Volume 20 — Illinois Reports

This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace by the plaintiff below, to recover from defendant below, damages for the loss of a quantity of corn delivered to said defendant, to transport to Chicago. Brought by appeal into the La Salle county Circuit Court. There was a trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff below, assessing damages at $60. Plaintiff remitted five dollars of said verdict. Defendant below moved for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the La Salle County Court, at the December term, A. D. 1857, by appellee against appellant, on his acceptance of an inland bill of exchange, which purported to have been drawn at thirty days, for $500, by one Thomas M. Hobbs, in favor of appellee, and directed to and accepted by appellant. The declaration contained a special count on the acceptance, and the common counts.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by Rankin, in the Circuit Court of Marshall county, for the recovery of the N. E. quarter of section No. 19, in township 13 N., range No. 9 E. of 4th P. M. Declaration, notice, bond for costs and affidavit of service, filed December 21,1854. At the April term of said court, 1855, defendant was ruled to plead to plaintiff’s declaration, and filed plea of not guilty.

This was an action of trover brought by appellees againt the appellant for eight hundred and twenty-one sacks of salt.

The first count of this declaration was -upon an agreement in writing, made between the appellants of the first part, and the appellees.of the second part, by which the appellees leased to the appellants their farm, (describing it,) from the 1st of March, 1855, to the 1st of March, 1856, for the sum of $400, to be paid on the 1st day of October, 1855.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced before a justice of the peace in and for the county of McHenry, by summons to “ Isaac Korsoski & Co.” to answer the complaint of Nathan H. Foster, etc. Judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $99.60, and costs of suit, defendant insisting that the justice had no jurisdiction in the case. Appeal taken by the defendants to the Circuit Court of McHenry county.

This action was brought in a justice’s court, and taken, by-appeal, to the Cook Circuit Court. Austin, the plaintiff below, sued out of the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court a commission to take the evidence of one Jane M. King, of the city of New York. On the 2nd March, 1857, the said commission was returned, with the deposition of said witness, duly filed and opened. On the said 23rd day of May, 1857, the said cause was tried before Manniere, Judge, and a jury.

This was an action of trespass to personal property, commenced in a justice’s court. On the trial before the justice, a judgment was rendered against the defendant in error for costs, and an appeal was taken therefrom to the La Salle County Court. The cause came on to be tried in the County Court, at the December term, thereof, A. D. 1857, before J. 0.

This was an application for discharge from custody and imprisonment under chapter 52, Eevised Statutes, entitled Insolvent Debtors, made by Culton on the 6th day of September, A. D. 1855, at the August special term of the Marshall County Court. Culton was brought before the court on a ca. sa. issued by B. F. Fuller, a justice of the peace in and for said county, on a judgment rendered by said justice against said Culton, in favor of one Lewis Skinkle.

This cause was tried before Hollister, Judge, and a jury, at December term, 1856, of the La Salle Circuit Court. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the court below, and. a judgment upon that verdict. The defendant below brings the cause to this court by appeal, and assigns errors. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Kane County Circuit Court, at April term, 1856. On said day the appellee filed in the clerk’s oEce of said court, a precipe, security for costs and declaration in the cause; in each of which papers the plaintiff is named, James B. Gott, and the defendant Nicholas Schoonover.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought at the June term of the La Salle County Court, on a promissory note made by Baldwin and payable to one Henry J. Miller, and by Miller assigned to Banks and Hutchinson, plaintiffs below, before due.

This was an action originally brought before the police magistrate of the city of Peru, by plaintiff below, against defendant below, to recover a debt for the violation of an ordinance of said city, and removed, on appeal, to the Circuit Court. The cause was tried at the November term, A. D. 1857, of said La Salle County Circuit Court, M. E. Hollister, Judge, presiding, both parties having waived a jury.

This was an action of ejectment. The venue was changed from Kane to Kendall Circuit Court. Declaration, plea and issue in usual form. At September term, 1854, a jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court. Issue found for Curtis. Judgment for costs against Root. At September term, 1855, a new trial was granted to Root, under the statute.

This is an action by the appellee as indorsee, against the appellant as indorser, of a promissory note. The note and indorsement upon the same are as follows : $200. Peoria, Ill., May 10, 1855. One year after date, I promise to pay Isaac Underhill, or order, two hundred dollars, for value received, with interest at six per cent, per annum, payable annually from the date hereof. M. ZANONI. Indorsed on the back: Pay to Porteus B. Roberts, without recourse to me. I. UNDERHILL.

This was an action of debt on a promissory note, originally commenced by appellant against appellee in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, by attachment, at the November term, A. D. 1854. The declaration contains three counts.

This was an action of replevin, brought by Pearson, the defendant in error, in the Circuit Court of Cook county, to recover possession of a stock of boots and shoes, valued at $1,400.

There was judgment in this case by default against all the defendants, at the October term, 1857, of the Tazewell Circuit Court, Herriott, Judge, presiding. The case will be found stated fully in the opinion of the court.

This cause was tried in the County Court of Peoria county. The case will be found fully stated in the opinion of the court.

This cause was commenced in the Rock Island Circuit Court, on the chancery 'side thereof, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants in error. The bill was filed on the 11th of August, 1851. The defendants appeared and demurred to the bill, and the court sustained the demurrer. The complainant elected to abide by his bill, when the court, Wilkinson, Judge, dismissed it, and rendered a decree for costs against him, at May term, 1854.

This was an action brought for rent, by Chapman, for the use of Wightman, against N. C. Selby and James A. McGrew, before a justice of the peace, where a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and by McGrew appealed to the County Court of Tazewell county. At the July term, 1857, said cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury.

Smith sued Allison in assumpsit. The declaration contains three counts. The 1st count alleges that on the 13th March, 1855, Pinegar executed his note to Hoyt & Stephens for $200, payable at six months. That Hoyt . The 2nd count avers that Pinegar executed note to Hoyt & Stephens, March 13,1855, at six months, for $200. That Hoyt & Stephens assigned to Allison, and Allison to plaintiff.

Placeta of the June special term, 1857, begun and held on the 22nd day of June, 1857, “ in pursuance of the order of the judge of said court, heretofore made and entered of record,” but does not give the order, nor state when it was entered, nor what, if any, notices- were given. Suit commenced by summons. Skelton, plaintiff, and Cook, defendant. June 2, 1857. Returnable to the said special term. Declaration in assumpsit.

This cause came into the Cook County Circuit Court at the October term, 1857, on a motion for a judgment on an award. The agreement of submission was entered into by and between the parties on the 24th September, 1857.

This was an action on the case for slander. The declaration is in three counts.

This was an action of debt commenced by the appellee against the appellant. Debt demanded, $176.80. Ad damnum, $200. The declaration contained six counts.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the plaintiff, to recover for wood, coal, candles, blanks and stationery, provided by the plaintiff, for the use of his office, while acting as sheriff of Warren county, from December, 1852, to December, 1854.

This was an action of ejectment, by the plaintiff, Booth, against the defendant, Cook, brought to recover the east half of the north-west quarter of section twenty-six, in township thirty north, range two west of the third principal meridian, in Marshall county.

This was a summary proceeding by motion by appellees against appellant. The bill of exceptions shows that, at the hearing of the motion, July 10, 1856, appellees read in evidence an execution, under seal of said court, dated March 14, 1855, in favor of appellees, and against Alford & Chapman, for $593.09, directed to sheriff of Kendall county, with said sheriff’s return and indorsements thereon, on which was a receipt signed by J. J. Cole.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, on the 29th day of March, A. D. 1855, setting forth, that on or about the 27th day of October, A. D. 1853, Charlotte Harden Moulton, being then seized of the premises thereinafter mentioned, and her husband, J. Tilden Moulton, in order to secure to the orator the payment of $4,009.86, being for a portion of the purchase money to be paid for the premises thereinafter mentioned, at…

The facts of these cases are stated in the opinion of the court. The causes were tried ¿before J. M. Wilson, Judge of the Common Pleas, at January term, 1858.

This suit was originally brought by appellees against .appellant, before a justice of the peace. The summons was as follows: STATE OF ILLINOIS, BUREAU COUNTY } ss.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the June term, 1857, of the County Court of Winnebago county. Both defendants appeared andf pleaded, and judgment against defendants for $183.48, and costs of suit, from which judgment defendant Warner alone appealed to this court. Plaintiff declared in an action of assumpsit against both defendants. The declaration contained one special count and the common counts.

On the 29th day of May, 1854, the defendant in error prayed out of the Circuit Court of Cook county a writ of capias ad respondendum in his favor, against Henry W. Burlingame, Isaac T. Van Duzer, James C. Pomeroy and Alaza L. Hurd, returnable on the first day of the next term, to be held on the fourth Monday of October, 1854, in action of trespass on the case upon promises, and directed to the sheriff of said county.

The relator filed his petition in October, 1854, showing the following statement of facts : In April, 1851, a decree was made in a proceeding under the statute to enforce a mechanics’ lien in the Circuit Court of Warren county, Illinois, wherein Jesse Spencer was petitioner and Jeremiah Baily was defendant, ordering and adjudging that the said Baily pay the said Spencer $135 and costs of suit, and that, in default of payment by Baily within six months, that the south-east…

<p>The People, on the relation of John W. Mitchell, present a a petition for a mandamus against Richard N. Warfield, county-clerk of Saline county, to compel him to issue a marriage license authorizing the marriage of the relator and Mollie J. Provine.</p> <p>The petition states that the relator is a free white male citizen of the county of Saline, over twenty-one years of age; that Richard N. Warfield is the county clerk of Saline county, and that it is a part of his official duty to give marriage licenses to persons entitled thereto under the statute of this State; that on 12th March, 1858, the said Richard N. Warfield was holding, keeping and exercising the duties of his said office at the town of Harrisburg, in the county of Saline; that at such time the relator applied to the said county clerk, at Harrisburg, to give a marriage license authorizing the joining in marriage of the relator and Mollie J. Provine; that the parties were competent to enter upon such relation with each other; that the consent of all persons interested had been obtained, of which the said county clerk had notice.</p> <p>The petition further states, that the relator tendered the lawful fees to the county clerk, but the said county clerk refused to issue the marriage license demanded, and still refuses so to do.</p> <p>The petition prays for the issue of an alternative writ of mandamus against the said Richard N. Warfield, county clerk of Saline county, commanding him to give the marriage license, or to show cause why he does not give the same.</p> <p>"The defendant, Warfield, waives the issuing and service of the alternative writ, and makes his return, in which he admits all the statements in the petition, but shows, as the cause why he refused and still refuses to give the marriage license, as follows:</p> <p>That, by virtue of an act of the General Assembly, entitled “ An Act to relocate the county seat of Saline county,” approved February 7, 1857, on Tuesday after 1st Monday in November, 1857, an election was held in Saline county for the relocation of the county seat of the said county.</p> <p>That 1440 votes were polled at the election. That Harrisburg received 725 votes, Raleigh 689 votes, and 26 persons voting at said election did not vote for either place.</p> <p>That, in compliance with the aforesaid law, and the election thereunder, on the 12th December, 1857, he removed his office of county clerk from Raleigh to Harrisburg.</p> <p>That on the 19th December, 1857, one Lenson B. Carnes filed liis bill in chancery against defendant and other county officers.</p> <p>That, at a special term, Circuit Court of Saline county, held at Raleigh, 8th March, 1857, their answers and replications thereto were filed.</p> <p>That, on the 12th day of March, at said court, the court awarded an injunction against said defendant and the other county officers, as prayed for in the bill of complaint.</p> <p>That, when the relator applied for said license, defendant was at a loss to know how to proceed, the law and election thereunder requiring him to hold his office at Harrisburg, and the injunction (awarded but not issued) requiring him to hold his office at Raleigh.</p> <p>That he refused to issue the marriage license as stated.</p> <p>That he submits the question whether it is his duty to remove to Raleigh with his office, or keep the same in Harrisburg, and issue to said relator the marriage license as applied for.</p> <p>Submits his return, and prays to be dismissed with costs, etc.</p> <p>And the said relator comes and files his demurrer to said return of the defendant, etc.</p> <p>The following is an abstract of the bill in chancery, made a part of the answer to the foregoing petition :</p> <p>The complainant, a. tax-payer and citizen of Saline county, shows that by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, Raleigh was made the county seat of Saline county, and still is said county seat; that courts probate, county and circuit, had been held there, and that the circuit and county clerks and sheriff had resided and kept their offices at Raleigh.</p> <p>And that public buildings had been erected at'Raleigh, at the expense of the county.</p> <p>Shows the 5th sec., 7th art., constitution, in relation to the removal of county seats.</p> <p>Shows act of legislature, approved 7th February, 1857, entitled “ An Act to relocate the county seat of Saline county.”</p> <p>Avers that said act is unconstitutional, for two reasons:</p> <p>1st. That the removal of the county seat shall take place upon a majority of those voting for or against such removal casting their votes for Harrisburg, and not a majority of the voters of the county, as contemplated by the constitution.</p> <p>2nd. That said law does not fix the point to which said county seat was to be removed.</p> <p>Shows that notice was given and an election held under said law, for the relocation of the county seat, on Tuesday after 1st Monday in November, 1857.</p> <p>That 1440 votes were cast at said election, 725 for Harrisburg, 689 for Raleigh, and 26 who did not vote for either place for county seat, showing an apparent majority of five votes in favor of Harrisburg.</p> <p>He avers that forty or fifty persons entitled to vote at said election did not vote.</p> <p>He avers that 123 votes cast at said election for Harrisburg were illegal votes; that the number of legal votes cast at said election was 1317—602 for Harrisburg. Schedule of illegal votes annexed.</p> <p>That the election of Harrisburg was the result of fraud.</p> <p>And that Raleigh was elected the county seat at said election.</p> <p>That said election is void by reason of frauds, etc.</p> <p>That R. N. Warfield, county clerk, since said election, removed his office from Raleigh to Harrisburg; that Hiram Burnett talks of removing his office to Harrisburg.</p> <p>That Wm. Roark, sheriff of said county, has also removed his office to Harrisburg-.</p> <p>That Moses P. McGehee, James Stricklin and Wm. Watkins, members of the County Court, are threatening to hold the courts at Harrisburg.</p> <p>That R. N. Warfield, county clerk, removed his office in compliance with an order of said court.</p> <p>And are about contracting for the erection of public buildings at Harrisburg, to the injury of the tax-payers of the county.</p> <p>That the County Court threatens to sell the public buildings at Raleigh.</p> <p>That defendants in concert refuse to recognize Raleigh as the county seat, but claim that Harrisburg is the county seat.</p> <p>Prays for an injunction against the defendants, restraining and enjoining the clerks and sheriff from keeping or holding their offices at Harrisburg, and requiring the county clerk and sheriff to return to Raleigh; restraining the county judge and county justices from holding their courts at Harrisburg; from contracting for the erection of public buildings there; from selling the public buildings at Raleigh; from making roads to or from Harrisburg, or spending any county funds for the improvement thereof, etc.</p> <p>The bill is sworn to.</p> <p>The separate answer of Moses P. McGehee admits that Raleigh was the county seat; denies that it now is the county seat.</p> <p>Admits the passage of the law of February 7th, 1857 ; denies its unconstitutionality.</p> <p>Admits the notice and the election under the law, and the aggregate vote polled at said election, and the vote Harrisburg and Raleigh, etc., and that 26 voters did not vote for either place; denies that a majority of the voters of the county did not vote for Harrisburg; denies that illegal votes were cast for Harrisburg; gives á list of persons charged in "bill to be illegal voters, who áre legal voters, etc.; states nothing as to the others.</p> <p>Charges that Harrisburg received 725 legal votes at said election.</p> <p>Denies that the persons named upon schedule attached to bill are illegal voters.</p> <p>Charges that 78 votes, cast for Raleigh at said election, were illegal and fraudulent.</p> <p>Denies that Harrisburg was elected by fraud; charges that it was the free choice of the people of the county.</p> <p>Admits that, after it was ascertained that Harrisburg was the county seat, R. N. Warfield, county clerk, removed his office to Harrisburg, about the 12th December, 1857, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office there.</p> <p>Admits that, as county judge (after the county clerk z'emoved his office there), he held his courts at Harrisburg, both county and pi’obate.</p> <p>Admits that Wm. Roai’k, sheriff of said county, removed his office to Harrisburg, also.</p> <p>Denies that the County Court has ever made an attempt to erect public buildings at Harrisburg, squandered any of the public money, or contemplates selling the public buildings at Raleigh.</p> <p>Knows nothing of persons entitled to vote at said election who did not vote thereat.</p> <p>Charges that, when the law of 7th February, 1857, was passed, Harrisburg was known as a- town near the centre of the county, six miles south of Raleigh; contained a large number of inhabitants ; was regularly laid off, platted, and known by the voters of said county.</p> <p>Signed, sworn to, etc.</p>

The defendant, John Harris, who was complainant below, filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Marshall county, on the 8th day of February, 1856, alleging that on the 12th day of May, 1837, Edwin Mills, of the State of New York, was indebted to the complainant in the sum of $700, for the purchase money of S. E. 27, 30 N., 1 W., 3rd P. M., and executed a mortgage to complainant for said premises and two other lots, dated May 12th, 1837, a copy of which is set out in the bill.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced before a justice of the peace, brought by appellee against appellant.

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

The decree in this case was entered by Powell, Judge, at December term, 1857', of the Peoria Circuit Court. The evidence is elaborate, and will not furnish instruction in other cases, and is therefore not inserted.

This was a proceeding in chancery; the bill states that on the 29th day of September, A. D. 1855, the complainant and defendant Newton entered into the following agreement: Know all Men by these Presents, That Levi Newton, of the county of Kane, and State of Illinois, is held and firmly bound unto William W. Bishop, of the county of Worcester, and State of Massachusetts, party of the second part, in the penal sum of eighteen thousand dollars, to be paid unto the said party…

The conflict before the jury in this case resulted from the fact that two highways crossed the land of the plaintiff in error, one a State and the other a county road. Both of these roads were laid out upon or near the same line. Owing to some inconveniences or-obstructions in the laid out lines of road, the travel had been diverted, and had taken a different route across the close of the plaintiff than that indicated by the surveys.

This declaration was in assumpsit, on three promissory notes and common counts, in the Kane Circuit Court. First plea, general issue ; second plea, set-off; third plea, special warranty; fourth plea, part failure of consideration. General replication to each of said pleas. There was a change of venue to Kendall county. Jury sworn at October term, 1857, of Kendall Circuit Court. Verdict for plaintiff, $1,700. Hollister, Judge, presiding. Motion for new trial overruled.

This was an action of replevin for a cargo of lumber, (one hundred thousand feet, more or less), brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, on the 3rd day of October, A. D. 1856, returnable to the October term, A. D. 1856, of the Cook Circuit Court.

The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The cause was tried by Hollister, Judge, and a jury, at February term, 1858, of the La Salle Circuit Court.

Plaintiffs file declaration and notice in ejectment, for the undivided fourth of lot No. one, block “ A,” on the west side of Fever river, in the city of Galena, Jo Daviess county, Illinois. Defendant files plea, “ not guilty.” A u October term, 1857, jury waived, and cause submitted to the court, Sheldon, Judge, upon agreed statement of facts. Issue found for defendant. Bill of exceptions sets out submission of cause to court upon the pleadings and agreed state of facts.

This was an action of debt, for a penalty for selling liquors. There was a trial before a justice of the peace, which was appealed to the County Court of La Salle county, and tried before the judge of said court, at the June term, 1857. There was a finding for the defendant. Motion for new trial overruled. The issues were oral. One plea was nul tiel corporation.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced by Isaac Yan Alstyne during his lifetime, against the defendant: During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died, and his death was suggested, and the executors of the will were substituted as plaintiffs. No amendment of the declaration was made, nor was there any new declaration filed. The declaration was filed in the name of Isaac Van Alstyne during his lifetime.

The defendant, John Kingsley, commenced suit in the Circuit Court of Tazewell county, by bill in chancery and injunction, on the 14th day of April, 1857, against George 0. Kingsley and David D. Irons. The case was tried before Harriott, Judge, at the October term, 1857, and a decree rendered against the defendant, in the court below, from which an appeal was prosecuted. The complainant’s bill alleges, that in the year 1852, George 0.

This is an action commenced on the chancery side of the Rock Island Circuit Court, by Timothy Wood and J. G. Salisbury, against Orlando Child and Ezra M. Beardsley, to obtain an injunction against the above named respondents. The complainants presented their bill to the judge of the court below in July, 1857, at chambers, and a preliminary hearing was granted, when the said judge ordered that a writ of injunction issue, according to the prayer in the bill.

Replevin for five stacks of hay. The sheriff returned the writ with the indorsement that he had taken two and one-eighth stacks, the rest not found. The declaration contained two counts: The first, in the detinuit, for two and one-eighth stacks; the second, in the detinet, for two and seven-eighths stacks. The defendants, Dart, Sutherland & Gould, pleaded three pleas: First, property in Charles Horn; second, property in Martin Horn; third, property in Charles and Martin Horn.

This was an action orginally brought before a justice of the peace, in the name of the plaintiff below, against defendant below, to try the right of property in a certain mare, levied upon by a constable, by virtue of an execution issued by said justice. Trial by jury, who found for the claimant, and judgment accordingly. The cause was tried before Champlin, County Judge.

This was originally a cause brought before a justice of the peace, of Bureau county, by the appellee against the appellant, and taken by appeal to the said Circuit Court, in which there was judgment for the appellee; and the appellant, who was the defendant in the court below, brings the case to this court by appeal.

This was a proceeding commenced by said company under its special charter, (see Private Laws for session of 1851, page 266,) to ascertain the compensation to be paid by said company to defendant in error, by reason of the location and construction of its railroad over and across a certain tract of land in Lake county, owned by defendant.

The action in the court below was replevin for a span of horses and a set of harness. The writ of replevin was issued to the sheriff on the 27th day of June, 1857, and the following return made thereon by him: “ June 27, 1857.

This was a suit in case brought by appellee against appellant, in Will Circuit Court, and tried at the May term, A. D. 1857. Verdict for plaintiff, $231.50. The declaration contains but one count.

Plaintiff filed Ms declaration for the recovery of the‘northwest quarter of section thirty-two, township ten north, range one east of the fourth principal meridian, at the September term of the Knox Circuit Court, to wit: the 24th day of September, 1855. Plea, not guilty.

This is an action of trespass on the case, commenced in Tazewell, and, by change of venue, sent to Marshall county, whore it was tried at January term, 1858.

This was an application for judgment against certain property, for non-payment of a special assessment, levied by the common council of the city of Chicago, upon said property, for dredging or otherwise deepening the Chicago river and its branches, between the west line of Franklin street, north line of Lake street, north line of Kinzie street, and the established dock lines, and which assessment was ordered by said common council, upon the report and recommendation of the…

This was ail action of assumpsit, commenced February 12, 1856, in Rock Island Circuit «Court, and change of venue to Peoria county, and trial, March term, 1858, before Powell, Judge, and a jury. The declaration contained the common counts, and for goods and chattels, oxen, steers, cows and heifers, sold and delivered to defendant.

<p>ERROR TO COOK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.</p> <p>Whore the ground presented for a change of venue relates to the Judge of the Cook Circuit Court, the venue may he changed to the Common Pleas Court of that county.</p>

This was a proceeding commenced before a justice of the peace for the trial of the right of property, in which the plaintiff in error was claimant, and Winchester and Gladfelter were plaintiffs in the executions under which the property had been levied. On the trial before the justice, the jury found the property did not belong to the plaintiff in error, and the justice rendered judgment against him for costs.

Henderson sued Burns before a justice, and recovered judgment. Burns appealed to the Circuit Court, and filed bond with the justice. At the May term, 1857, the court called the cause for trial, to which the defendant objected, for the following reasons : The court has no jurisdiction to try the cause ; the plaintiff has no right to prosecute said cause in this court; this court has no jurisdiction of the parties. The court overruled the objections and called a jury.

The decree in the Circuit Court of Winnebago was pronounced by Sheldon, Judge, at February term, 1858. The proceedings and proofs are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The declaration in this case was as follows : For that, whereas, the said James Andrew, in his lifetime, in the year 1855, was sheriff in and for the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and so being such sheriff, and while such sheriff, there came into his hands as such sheriff, to be executed, a certain fieri facias or execution, wherein one Thomas J. Hunt was plaintiff and the said James H. Eames and John A. Patmor, impleaded with William Carroll, were defendants,…

This was an action brought against the defendant by the plaintiff, before a justice of the peace, to recover pay for a plow, which plaintiff alleges he sold to defendant. Judgment for plaintiff below. Case appealed to Bureau Circuit Court at April term, 1857. Judgment in that court for plaintiff.

The Common Council of the City of Chicago made a special assessment for extending La Salle street from its present terminus (Madison street) to Jackson street, which was confirmed June 9,1856.

This is an action of debt for an escape, commenced by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, in the Rock Island Circuit Court. The summons and declaration claim $102 debt, and $200 damages.

This was an action on the case, brought in the County Court of La Salle county, by Foster, for the use of Whipple, against the town of South Ottawa, to recover damages for a team and wagon having fallen off of an embankment at the end of the Coval Creek bridge, in said town.

The facts of this case are sufficiently presented in the opinion of the court. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the Circuit Court.

This was an appeal from the Jo Daviess Circuit Court. The cause was tried before Sheldon, Judge, and a jury, at December term, 1857, of the said court.

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

David R. Gardner, on the 5th of May, 1857, filed his bill of complaint against the appellants and Orville S. Stevens, charging, that on the 26th of July, 1855, the Stones recovered judgment against him before a justice of the peace, on a note due May 1st, 1855, for $95.50 and costs, from which he appealed to the Boone County Court, on which, at December term, 1855, a judgment was rendered for $107.18 and costs., December 19,1855, execution issued to Boone county, and levied…

The defendant below, on the 6th day of April, 1857, filed his bill for injunction in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of Peoria county, alleging that, about the month of August, 1856, he was the owner of about five thousand railroad ties, which were lying on the bank of the Illinois river, in Schuyler county; that he had previously purchased the same of the rightful owners, and same had been delivered to him at the place aforesaid.

The appellants recovered a judgment against the appellee, at September term, 1854, of the Winnebago Circuit Court. In October following, an execution was issued on this judgment, which was returned satisfied, on the fourteenth day of February, 1855, by the sale of two pieces of land.

This cause was heard before R. S. Wilson, Recorder, and a jury, at November term, 1857, of the Recorder’s Court. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion.

<p>On the 7th day of August, 1857, the appellee commenced an action of assumpsit against the appellant, in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas. The declaration contained two counts. The first count set forth in lime verba, the following contract, to wit:</p> <p>Chicago, Mat 17, 1851.</p> <p>Received of Philip Dean, the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, as follows: James H. Rees' judgment note, payable in thirty days from May 12, 1851, to the order of said Dean, and indorsed by him for six hundred dollars, and in cash one hundred and fifty dollars, being in full for sale of tax certificate on sub-lot 9, of lots 2, 3 and 4, of block 84, in school section addition to Chicago, the undersigned agreeing to obtain a deed by quit-claim or otherwise, for one-half of said sub-lot 9, of H. L. Tuller, or such other party as may have the title to the half part of said lot, formerly conveyed to the said H. L. Tuller. STEPHEN P. GALE.</p> <p>And alleged a demand on the 10th day of April, 1857, upon the appellant for the deed mentioned in the contract, a readiness on the part of the appellee to receive the same, and a neglect on the part of the appellant to make or obtain such deed.</p> <p>The second count sets out the above contract according to its legal effect, averring that the appellant was thereby bound to procure such deed within a reasonable time, which he had neglected to do. To this declaration the plea of the general issue was interposed and a trial was had by jury, before J. M. Wilson, Judge.</p> <p>On the trial it appeared in evidence that the contract set forth in the declaration, and another agreement between the parties of the same date, wei’e executed at the same time, both of which were offered in evidence. The latter agreement was as follows:</p> <p>Memorandum of Agreement, entered into this seventeenth day of May, A. D. 1851, between Stephen P. Gale, party of the first part, and Philip Dean, party of the second part, both of the city of Chicago, and State of Iliinois. Whereas, the party of the first part, did, on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1840, purchase at the city tax sale, sub-lot nine, of lots 2, 3 and 4, in block 84, in the school addition to Chicago, and whereas, from an examination of the records, and from other information obtained, the fee title appears to be held by H. L. Taller and Amos C. Hamilton. And whereas, the party of the first part, has this day sold to the party of the second part, his tax certificate on said lot 9, upon the following conditions, viz.: that the said Amos C. Hamilton or his heirs may have the privilege of redeeming, or receiving an assignment from the said Dean, or by quit-claim deed, one-half part of said sub-lot 9, upon condition that the said Amos C. Hamilton/ or his heirs, pay unto the said Dean, one hundred dollars within six months from this date. STEPHEN GALE.</p> <p>PHILIP DEAN.</p> <p>The appellee moved to strike out the evidence, on the ground of a variance between the declaration and the proof offered in support of it, which motion was overruled.</p> <p>It not only appeared in evidence, but was admitted, that the appellant, in making the contract, acted in good faith, and did not act in bad faith in his failure to perform the same, but that the failure to perform the contract on his part arose from his inability to procure the title.-</p> <p>It appeared in evidence that the appellee demanded a performance of the contract in the winter or spring of 1857, and that the appellant had never performed the same.</p> <p>The appellant introduced in evidence a letter from Tuller to him, dated May 15,1851, in which Tuller says he is in hopes soon to have the title papers of the half lot, and that as soon as he got them he would bring or send them to Chicago, and would then settle the matter to the appellant’s satisfaction.</p> <p>It also appeared in evidence that the value of one-half of said sub-lot 9, was, in May, 1851, $650 ; in the fall of 1851, $800 to $900; in January or February, 1852, $1,000; and in the fall of 1856, and .winter and spring of 1857, $7,500. That the property was improved in May, 1851, at which time the appellee entered into possession, and that he had remained in possession ever since. That said sub-lot was conveyed by tax deed to appellee in 1851, that the tax title at the time of the sale was considered worth about $200.</p> <p>It further appeared in evidence that James H. Eees was present when the contract was made, and having a desire to see it carried out, frequently saw the appellant after that time about procuring a deed from Tuller. That the appellee knew that Eees frequently talked with appellant about getting such deed, and that Eees was accustomed to tell the appellee what the appellant said at these interviews, although Eees had no particular authority to act for the appellee, and could not say that he acted at his instance. At one of these interviews, shortly after the contract was made, and within six months from that time, the appellant told Eees that he could not procure the deed from Tuller; that Tuller refused to give a deed; which conversation Eees shortly after communicated to the appellee.</p> <p>The appellant asked the court to instruct the jury that the measure of damages should, under the circumstances, be the consideration money and interest.</p> <p>Or, if the court was of opinion that such was not the true rule of damages, then that the contract was to be performed within a reasonable time from making it, and the measure of damages should be the value of the premises after the lapse of such reasonable time, and interest thereon.</p> <p>Or if the court was of opinion that neither of these rules were correct, then that the measure of damages should be the value of the premises when the appellee had notice that the appellant could not perform his contract, with interest thereon. But the court refused to instruct the jury as requested, and instructed them that the measure of damages should be the value of the property when the demand was made in 1857. The jury found a verdict for the appellee for $7,500.</p>

This was ‘an action of libel, commenced by defendant against the plaintiffs in error, in the Cook County Circuit, was tried at the November term thereof, 1857, before Manierre, Judge of said court, presiding, and a jury.

<p>All that is necessary to an understanding of this case will be found, stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>This case is státed at length in the opinion of Mr. Justice Breese.</p>

This was an action of covenant on a lease. The declaration contains but one count, and is as follows in substance: It first avers the identity of the plaintiffs with the parties who executed the lease, some of whom signed by their initials, and one of whom afterwards intermarried with Rollin G-. Parks, who is made a party to the suit. It then sets forth the lease in hose verba, with .the usual proferí.

<p>APPEAL FROM LA SALLE COUNTY COURT.</p> <p>Where a demurrer to a plea to one of the counts of a declaration is overruled, and the plaintiff stands by his demurrer, the order of the court amounts to a judgment in bar of the cause of action in that count, and it is no longer before the court for trial.</p> <p>Where a party alleges in his pleadings in an action of trespass guare clausum fregit, that the damage to plaintiff arose by reason of the removal of a partition fence, of which removal the plaintiff had been notified, the pleading should show that the notice was given in due time, and to a proper person.</p> <p>An averment in such pleading that plaintiff had reasonable notice, is insufficient. A partition fence, whether existing by agreement, by acquiescence, or under the statute, cannot be removed until the parties interested in its remaining aro properly notified of the intended removal.</p> <p>The case of Buckmaster v. Coole, in 12th Ill. R. 76, considered and approved.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the appellant against the appellee, to recover the N. E. 36, 8 N., 1 W., in the Circuit Court of Warren county. The cause was tried by a jury before Thompson, Judge, at September term, 1857; a verdict was rendered for the defendant; a motion was made by the plaintiff for a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and judgment rendered against the plaintiff for costs. The plaintiff appealed to this court.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee against the appellant.

<p>This was an action of assumpsit, brought by John Murphy, Michael'Kelly and John B. Piet, defendants in error, against Charles McDonnell, plaintiff in error, in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas.</p> <p>There was a motion by plaintiffs that defendant’s plea be stricken from the files, for want of a sufficient affidavit of merits. Motion allowed by the court, J. M. Wilson, Judge, presiding, at January term, 1858.</p>

At the June term, A. D. 1857, of the Court of Common -Pleas of the city of Elgin, in Kane county, Illinois, an indictment was found therein against the appellant for selling liquor without license within said city.

Assumpsit, brought August 29,1856, by the appellees against the appellant. Declaration has two counts only, both special. These were demurred to. Leave to amend.

This was an action of trespass on the case for malicious prosecution. The first and third counts in the declaration are for causing and procuring Shaw to be indicted for stealing a lot of screws, nuts, chains, crowbars, &c., of John H. Bates, and for prosecuting and causing the same to be prosecuted. The second count of the declaration is upon the second count in the indictment, charging the property stolen to be the property of Richard Lappin.

Sabin, Clawson, and Stott, of Barrington, Cook county, and Goss and Stephens, of Cuba, Lake county, on the 2nd February, 1858, filed their bill in chancery, in the Cook Circuit Court, setting forth… Held: had caused notices to be put up, calling such meeting one week too late. And when the meeting convened, at the suggestion of Squires or his friends, they did not do any business for that reason.

This suit was brought before A. Herbert, a justice of the peace of Will county, March 16,1855, -to recover for the taking up, advertising and keeping certain stray colts of defendant. Demand, $95. Plaintiff obtained judgment for $33.25, and costs, from which defendant appealed to Will County Circuit Court. The cause was tried at December term, 1855, before Randall, Judge, and a jury.

This was an indictment, found against David and William Lincoln, for the larceny of a large iron gray horse. The defendants pleaded not guilty. The testimony in the case was as follows : John Smith testified that a large iron gray horse was stolen out of his pasture, in Tazewell county, near Groveland, on the night of the 29th of September last. A. J. Davis. Had a horse stolen the same night—a strawberry roan. B. G. Roe. Was slightly acquainted with the defendants.

Summons issued Oct. 20th, 1856; summons returned by sheriff, served by reading the same to George H. Kiersted, Oct. 20th, 1856, and that… Held: and that in addition to that, he was the owner of several head of horses, and that the statement so made by J ohnson was false; and if they further believe, from the evidence, that Harwood, at the time the horse was sold, relied upon the statements of Johnson as to his ability to pay, the false representations thus made to Johnson…

<p>APPEAL FROM COOK.</p> <p>Where a box, shipped at Adrian for Chicago (the usual railroad time of transportation being three days) on the twenty-ninth October, arrived at Chicago on the third of November, and was not delivered by the freight agent until the fifteenth of the latter month, this will be considered so unreasonable a delay as to entitle the owner to damages.</p> <p>Where the agent of a railroad company for the delivery of freight, authorized to make all necessary arrangements fts to the time and place of its delivery, agrees to forward freight by another company, or by a line of boats, if this agreement is neglected, the railroad company will be liable.</p> <p>Where it is the custom of a railroad company to receive the directions of shippers and owners of goods to be sent beyond the terminus of their road, if directions are given to forward by a particular line, which are not obeyed, the railroad company will be liable. Shippers and owners of goods have the right to control their destination; and if their directions are obeyed, no responsibility for loss is incurred.</p> <p>The employment of an agent, by a railroad company, to deliver all freights, necessarily includes the authority to make terms for its delivery at or beyond the terminus of the road.</p>

<p>ERROR TO McLEAN</p> <p>A scire facias upon a recognizance should aver that the recognizance had been returned to, and made matter of record, in the Circuit Court; also, that there had been a judgment of forfeiture against the defendants.</p> <p>The scire facias takes the place, in this State, of a summons and declaration, and should show every allegation necessary to a recovery.</p>

The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice. The cause was heard before Thompson, Judge, at March term, 1857, of the Warren Circuit Court.

<p>ERROR TO McHENRY.</p> <p>Contractors for constructing a railroad are the servants of the company authorized to construct it, and the tortious acts of the contractors, while about the business of the company, are properly chargeable to it.</p>

<p>The summons in this case was served on Eames ; the other defendants not found.</p> <p>The first count of the declaration avers that on the 9th November, 1854, at Chicago, the defendants, by name of “ Eames, Gray & Co.,” made their note, in writing, promising to pay, eighty-five days after the dato thereof, to the order of Nelson C. Roe, by description of “ N. C. Roe, Cash’r,” $511.93, for value received, with interest at ten per cent., and delivered it to said Nelson C. Roe, who afterwards indorsed it to the plaintiffs by name of “ Preston & Co.,” by means, etc.; and promise to pay plaintiffs’ note.</p> <p>The common counts were added to the above.</p> <p>Breach, that defendants have not ¡laid said sums of money.</p> <p>Plea, general issue.</p> <p>The cause tried by J. M. Wilson, Judge, and a jury, and verdict for plaintiffs for $626.84.</p> <p>On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff having introduced testimony tending to prove that the note hereafter mentioned was executed by defendants, as charged in the declaration, then offered to read the following note in evidence :</p> <p>$511.93. Chicago, Nov. 9, 1854.</p> <p>Eighty-five days after date we promise to pay to N. 0. Roe, Cas’r, or order, Bive Hundred and Eleven 93-100 Dollars, for value received, with interest, at ten per cent.</p> <p>EAMES, GRAY & CO. [ ]</p> <p>To the introduction of which the defendant Eames objected. The court overruled the objection, and allowed said note to be introduced as evidence, to which ruling the defendant Eames excepted. No other evidence given in the cause. The court found for the plaintiff, $626.84, and gave judgment thereon, to which defendant Eames excepted.</p>

This was an action of trespass on the case, brought in the La Salle County Court, at the September ^term, 1857, by plaintiff belo.w, to recover damages from defendant below, for killing three colts of plaintiff on railroad of defendant.

This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace by Quirk against Lee, for work and labor. A judgment was rendered by the justice against Lee, for $42.10, and he appealed to the Circuit Court.

This was an action of assumpsit. The summons was served on William Fisher only. The declaration alleges, that defendants were joint owners and partners in building and running the steamboat “ Lacón,” and that defendants were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of j!l,000 for services as engineer on said boat. There was also a count for goods, etc., sold and delivered, for work and labor done at request of defendants. For money lent.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by appellees against appellant, for S. W. Sec. 2, T. 10 N., 7 E., in Peoria county. Plaintiff below produced patent for the land to Henry Howe, dated May 27, 1818; next a certified copy of. a deed from Henry Howe to John Morgan, to which was attached the following certificates: “ Windham County, ss. Canterbury, July 14, 1821.

This is an action of assumpsit. The declaration contains three counts and the common counts.

This was a suit commenced in the Peoria Circuit Court, by appellant against appellee, upon certain bills of lading or railroad receipts for wheat and corn, shipped by plaintiff from Peoria oyer the defendant’s road, to Munn, Gill & Co., of Chicago. The case was tried, March term, 1858, before E. N. Powell, Judge, without a jury.

The facts of this case are the same as in that preceding. The judgment was rendered by Maniere®, Judge, without the intervention of a jury, upon an agreed state of facts, at April term, 1858. The judgment was for the defendant below, appellee in this court.

This was an application by the collector of the city of Ottawa, to the County Court of La Salle county, for judgment against certain lots in that city, for assessments made on said lots for improving certain streets. The delinquent list of the collector sets forth the lots within the limits of the city of Ottawa benefited by the improvement of La Salle street, the valuation of such lots and the sums of money assessed thereon, which remained due and unpaid.

This was a special assessment for grading, graveling, and otherwise improving Main street, in the city of Ottawa. The delinquent list of the collector sets forth the lots within the limits of the city of Ottawa benefited by the improvement of Main street, the valuation of such lots, and the sums of money assessed thereon, which remain due and unpaid. There was proof of publication of the notice of the application for judgment.

This was a proceeding to enforce a special assessment in the city of Ottawa. The delinquent list of the collector sets forth the lots within the limits of the city benefited by a sewer in Jefferson street, the valuation of such lots, and the sums of money assessed thereon, which remain due and unpaid.

This was a bill in chancery, filed in the Marshall Circuit Court, in March, 1856, by Whitmire, as assignee of Stewart, against Nathaniel C. Divilbiss, who is now deceased. A summons was issued, and returned as set out in the opinion. Upon this return a default was taken, and a decree of foreclosure by default was entered upon it.

This is an action of assumpsit, commenced before a justice of the peace, and appealed to the La Salle County Court, and tried before Cotton, Judge.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained but one count, which was for money had and received. There was a plea of the general issue and a replication. The bill of particulars filed with the declaration, stated an account for money had and received, $1,000, and claiming $700 for a note made by G-. W. P. & A. BL Bowman, to one Harris Hoyt, and by him assigned in blank, to the plaintiff below, but appellee in this court.

The appellant was indicted for selling spirituous liquors, without license, at the March term, 1856, of the Warren County Circuit Court. The indictment contains two counts. There is an entry on the record as follows, to wit: “ The People, etc., vs. William H. Gardner. } Indictment for selling liquor. A true bill. John Brown, Foreman.

Assumpsit on two notes given by Topper to Snow, dated April 3rd, 1854, one for ' $219, due Oct. 1,1855, and one for $231, due Oct. 1, 1856. 1st. Plea, general issue. 2nd.

This was a proceeding in chancery. The bill states that the complainant was indebted to the defendants, on the 7th day of July, 1857, in a certain sum of money, for which indebtedness the defendants requested him to give his note at sixty days, and promised him that they would allow him that time to pay said indebtedness, if he would give his note; that being desirous of the extension, he did so, and drew the note, which is hereinafter set forth ; that he also signed,.in…

This cause was heard before Hollister, Judge, and a jury, at March term, 1856, of the Bureau Circuit Court.

The demurrer in this case was decided at the April term, 1858. This was an action on the case for damages sustained by the plaintiffs, by reason of an alleged obstruction of the Chicago river. The plaintiffs in their declaration allege, that the city by its charter was bound to remove all obstructions from the river, and that it had entered upon its duty by the passage of ordinances and levying taxes for that purpose.

This was an action of trespass, commenced in the Knox Circuit Court, to recover the value of two wagons and seven horses, claimed by the plaintiff, and was tried in that court, Thompson, Judge, presiding, before a jury, at October term, 1857. Verdict and judgment for defendant. A motion for a new trial was overruled. Pleas were filed as follows: The general issue.

This was an action of ejectment, .originally commenced in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, at the November term, 1852, by Henry Clinefelter and Mary Clinefelter, his wife, against Burton Ayres. Held: that the entry on the probate record, dated Sept. 6,1839, did not show such refusal; and thereupon the court found the issues for the plaintiff. The defendant moved the court for a new trial; which motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

The facts of this case are detailed in the agreed statement of the facts, as follows, to wit: This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto against the defendant, for usurping and intruding into, and unlawfully holding and executing the office of “ trustees of schools of township sixteen north, of range ten east, of the fourth principal meridian.” Pleas: not guilty and justification—that'the said defendant was legally elected to said office on the 9th day of…

This was an action on the case for the use of Frederick Jacobs, for injuries sustained by being run over by a locomotive owned by the appellant. The damages were laid at $15,000. There was a trial, and a verdict and judgment for $2,000, from which the defendant below appealed.

This was an action commenced in the Cook County Circuit Court, Manniere, Judge, by Yarwood and others against Stow. The evidence in the case shows the following facts; In 1839, the plaintiffs below bought a steam engine of one Allen, which was at the time at Stow’s foundry, and contracted with Stow to repair it.

This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace in Winnebago county, and taken by appeal to the County Court, where it was tried before Miller, Judge, and a jury. The decision does not require a further statement of the case.

This was an action commenced in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas by the appellant, plaintiff below.

This was an action on the case brought by appellees against appellant.

The writ issued in this case was in the words and figures following: State of Illinois, County of Peoria, } ss. To the Sheriff of Peoria county, in the State of Illinois, Greeting : Whereas, on the 14th day of August, A. D. 1854, Bartholomew Fortier filed in the office of the Circuit Court of said county, a precipe in substance as follows, to wit: Bartholomew Fortier vs. James McFadden. } In Peoria Circuit Court. To Sept. Term, A. D. 1854.

<p>This action was commenced to the February term, 1856, but service was not made at that term. Alias summons was made returnable to the April term; was served 31st March. On the 4th day of June, the general issue was filed by leave of the court, and an affidavit of merits.</p> <p>No further order was taken until the 10th day of September, when the plea was stricken from the file and a default entered, and on the 12th day of September the damages were assessed by the court, and judgment rendered for $149, or thereabouts.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, by plaintiff, against defendant, commenced in the Kane Circuit Court, Nov. 18,1850, and afterwards taken by change of venue to Kendall county. Prior to the 5th of March, 1845, Root, (defendant), was the owner in fee of the property described in the declaration.

On the 7th day of January, 1858, Henry Grove filed his petition in the County Court of Peoria county, for a mandamus to issue out of said court, against the “ Board of School Inspectors of the city of Peoria.” Petition states that said Grove is- a free white citizen of the United States, a resident householder and taxpayer in said city, and has a child named Clara Priscilla Grove, aged about fourteen years, residing with him, whom he wishes to send to and have instructed in…

. The plaintiff in error presented his bill in chancery for an injunction against the defendants in error, at the November term, A. D. 1857, of the Peoria Circuit Court. The bill sets forth in substance, that by the Act of the General Assembly, approved Feb. 14, 1855, and by the Act approved Jan. 29,1857, the voters of the city of Peoria were authorized to elect a Board of School Inspectors for said city of Peoria.

A person injured by reason of such negligence may recover for the length of time the sickness continued, as a component part of her claim.

On the 14th of Sept., 1840, Garrett and wife made a mortgage to Moss on the south-east quarter of Sec. 5, 8 N., 8 E., for $1,000, due at one year, with twelve per cent, interest. At May term, 1843, a decree of foreclosure was rendered in favor of Moss by default, the money, $1,326.66, found due upon the mortgage, to be paid ip ten days, or the mortgaged premises to be sold after being advertised three successive weeks. H. 0.

This suit was commenced in the Circuit Court of Peoria county, on the 15th day of October, 1853, upon two bills of exchange, which are as follows : $4,000. Ho. 1275. Columbus, Ohio, September, 1st, 1847. Pour months after date, pay to the order of Messrs. Warrick Martin & Co., four thousand dollars 15T, value received, and charge the same to account of Tour Obdt. Servant, H. B. CURTISS. To E. Platt, Esq., Cashr.' Leather Manufacturers’ Bank, Hew Tork. $5,000. Ho. 1276.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendants in error, against the plaintiffs in error, on a promissory note, at the December term, A. D. 1857. The summons was duly served, and the declaration filed November 23,1857. The declaration was in the usual form in assumpsit on a promissory note. December 7,1857, the second day of the term, a plea of general issue was filed, by 0. Miller, Jr., attorney for defendants.

This bill in chancery states, that in May, 1839, a joint stock company was formed at Aberdeen, Scotland, to loan money to persons in the United States, desirous to purchase lands at the government sales, particularly in Illinois, called “ The Aberdeen North American Investment and Loan Company.” Its affairs were under the direction of D. Chalmers, Littlejohn, Teates, Catto, Williamson, A. Smith, C. Chalmers, Farquahar and Foulerton, residing in Aberdeen and its vicinity.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Weyhrieh against Nixon, at January term of the Tazewell County Court, A. D. 1858, to recover a sum of money against him as an indorser of a promissory note.

<p>ERROR TO WINNEBAGO.</p>

<p>The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was a motion made in the Circuit Court of Gallatin county, against John E. Hall, as clerk of said court, to quash two fee bills, made out by said clerk, in a certain cause which had been determined in said court, wherein Herod and Colvard were plaintiffs, and Milton Bartley, administrator of Samuel Seaton, deceased, was defendant.

<p>The grouuds of this application for a mandamus, are stated at length in the opinion of the court.</p>

John Malcom, administrator of Joseph Malcom, deceased, sued Simon Albert on a note given by him to Joseph Malcom. Suit before Probate Court, and judgment for plaintiff below for $61.48. Defendant appealed to Circuit Court, and died. Daniel Myers, administrator of Simon Albert was made a party, and the cause was heard before Breese, Judge, and a jury, at August term, 1857. Verdict for plaintiff below for $108.57; motion for new trial denied ; judgment for plaintiff.

Plaintiffs below (defendants here,) filed their declaration in an action of “ trespass on the case,” containing three counts. 1st count demurred to, and demurrer sustained. 2nd count.

This was an action of “ trespass on the case on promises ” by defendants in error against plaintiff in error. Declaration contained three counts. Damages, $500. 1st count, is upon a special contract—charged and averred to have been made by plaintiffs, by Wm.

The plaintiff’s intestate, Nancy Dotson, filed her bill on the chancery side of the Jefferson Circuit Court, complaining of the defendants for overreaching her in a contract for her share of her sister Sarah Piggot’s estate, made with said Zadoc and Thomas, by a suppression of the facts, and also for other reasons stated at length in the bill.

<p>This was an action of trespass on the case on promises, tried by the Clay Circuit Court, without the intervention of a jury, founded upon the following written contract:</p> <p>Clay County, Ill., July 28th, 1857.</p> <p>I, John D. P. Hungate, have this day sold to R. M. Rankin and L. Fulkhouser one hundred and seventy-five head or more, of well-fatted hogs—one hundred and fifty of said hogs to weigh two hundred pounds and upwards, twenty-five to weigh one hundred and eighty pounds; said Rankin & Co. to receive said hogs between the 1st and 10th of December, on the farm of said Hungate, and pay $4.25 per hundred gross, $800 in gold, the balance in currency.</p> <p>JOHN D. P. HUNGATE.</p> <p>R. M. RANKIN.</p> <p>Receipt on the back:</p> <p>Received on the within contract, $200.</p> <p>JOHN D. P. HUNGATE.</p> <p>Also assigned, August 26th, 1857 :</p> <p>Received of T. A. Apperson, $200, for the within contract and above receipt.</p> <p>R. M. RANKIN.</p> <p>The testimony of defendant was in substance as follows:</p> <p>George Monical being called, testified, that he knew Rankin, one of the plaintiffs, and the defendant; that he heard Rankin say there was a plot laid to break the contract with the defendant, on the morning of the 10th of December, 1857; that it was arranged to go to defendant’s house late in the evening of that day, but not in time to weigh the hogs; thought they did not intend to take the hogs, but wanted to break the contract with defendant; that he knew the hogs of Hungate—he had 200 head on the ninth of December last; that he bought 180 head of hogs from Hungate a short time after Rankin was there; the hogs were well fatted; 140 weighed 200 pounds and upwards ; some twenty or thirty weighed 180.</p> <p>Dr. Bougher testified, that he heard Rankin say, a day or two ago, that it was understood when they went to defendant’s house, that they would not take his hogs, but wanted to break the contract.</p> <p>John Connelly testified, that he lived in the neighborhood of defendant; that he had 19 well-fatted hogs, which weighed between 200 and 300 ¡rounds; that he had sold them to defendant, to apply on his contract with plaintiff; that on the 9th and 10th days of December they were subject to the order of defendant. He had seen the hogs of Hungate; they were a good lot of well-fatted hogs.</p> <p>David Shields was then called, and testified, he lived within a mile of defendant; had 45 head of well-fatted hogs, which he had sold to Hungate to apply on his contract with Rankin; that the hogs were subject to the order of Hungate, when Rankin was there; that the hogs would weigh over 200 pounds; that Rankin came to his house when the sun was about one hour high, on the 10th of December, and told him that Hungate did not have the hogs weighed, and he would not take them.</p> <p>Margaret Monical testified, that she was at the house of Hun-gate on the 10th day of December last; that late in the evening Rankin and others came to the house of defendant, and asked him if he had the hogs weighed, and defendant said he had not, but that he would weigh them, if there was time, but he thought it was too late in the evening to get through; that the hogs were handy, and he wanted him (Rankin) to take them under the contract. Rankin refused to take the hogs because they were not weighed. Hungate proposed to commence weighing them, but Rankin said he had not time to get through before night.</p> <p>The plaintiff (Rankin) called Mr. True, who testified that he went with Apperson and Rankin to the house of Hungate, on the 10th day of December last; that he went on the request of Nichols, who was to get the hogs from Apperson; that he and Apperson went to the house of Rankin on the morning of the 10th of December, and that they and Rankin rode over to the house of Hungate in the afternoon; that they got to the house of defendant about the middle of the afternoon on the 10th of December, and Rankin demanded the hogs of defendant, and asked him if they were weighed, and Hungate said not, but that he could weigh them, and that the hogs were ready, but thought there was not time to weigh them that evening; but said he would commence and get through as soon as he could.</p> <p>Saw Rankin and Apperson together through the day of the 10th; thinks they were conversing about the contract with Hungate; that the understanding was not to take the hogs, if they could break the contract made with Hungate, who appeared anxious that they should take the hogs, and wanted to commence weighing them that evening.</p> <p>Whereupon the court proceeded to render judgment for the plaintiff for two hundred dollars. And the defendant, by his attorney, entered a motion for a new trial.</p> <p>The court overruled the motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment against the defendant for two hundred dollars. Defendant excepted.</p>

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

<p>ERROR TO JEFFERSON.</p> <p>In order to exempt a building erected for a school-house from taxation, under the revenue law of 1853, it should be held by the school directors, under such title as will give them the right to possess and control it at all times for the use of the district.</p>

This cause was brought into the Gallatin Circuit Court, at the June term, 1856, of said court, by Jackson Farrar, assignee of William F. Watson, on appeal from the County Court of Gallatin county, from a judgment rendered in said County Court against said Farrar, who was the plaintiff in that court, and Winder Bailey, administrator de bonis non of Sylvester Eveleth, who was the defendant. The judgment of said County Court was rendered at January term, 1856.

The above entitled cause was instituted by the appellees against the appellant, prior to the April term of the Alexander Circuit Court, A. D. 1856, and was tried before Parish, Judge of said court, without a jury, at the October term, 1856, of said court. The declaration was in assumpsit, upon the common money counts; among them a count for “ money had and received,” to which the defendant pleaded “ non-assumpsit,” and on which issue was joined.

These were actions of assumpsit brought by the Illinois River Railroad Company, at the January term of the Tazewell County Court, 1858, to recover sums of money of defendants as subscribers to the capital stock of said company.