Volume 2 — Pinney's Wisconsin Reports

<p>1. Power to grant a rehearing. Where an appellate court of last resort has rendered and entered of record its final judgment or decree, the rights of the parties are concluded, and it has no power to rehear the cause.</p> <p>2. Appeal to united states supreme court. By the organic law of the Territory the sum or amount in controversy, as settled by the decree made, fixes the character or condition of the cause, as to whether an appeal can be taken to the supreme court of the United States.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion of the conrt. 1. The justice erred in admitting parol proof of the marriage of the defendants, or proof that C. P. Le Fever was a minister. 2. There was no proof of any legal marriage between John and Dorcas Martin. 1 Kent’s Com. 447; Clancey on Hnsb. and wife, 22; 3 Campb. 438 •; 1 Blackf. 192 ; 7 Mass. 53-57; Stat. of Wis. 139, §§ 1, 2 and .3.

<p>ERROR to tlie District Court for Rock County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. Justice’s court — jurisdiction. Under the Organic Act limiting tlie jurisdiction oí justices of the peace, a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction of an action founded upon an account for a greater sum than $50 though the amount of the account may have been reduced to less than $50 by payments or credits.</p> <p>2. Jurisdiction— practice. A want of jurisdiction maybe taken advantage of at any stage of the proceedings, prior to final judgment.</p>

<p>CERTIORARI. Under the statute authorizing the district court on certi-orari to give judgment in the case as the right of the matter might appear, -without regard to technical omissions, imperfections or defects in the proceedings before the j ustice not affecting the merits, and to affirm , or reverse the judgment in whole or in part, where in assumpsit before the justice, the defendant pleaded the general issue and notice of set-off only, and at the trial the plaintiff established the demand sued for, but judgment was given for the defendant upon his being allowed to show before the justice the non-joinder of a defendant liable with him, held, that the justice erred, and that, on certiorari to his judgment, the district court rightfully reversed it, and properly rendered judgment for the plaintiff for his demand.</p>

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

<p>1. Justice’s court — title to laud. The legislative assembly bad authority, under the organic act, to regulate and limit the jurisdiction of justices’ courts within the restrictions it contains, and to provide, where, in an action for the recovery of less than $50, for trespass upon lands, if the defendant justified by a plea of title, that the case, and all proceedings therein, should be certified and returned to the district court.</p> <p>2. Same. Upon filing the papers and proceedings in such case in the office of the clerk of the district court, it is the duty of such court to entertain jurisdiction of the case, and proceed therein to final judgment.</p> <p>3 Same. Where, upon the plaintiff’s own showing, the title to lands is in question in a case injustice’s court, it is the duty of the justice to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.</p>

<p>1. Attachment. The affidavit which is set forth at length in the opinion of the court, held, sufficient.</p> <p>2. Abatement. A suit commenced by attachment, while another action between the same parties for the same cause of action is pending, will be abated upon these facts being pleaded and proved, although the former action was discontinued after the plea in abatement but before replication thereto. It is not necessary that both actions should have been pending at the time of pleading in abatement; it being sufficient to defeat the second, that the first one was pending when the second was commenced.</p> <p>3. Same — practice. If the defendant pleads in abatement and it be found against him, final or peremptory judgment shall be given against him, unless the issue was tried by certificate, by inspection or by the récord, or in any other way than by jury. If not tried by a jury the proper judgment is, that the defendant answer over, and final or peremptory judgment on such trial would be erroneous.</p>

<p>ERROR to the District Court for Fond du Lao County.</p> <p>The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Tlie facts are fully stated in tlie opinion of the court. 1. If the plaintiff was entitled to maintain an action on the note declared on, then the defendants were entitled to set off against the same the bills of exchange mentioned in the pleadings. 2.

<p>1. Attachment — practice. Under an attachment law which allowed the plaintiff and other creditors of the defendants, to come in and file separate 1 declarations on the claims which they might have, admissible under such law, and have separate judgments thereon, and which allowed the plaintiff who brought the action, a priority over the rest. Held, that as the plaintiff in his affidavit for the attachment had confined his claim to the amount due on a certain judgment therein specified, that he could not be allowed to file and maintain counts for other causes of action admissible under the attachment law and not set forth in such affidavit, and that counts founded on causes of action not so set out were properly stricken out. The case of Bowen v. Ta/ylor, a/nte, commented on, explained and re-affirmed. If the plaintiff had set forth in his affidavit all the claims declared upon, he could have recovered upon them, if proven, and maintain his priority over other creditors.</p> <p>2. Pleading- — regularity. It is an indispensable pre-requisite that the declaration shall adhere to the form of action adopted in the process and that it conform thereto; otherwise it may be set aside on motion.</p> <p>3. Pleading. Where in an action on a judgment record, the defendant pleads a reversal of such judgment by an appellate tribunal and concludes by a general verification, such plea will be held defective on special demurrer, as it should conclude with a verification prout patet pe/r recordam; but if such demurrer thereto be overruled and the plaintiff takes issue on the plea and it is found against him; upon error, held, that the error is of form and not of-substance, and is waived by pleading over and going to trial. Defects in form, in pleas, are aided by the plaintiff replying to them.</p> <p>4. Error. A court of error will not reverse a judgment or decree, for the violation or non-observance of some abstract principle of law, when it is manifest that the party complaining has not and cannot sustain any injury by it.</p> <p>5. Same. Where points of law have been ruled against a plaintiff erroneously, but it is at the same time manifest that he cannot recover in the action, a judgment against him if reversed will be without costs, and without an order for a venire facias de novo.</p> <p>6. Evidence — practice. The plaintiff in error is as a general rule confined to the objections to evidence taken at the trial and stated in the bill of exceptions • and a court of error will permit no objections to be made which were not urged in the court below. Objections to evidence which are general and do not point out with reasonable certainty the ground upon which they rest, will be held to be too general and of no avail.</p>

<p>1. Sale op squatter’s claim — consideration. Where a note and a mortgage securing the same, on certain lands to “which the mortgagor afterward acquired title, were given for a mere squatter’s' claim on the public lands, upon which the improvements were trifling, and were not, in fact, made by the payee of the note, and to induce him not to bid on the land at the sale, and which claim was likely to be defeated by a sale of the land by the United States, JBeld, that the note and mortgage were void for want of consideration, and there being no covenant of warranty in the mortgage, even if there were a valid consideration for the note, the land in question would not be bound for its payment.</p> <p>3. Contract — consideration. A moral or equitable obligation is a sufficient consideration for a promise, but there must be some benefit arising to the promisor, or loss or detriment to the promisee, in order to constitute a valid consideration.</p> <p>3. Estoppel. If the complainant had taken an assignment of the note and mortgage on the faith of representations on the part of the mortgagor that the note and mortgage were valid obligations, he would be bound thereby; but having taken the assignment in question after the maturity of the note, he is affected with full knowledge of the facts ; and in the absence of any such assurance or representations, the mortgagor and those claiming under him are not estopped from insisting that the note and mortgage were void for want of consideration.</p>

<p>1. Resulting trust. Where M. placed in the hands of his agent certain property, with authority to sell the same, and such agent, with, such property or the proceeds thereof, in part purchased real estate and took a deed thereof in the name of a third party, who had notice of the facts, held,, that there was a resulting trust in favor of M., and that he might elect to hold the land as security for his money or take his proper part thereof in satisfaction of the means thus used.</p> <p>2. RESULTING TRUST— INJUNCTION — notice — decree. S. and B. having purchased and obtained a deed for a part of said premises, in violation of an injunction issued in a suit brought by M. against such grantee to enforce his equitable rights, and with notice of them and of the pen-dency of such suit, held, that their rights were subordinate and subject to the rights of M.; that they should be decreed to convey and release with covenants as to thair acts, to M. all title acquired by such conveyance, but it should not be adjudged null and void.</p>

<p>APPEAL from a decree of the District Court for Dane County.</p> <p>The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The proceedings in this case were originally commenced before the judge of probate of Grant county, the matter in controversy being the estate and an alleged nuncupative will of the late Thomas P. Burnett.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Gentle, for the recovery of money alleged to have been had and received by Eaton for the use of Charles Tracy, and for which Gentle instituted the suit for the use and benefit of Tracy. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, in a justice's court for the county of Iowa, for the recovery of a quantity of lead mineral. On the return day of the process the parties appeared, and the plaintiffs below declared for the wrongful taking and detention of the property mentioned in the process. The defendants below demurred generally j but the justice, on argument, overruled the demurrer.

This was an action of covenant for the recovery of damages, on the failure of title in a deed executed by the defendant, to the plaintiff in the court below. The declaration assigned several breaches, on which issue was taken. The cause was tried in the Racine county district court, at the April term, 1847, and a judgment was obtained in favor of the plaintiff below, against the defendant below, for the sum.of $407.54.

The declaration iu this cause was in assumpsit containing two counts. The first was special, upon a written guaranty. The second, for work and labor, goods, etc. The defendant demurred generally to the whole declaration, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer. The demurrer, on argument, was overruled. The opinion of the court being upon a single point, precludes the necessity of a more specific statement of the case.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, and for taking aud driving from thence the sheep of the plaintiff, etc. The defendants below pleaded separately. The plaintiff below obtained leave to discontinue, and did discontinue as to two of the defendants. The cause was tried at the June term of the court for Rock county, 1847 ; and the jury were unable to agree upon a verdict, and the cause was continued.

This was an action of replevin before a justice of the peace, and was appealed to and tried before the district court. The decision of this court is based upon a question of jurisdiction ; and the merits were in no sense involved, so as to require a statement of them here. This is one of a series of cases between the same parties, but involving somewhat different points and propositions.

This action was commenced before a justice of Walworth county, and the plaintiffs, Winne The case was carried to the late district court by certiorari, and the district court reversed the judgment. Upon such reversal a writ of error was brought to this court. The parties submitted the case without argument.

This was a suit commenced by attachment by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, under the territorial statute.

This was an action of replevin, for the taking and detention of a quantity of goods and chattels. The goods, etc., were replevied by the coroner of Grant county, the sheriff of said county being the defendant in the suit, having levied upon the same by virtue of one or more executions. The plaintiff claimed the property in the goods by virtue of a sale thereof to him, by James Moore, his brother.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error for the detention of a quantity of household property, a part of which was exempt from levy and sale on execution. The defendant in error pleaded that he did not detain the goods and chattels in question.

An indictment was found- against each of the plaintiffs in error, in the suits above entitled, for larceny under the fifteenth section of the act of the territorial statutes of Wisconsin, to provide for the punishment of offenses against private property. Ter. Stat. 350. Both defendants were convicted, and by the presiding judge (the chief justice) sen-fenced, iScrmegrour to one, and Libby to two years imprisonment in the county jail of Sheboygan county.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, for the recovery of the possesion of lot number one hundred and eleven, in Ellis’ addition to tbe village of Sheboygan, and was tried at the September term of the Sheboygan circuit court, in 1848.

Pi each of these cases, the plaintiff in his suit before the justice obtained judgment for nominal damages, and on cer-tiorari, brought to the district court, the court reversed the judgments at one term, and at another and subsequent one, assessed the damages of the plaintiff at a sum far exceeding the sum awarded by. the justice, and upon the evidence contained in' the return made by the justice ; upon the principle that he had the authority to give judgment “ as the very…

This was an action of assumpsit. The defendant pleaded in bar a discharge under the bankrupt act of congress, passed in 1841. To this plea there was a demurrer. There was also pleaded, by the defendant, the statute of limitations, which was withdrawn, and the cause was heard before the district court, on the demurrer, which was sustained, and judgment was given for the defendant, and the plaintiff brought his writ of error. . .

This action was commenced by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, before a justice of Walworth county; and the plaintiff below having declared for, and claimed of the defendant below, a sum superior to the amount for which the justice had jurisdiction to render judgment, on a motion for the dismissal of the cause, the justice granted it.

This was a complaint instituted by Newcomb against Smith, under and in accordance with the statute of the territorial legislature of Wisconsin, relating to mill-dams, passed January 13, 1840, whereby the complainant alleged that he had sustained damages upon lands and premises belonging to him, and injuriously affected by the erection of a dam by defendant, which caused the flooding of his land, and he prayed for an assessment of the damages he had sustained, by a jury.

MANDAMUS. This was an application for a mandamus as against Giles, the clerk of the board of supervisors of Dane county, who withheld from the relator a certificate of his election for that county, as sheriff, at the general election in 1848, and who gave to Peter W. Matts, the opposing candidate for the. same office, a certificate of election as sheriff. Dunning and Matts were both candidates at the election for the office of sheriff.

Tbe plaintiff in error brought an action of assumpsit for tbe recovery of damages for tbe breach of a verbal agreement.

MANDAMUS. This was a proceeding by mandamus by tbe relator to test the validity of bis election as judge of probate of the county of Racine.

Tbe case was this : After tbe death of Tbomas P. Bur nett, which occurred on the fifth day of November, 1846, and on the eighth day of the same month the plaintiffs in error applied to the judge of jirobate for the county of Grant for the appointment of commissioners to take charge of the property of Burnett, and they were so appointed by such 'judge.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in Iowa county, on two promissory notes, one of which is declared upon as having been executed by the defendant below, as trastee of the Louisiana company, and the other as having been executed by the defendant below in his own name and individual character, but signed and executed by the defendant as trustee of the said Louisiana company. Thei’e were also in the declaration, the usual money counts.

EBEOB to tbe District Court for La Fayette County. This was an action of trespass, brought by Flanegan in the district court for*La Fayette county, against Earnest and McOoun, for that the defendants in error, with force and arms took and earned away certain goods, chattels and personal property belonging to the plaintiff in error, and converted fhe same to their use. The defendants pleaded: 1. Not guilty ; and, 2.

The bill was filed for the foreclosure of a mortgage, to which the defendant (the appellant here) interposed a demurrer which was adjudged frivolous, ana upon that brought his appeal to this court. This court regarding the procedure of the appellant as vexatious and for delay, and without any special equity affirmed the decree made by the court below, and awarded damages.

CASE certified from Circuit Court for Sheboygan County. Held: of which they were the jurors for presentment of offenses against the law. Arch. Crim. Law, 23. 2.

This was an action of debt brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff hr error, on a bond, the recital preceding the condition of which, and the condition thereof, was as follows, to wit: “ The condition of this obligation is such that, whereas, in consideration of the said Woolfolh withdrawing a certain suit in chancery, commenced by said Woolfolk, against said Lewis and one Julius Augustine, and for the further consideration of five hundred dollars, to said…

The plaintiff in error was indicted in the Washington county circuit court for erecting and keeping up a mill-dam at or near the village of Ceclarburg, on a stream passing through that village, by means whereof the health of the citizens of that, village and vicinity was injured, and from which arose unpleasant and unwholesome vapors, and on account of which the inhabitants of that vicinity were made sick and diseased. A change of venue was afterwards had to Dodge county.

This was an action of replevin brought by the defendant hi error before a justice of Iowa county, who rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, the defendant in error. A certiorari was brought to the district court of Iowa county, and that court affirmed the judgment of the justice.

This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note. Plea — general issue. The cause was tried and a verdict found for the defendant in error for the amount of the note in question. The defense set up on the trial of the cause was, that the note in question was a stale demand, and that by the presumption of the common law it had been paid.

This was an action originally instituted before a justice of Crawford county, on a promissory note, as follows: “ $20.00. Range Two, west, Town Fourteen, ) NORTH, December 21, 1846. j On or before the sixteenth day of May, 1847, we, or either of us, promise to pay J. 8. T. Hazen, or bearer, the sum of •twenty dollars for standing pine, at the forks of the creek, and up the creek of Kickapoo, at Louise’s skaniy.

The complainant in this suit obtained a judgment against Marsh, in the district court for Dane county, on two promissory notes. Execution was issued on the judgment, and before it was executed Marsh filed his bill, alleging fraud in the matter for which the notes, on which the judgment was obtained, were given. He also alleged partial failure of the consideration for which the notes were obtained.

This was an action of trespass, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, for taking certain goods and chattels which had been mortgaged by the defendant in error to the plaintiffs in error.

This bill was filed in the circuit court for the county of Fond du Lae by the appellant, to procure to be annulled a conveyance of real estate by him to the appellee, upon the ground that the conveyance was made to compound a felony committed by the appellant, and alleging that the appellee was a party to such illegal act. The facts are' sufficiently detailed in the opinion of the court for an understanding of the case.

An action of assumpsit was brought against the defendant Ford, as the receiver of the Green Bay lumbering company, and against the other defendants, as members of said lumbering company. The declaration counted upon a note given by Ford, as receiver, to D. Jones & Co., and there were also the common money counts. A part of the defendants suffered a default for want of a plea, and others of them pleaded the general issue, and one, a special plea.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, for taking 5,000 pounds of lead ore.

This .was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, for injury in carelessly and unskillfully using a home of the defendant in error, lured to the plaintiff in error, whereby and by occasion of which neglect and ill-usage, the horse died. The declaration also-contained the common counts in assumpsit. To this declaration the plaintiff in error pleaded non-assumpsit.

The bill in this cause was filed by Lamb. It, in brief, alleged that one Carrington made a draft on the appellee, B. Lamb, J. Woods and J. E. Coyle, in favor of Anderson, for the sum of $100, on demand; which was accepted by the appellee. That at the time the draft was made, the appellee, Woods and Coyle were trustees of a school district, known as “ Big Spring school district,” in Iowa county, and that, at the time, the drawer was the employed teacher of the school.

The action was replevin in tbe detinet, for the detention of a schooner, the property of Thomas H. Peck, and her tackle, apparel, etc. The suit was commenced in April, 1843, and the property replevied and appraised. At the June term of that year the plaintiff declared in accordance with his writ. At the same term the defendant pleaded non detinet. As of the same term the plaintiff filed a nolle prosequi in the cause.

EEEOE to tbe Circuit Court for Fond du Lac County. Tbis was an action of assumpsit to recover tbe difference in value of certain lands, wbicb bad been exchanged between tbe parties, and wbicb tbe plaintiff in error, tbe defendant below, bad agreed to pay to Parsons, tbe defendant in error and plaintiff below.

This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of the northeast quarter of section twenty-four, in township six north, of range three west of the principal meridian in the county of Grant. On the trial, the plaintiffs took several exceptions to the ruling of the court, which are fully considered and sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court, to be understood without recapitulating them in the statement of the case.

• This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note of fifty dollars, brought before a justice of the peace, for the recovery of the amount due thereon. There was indorsed on the note four dollars and seventy-five cents, which reduced the sum due or claimed thereon below fifty dollars. On the trial, the plaintiff proved the execution of the note. The defendant produced no witnesses or evidence, and the justice rendered judgment against the defendant for $45.25 damages.

This was an application for a mandamus against the defendant under and by virtue of a legislative act of the state, passed March 2, 1849, entitled “An act to prescribe certain duties of the attorney-general, of the state, and the district attorney of Milwaukee county.” See Session Laws of 1849, page 39.

The indictment against the plaintiff in error here, was before this court, at the January term, 1849, upon exceptions taken on the trial at the circuit, and the judgment had on such trial was reversed. Ante 215. In accordance with the reversal of this judgment, the same indictment came on for trial in the circuit court for Dodge County.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover damages for the non-performance of a verbal contract for the sale and delivery of a quantity of wheat, by the defendant, to the plaintiffs. The defendant was, by the agreement, to deliver to the plaintiffs the wheat in question at the Prairieville mills.

This was an action by the plaintiff in error by her nerd; friend.

THIS was a motion made before the supreme court at the Juue term, 1849, for the allowance of a common law certio-rari, to remove the proceedings and judgment of the justice before whom the same was tiled, to this court.

This was an appeal from an order sustaining a general demurrer, interposed by a part of the defendants to the complainants' bill, and the complainants appealed.

The defendant in the court below demurred to the whole ■ declaration, and, on argument, that court overruled the demurrer, and thereupon the plaintiff below assessed his damages without having entered the defendant’s default, or any rule for the assessment. The defendant below filed an issuable plea, before the assessment of the plaihtiff’s damages, and the case comes here for the alleged error of assessing the damage saffcer plea put in. •

THIS was an information in the nature of a quo vxirranlo, by the relator, Varney, to possess himself of the office of treasurer of the county of Dane, together with the boohs, papers and appendages thereof, as against the respondent, Wyman. It appeared that the relator was elected treasurer of the county at “the election in the year 1849. It also appeared that the respondent was elected at the general election in 1848 to the same office, and qualified according to law.

Tbis was a suit instituted in equity, by tbe board of county commissioners of Iowa county, as tbe legal representatives of Iowa county… Held: or that there was but one extra term held during the whole time, and that that one was held for the purpose of trying a man for án alleged murder, committed at Mineral Point in Iowa county; denies that the terms held continued so long as stated hi the bill, or that the alleged expenditures are chargeable to both counties ; alleges…

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, who were manufacturers of pumps, for the price of a pump furnished by them to defendants, to be used for pumping water from a lead mine, under a contract with them; for the sum of $400.31, dated October 5, 1847, payable three months after date.

EEEOE to tbe Ch’cuit Court for Portage County; This was an action of assumpsit. At tbe circuit, and before tbe cause was reached, tbe plaintiff’s attorney made a motion for leave to amend bis declaration, by entering a discontinuance as to one of tbe defendants, which motion was granted. After tbe granting of this motion tbe parties declared themselves ready for tbe trial of tbe cause, and a jury was empan-neled and sworn for that purpose.

This was an action of assumpsit for work, labor and services rendered under a special contract for the erection of a building by the plaintiff in error for the defendant in error. The error upon which the cause was brought into this court, consists in the charge of the court to the jury, relating to the subject-matter of the contract and the evidence given on the trial, but which evidence was not stated hi the bill of exceptions.

This suit was instituted in the court below by attachment. The affidavit upon which the writ issued, after setting out the indebtedness of tbe defendants, alleged that they were about fraudulently to remove and convey their property to defraud their creditors, and particularly the plaintiff; that the affiant had been informed by the intimate acquaintances of two of the defendants, and believed that they had said that they would remove and convey their property beyond the…

<p>1. Evidence — deposition.—'Where process is sued out against two, but is served on only one, and the other does not appear or plead, the deposition of the party not served cannot be taken and read on the trial against his co-defendant, at least not without notice given under the statute relating to the swearing or taking the depositions of parlies.</p> <p>(2 GTicmd. 53.)</p>

This was an action.of assumpsit brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error as administrator of Joseph Martin, deceased, for the recovery of a debt due from Martin in his life-time, for work, labor and services done and performed by the defendant in error for him. The plaintiff in error pleaded non-assumpsit and gave notice of set-off.

The opinion of the court furnishes a sufficient statement of the case in the court below, for all the purposes of understanding the point determined op the appeal.

This was an action brought by Homer, the plaintiff below, for the use of Ounrdngham, against Lane, the defendant below, upon a promissory note made by him, payable to Mrs. Homer, dated September 1, 1846, for $100, and not negotiable. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave a general notice of set-off.

ENRON to the Circuit Court for MilwauJcee County. In this case it appears from the record that Thayer recovered judgment against Hale, before a justice of the peace, in March, 1846, from which Hale took an appeal.

The appellant filed bis bill, claiming and alleging thereby that in the year 1846 he applied to the defendant, Noble, for the loan of $200 for one year, at an interest of twelve per cent, per annum, in order to enter for the complainant (the appellant) certain lands belonging to the government, within the Green Bay district, and proposed to give as security for such loan the land to be located, and upon which the complainant then lived, and that the complainant would, within…

This was an action of replevin commenced originally before a justice of the peace by the plaintiffs, to reclaim a quantity of lead mineral alleged to have been taken from their possession by the defendants. An appeal was taken in the cause to the circuit court, and on the trial there the defendants obtained a judgment.

The • case was this : Miles, one of the defendants in error, undertook to take an appeal from a judgment rendered against him, but in that proceeding neglected to file before the justice the affidavit required by the statute. The justice, nevertheless, allowed the appeal, but the late district court dismissed it when brought before that tribunal.

This was an action of trespass guare clausum fregit brought by the defendant in error as administrator, etc. There were two counts in the declaration. The first set out a cause of action in his own right; the second a cause of action accruing to him as administrator. To this declaration the defendants demurred specially; assigning several causes, as follows : 1.

The bill filed in this cause was for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed with a bond as collateral security for the payment of the sum by the appellants, Roper and Rich, wherein it was alleged that the securities were executed, to one William Cady for securing the payment of the purchase money of the land therein described.

The bill filed in this cause is for the foreclosure of a mortgage.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought before a justice by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, wherein tbe plamtiff declared upon a promissory note. Tbe defendant pleaded tbe general issue and a former recovery of judgment. Tbe plamtiff replied that there was no such record. On tbe trial of tbe cause tbe plaintiff offered in evidence tbe note declared upon.

This was a proceeding by attachment, under the statute, founded on a promissory note.

This suit grew out of an attachment sued out by the defendant in error, against one George C. Wales, who was alleged to have departed the territory. The plaintiff in error, who was a partner in business with one Eaton, was summoned as garnishee, and judgment by default was obtained against the defendant Wales.

This suit was commenced in the county court of Grant comity on a promissory note held by the plaintiff against .the defendant below, by attachment under the statute. A proper affidavit, and in accordance with the statute, was made and filed, and thereupon a writ of attachment was issued, which was served, property attached, and a return made. On the return day of the writ the plaintiff filed a declaration.

The substance of tire bill is as follows : That James Rogan, went into possession, some time in the year 1836 or 1837, of two tracts of wild land about half a mile apart, then belonging to the United States, which tracts are severally described as the northeast fractional quarter of section number five in township number eight of' range fifteen east, in the county of Jefferson, and the northeast quarter of section number thirty-two of township number nine of range fifteen,…

The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The jury found for the plaintiff damages to the amount of $816. - ' The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon an affidar vit, set out in the opinion of the court. 1.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiff against the defendants. The-declaration charged the receiving and detention of a quantity of merchandise, which they refused to deliver to the plaintiffs below.

This -was au action of assumpsit before a justice upon a promissory note made by the defendant below, the plaintiff in error here. The defendant in that court set up several matters of defense, and issue was joined. Anterior to the trial before the justice, a notice had been given by the plaintiff below to the defendant, that the plaintiff would require Mm to be sworn on the trial of the cause before the justice; and by the record he appears to have been sworn.

CERTIFIED case from tbe Circuit Court for Orawfard County. This case came before tbe court on tbe report of tbe judge bolding tbe circuit court for Crawford county, before whom Cameron was tried for murder, and convicted of manslaughter. The judge having doubts as to some of the questions raised on the trial, and decided by him adversely to the accused, desired to be instructed and advised in regard thereto, by this court; and had in the meantime suspended judgment. 1.

ACTION in the Supreme Court against the State. This was an action instituted by tbe plaintiff under the provisions of the statute, authorizing actions at law against the state by individuals, founded upon the petition of the plaintiff filed at the present term of this court, alleging that by an act, passed by the legislature of the state of Wisconsin, approved March fifteenth, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, entitled “ of the publication of the revised…

CERTIFIED case from the Circuit Court for Brawn County. This matter came into this court on the certificate and report of the circuit judge holding the circuit court for Brown county, to be advised in accordance with the statute.

This was an action of covenant, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in errpr, upon a lease containing mutual covenants, to wit: On the part of tbe plaintiff, to furnish to tbe defendant a certain water-power in Milwaukee, for a stipulated price for one year, furnishing a given amount of water, and to be furnished for a certain number of hours daily, subject, however, “to the interruptions provided for in a certain lease by the Milwaukee & Eock river canal…

CERTIFIED case from tbe Circuit Court for La Fayette Comity.

This was an appeal by the defendant, Kane, from the decision of the circuit judge of the third circuit, oyerruling his demurrer to the complainants’ bill. This demurrer assigned causes, which are designated in the opinion of the court, and his counsel also assumed to assign other causes of demurrer are terms, which were coupled with the causes assigned upon the record, and were urged at the same time therewith.

. The relator, on the fifteenth day of May, 1850, applied to the chief justice for an order upon the supervisors of Washington county, to show cause on the first day of the next succeeding term of. the supreme court why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding them to proceed forthwith to let the contract for the erection of a court-house and jail, and fire-proof clerk’s and register’s office, at the village of Port Washington, in said county, and to…