintiff alleges that on the 19th day of January, 1854, the defendant was, and now is, a common carrier of goods and chattels for hire, from Aurora in the county of Kane, to Earlville in the county of La Salle ; that on said day, at Aurora, the plaintiff caused to be delivered to defendant, and defendant received a certain box containing goods and chattels, to wit: One new suit of broadcloth clothes, one small trunk, three fine…

This was a replevin for a top-chaise or gig, brought in the La Salle county Court by Eames, against Reed. ' The declaration is in-the usual form. Pleas were, 1st. Non detinet, general issue and similiter. 2nd. Property in defendant, and replication. A jury was waived by agreement of parties, and the cause submitted to' the court for trial upon an agreed statement of facts, set out in the opinion.

Placita of the January special term (at which the judgment complained of was rendered), begun and held on the llt-h January, 1858, “ in pursuance of the order of this court, heretofore made and entered of record.” But does not give the order nor state that any notices were given, or when the order in fact was entered. This suit was commenced by summons, March 27,1857,— Robert M. Renick, plaintiff, against Isaac Cook, defendant. Declaration in assumpsit.

‘This was an action of debt, on a replevin bond given by defendant in a case determined April 25,1856, in the Warren Circuit Court, wherein Talbott Chinn was plaintiff, and Thomas Allingham defendant.

The petitioners filed tbeir petition in the Peoria Circuit Court, stating in substance: That at the May term of said court, 1838, one James P. Morris recovered judgment against William H. Savage and William J. Austen, for $4,397.47 and costs; that on 12th June, 1838, execution issued to sheriff of Peoria county, on said judgment; that on 18th day of May, 1838, Edward Tracy and Alfred Tracy recovei’ed in same court, a judgment against said Savage and Austen, for $1,308 and…

This was an application to the Judge of the Circuit Court for a habeas corpus, to discharge plaintiff in error from imprisonment under an execution against his body, for an alleged contempt committed before Garver, justice of the peace.

This suit was commenced by filing a petition to the April term, A. D. 1856, of the Cook county Circuit Court, for the enforcement of a mechanics’ lien, under the statute. At the June special term of the Circuit Court, the said cause was transferred to the Cook county Court of Common Pleas. And the petition, answer and other papers in the case duly filed in said Court of Common Pleas.

This was an action of replevin, commenced by plaintiff below (the appellee here) against the defendant below (the appellant), September 5th, 1856.

<p>Whore money is due and payable, -if the creditor agrees to forbear for one year, and in consideration thereof the debtor agrees to pay twenty per cent., it is a usurious agreement — and that, whether the debtor had or not previously agreed to pay the creditor whatever interest the creditor might have to pay for other money in consideration of his forbearance to the debtor.</p> <p>To give a greater rate of interest than that allowed by statute on a pre-existingdebt, for an extension of time for its payment, is within the statute and usurious.</p>

The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The cause was tried before Thompson, Judge, and a jury.

This was an action for trespasses to real estate of appellee, with counts, for cutting and carrying away unthreshed wheat. The cause was tried at June term, 1857. ' Verdict for appellee in $760. Motion for new trial heard and denied; The facts, necessary to a full understanding of this case, will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

William Taylor, on the 7th day of September, 1855, filed in Kendall Circuit Court a declaration in trespass, quare clausum fregit. Pleas: Pirst, not guilty; second, a public highway; third, quit claim to public for highway from owners of land; fourth, setting forth the proceedings for a highway. Replication to county de injuria. There was a trial, and verdict for plaintiff for fifty cents; motion for new trial overruled, and an appeal taken.

This was an actiou upon a judgment record, from the State of Ohio. The facts necessary for a full understanding of the disputed points, will be found in the opinion of the Chief Justice. The cause was heard before J. M. Wilson, Judge, at the June term, 1856, of the Cook county Court of Common Pleas. So much of the record of the court in Ohio as does not appear in the opinion, is appended; as also the orders thereon in the Common Pleas.

<p>APPEAL PROM KNOX.</p> <p>This was a scire facias upon a recognizance tried in the Knox Circuit Court, before Thompson, Judge, at the October term, 1857. The recognizance was entered into on the 13th day of February, A. D. 1856, before the Circuit Court of Fulton county.</p> <p>An indictment for arson was pending in that county, against Weese, and the recognizance was entered into by Samuel Weese, as principal, and William S. Weese, as surety, in the sum of $1000, conditioned for the appearance of Samuel Weese, before the Circuit Court of the county of Knox, on the fourth Monday of April next, “ to await and abide the issue of said court, in a matter now pending and undetermined, wherein the people of the State of Illinois are plaintiffs, and Samuel Weese is defendant, on an indictment for arson, etc.” .</p> <p>The balance of the recognizance is in the usual form.</p> <p>The record sets forth, that the indictment for arson was brought into the Knox Circuit Court by change of venue from Fulton county.</p> <p>At the April term of the Knox Circuit Court, A. D. 1856, the following judgment was entered in said cause :</p> <p>The People oe the State op Illinois I</p> <p>vs. > Arson — Change of Venue.</p> <p>Samuel Weese. )</p> <p>This day came the people aforesaid, by A. M. Craig, State’s attorney, and the said Samuel Weese, the principal herein, being three times solemnly called, came not, but made default, and William S. Weese, his security herein, being three times solemnly called in open court, to appear and produce the body of the said Samuel Weese, but did not appear or produce the body of the said Samuel Weese, but also made default; hereupon, it is considered by the court, that the recognizance of the said Samuel Weese, as principal, and William S; Weese, his security herein, heretofore taken and by them jointly and severally entered into, and for which they were jointly and severally bound, be taken, held and declared as forfeited. Therefore, it is considered by the court now here, that the said people of the State of Illinois have and receive of the said Samuel Weese and William S. Weese, the recognizors herein, the sum of one thousand dollars, the amount of their said recognizance. And it is further ordered by the court, that a writ of scire facias issue herein, directed to the sheriff of Fulton county, returnable to the next term of this court, commanding him to summons the said Samuel Weese and William S. Weese, personally to be and appear before the Circuit Court of Knox county, on the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court house in the city of Knoxville, on the fourth Monday of September next, then and there to show cause, if any they have, why final judgment should not be rendered against them for the amount of their recognizance aforesaid, and costs, and why execution should not issue thereon for the same.</p> <p>A scire facias was issued upon this recognizance.</p> <p>On the 26th day of September, A. D. 1855, William S. Weese, the security in the recognizance, came into open court, and surrendered his principal, and he was ordered by the court into the custody of the sheriff; whereupon, the counsel for the defendant moved for the discharge of the principal and security; but the court ordered the release of the surety, upon payment of the costs, and refused to discharge the principal.</p> <p>At the October term, A. D. 1857, the defendant filed the following pleas:</p> <p>And the said defendant, Samuel Weese, comes and shows cause, before the court here, why execution should not issue on the said scire facias mentioned.</p> <p>1. And for plea thereto, says: The said people ought not to have their said execution, because he says that there is not, and has not been, any such indictment lawfully pending in the said Circuit Court of said Fulton county, as in said writ of scire faldas is alleged. And this said Samuel prays may be inquired of by the court here; wherefore, he prays judgment of the court, whether said people ought to have their said execution, or maintain their said action on said writ of scire facias, etc.</p> <p>2. And for further plea in this behalf, the said defendant, Samuel Weese, says, actio non, because he says there is no such record of any such cause or indictment against the said Samuel Weese, as by said writ is alleged or supposed.</p> <p>3. And for further plea in this behalf, the said defendant, Samuel Weese, says, actio non, because he says that heretofore, to wit: on the 26th day of September, A. D. 1856, and before the judgment upon said scire facias, at the September term of the Circuit Court in and for the county of Knox and State of Illinois, said defendant delivered himself up in open court, and surrendered himself to said court, in discharge and satisfaction of said recognizance; whereupon, said court ordered that William S. Reese, the surety of said defendant, be discharged from said recognizance, upon payment of cost, which cost defendant then and there paid, as appears by the record of said court, now ready to be produced. And this he is ready to verify; wherefore, etc.</p> <p>4. And for further plea in this behalf, the said Samuel Weese says, actio non, because he says that heretofore, to wit, on the 26th day of September, A. D. 1856, and before judgment on the scire facias herein, at a term of the Circuit Court in and for the county of Knox and State of Illinois, then being held at Knoxville, in said county, the said Samuel Weese was delivered up and surrendered in open court, to said court, in discharge and satisfaction of said recognizance, and was then and there ordered into custody by said court; and afterwards, on the same day, said court fixed the amount of bail, on the same indictment upon which defendant was recognized in this case, at one thousand dollars; whereupon, defendant, afterwards, on said day, in open court, entered into a new recognizance, in the sum of one thousand dollars, with William Weese as security, which was accepted by said court, conditioned for his appearance at the next term of said court, to answer unto the same indictment for which the recognizances in this case were made and had ; whereupon, said cause (i. e. the prosecution for arson, which was then pending), was continued to the next term of said court, and so defendant saith that he has been and is discharged from said recognizance, and this he is ready to verify, etc.</p> <p>5. And for further plea in this behalf, said defendant, Samuel Weese, saith, actio non, because he says that heretofore, to wit, on the 29th day of April, A. D. 1856, at a term of the Circuit Court, in and for the county of Knox, and State of Illinois, then being held at Knoxville in said county, said Circuit Court rendered judgment against the said defendants, on the same recognizance now sued on: “ That the said people of the State of Illinois, have and recover of the said Samuel Weese and William S. Weese, the sum of one thousand dollars, the amount of their said recognizance.” Which judgment was and is founded on the same recognizance, set forth in the scire facias herein, as will more fully appear by the record thereof, now in court, which is a final judgment; wherefore, etc.</p> <p>6. And for further plea in this behalf, the said Samuel Weese says, actio non, because ho says that heretofore, to wit, on the 26th day of September, A. D. 1856, at a term of the Circuit Court, in and for the county of Knox, and State of Illinois, then being held at Knoxville in said county, the said Samuel Weese was delivered up in court, in discharge and satisfaction of the judgment described in said scire facias, and was then and there ordered into custody by said court, to answer said indictment for arson, and the said court did then and there discharge and release the said William S. Weese, of and from said judgment, upon payment of costs, which said costs were then and there paid; wherefore, the said Samuel Weese says that said judgment is discharged, released, and fully satisfied, as to him, and this he is ready to verify ; wherefore, etc.</p> <p>At the same term, the defendant filed his motion to set aside the default of the recognizance against defendant, entered at the April term, A. D. 1856, “ because said defendant did, on the 26th day of September, 1856, deliver himself up in open court,” in discharge of said recognizance. This motion was overruled by the court.</p> <p>The plaintiff then filed his demurrer to the 3rd, 4th and 6th pleas of defendant.</p> <p>To the first plea plaintiff filed his replication, alleging “ that there has been and was an indictment lawfully pending in the Circuit Court of Fulton county, as in said writ is alleged.” Issue was joined on this plea.</p> <p>To the second plea the plaintiff replied, that there was such a record as the scire facias set forth, and issue was joined.</p> <p>To the fifth plea plaintiff replied, that there was no such record of a judgment as in said plea is alleged; and prayed the judgment of the court.</p> <p>The demurrer was sustained to the third, fourth and sixth pleas, and the defendant stood by his demurrer.</p> <p>A jury was waived, and trial had by the court, who rendered judgment for the people for one thousand dollars and costs.</p>