Volume 22 — Illinois Reports

This was an action of debt upon two contracts, for building the road of the defendant below, plaintiff here; also for warrants drawn upon the treasurer of the company, in favor of plaintiff below. The declaration also contained the common counts.

Tms was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs below, administrator and administratrix of Ephraim 0. Stowell, deceased, for the recovery of the amount of two promissory notes alleged to have been given by the defendant below to the said Ephraim C. Stowell, in his lifetime, one of $166.66, bearing date January 21st, 1854, and the other of no date, of $83.33. The declaration consists of two special counts.

This was a suit in chancery, brought to foreclose a mortgage, executed in favor of Duncan, by William Whaley, in his lifetime, to which his wife, now Sarah Ann Prieto, one of the plaintiffs in error, was a party. A default was entered against Mrs. Prieto, and a decree taken. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of assumpsit. There was a plea of the general issue filed. The affidavit of merits to the plea, states that defendant had a good defense on the merits, except as to $458 of plaintiff’s demand. The court, with this plea on file, entered a default, and gave judgment for plaintiff.

The following shows the state of the record in the case of Hurd et al. v. Burr et al.: This was an action of assumpsit in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, by the defendants in error, against the plaintiffs in error. Summons issued on the 20th day of June, 1855, returnable on the 1st Monday of July, then next, and was served on the 21st day of June, 1855, on Hurd, Periam and Ruckel, and returned “ not found,” as to Beebe.

<p>On the 28th of May, 1858, suit was commenced and summons issued, returnable to the next June term, which was duly served and returned.</p> <p>On the same day, plaintiffs below filed their declaration in the cause containing special counts on two notes, one dated November 23, 1857, due in sixty days, made by Whiting & Co., and payable to the order of Fuller & Myers, for $461.20, and the other for $64.05, made by Whiting <fe Go., dated April 1st, 1858, due at date, and payable to Fuller & Myers, or order, and containing also the common counts.</p> <p>On the 7th day of June, 1858, which was the first day of the June term of said court, the defendants filed in said cause their plea of the general issue, with notice of set-off.</p> <p>And on the same day, together with the plea, Whiting filed his affidavit as follows:</p> <p>“ William P. 0. Whiting, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is one of the defendants in the above entitled cause, that he knows for what said suit is brought, that he believes he has a good defense to said suit upon the merits thereof, and further this deponent saith not. W. P. C. Whiting.”</p> <p>On the 10th day of the same June term, on motion of the plaintiffs, an order was entered by the court that the plea of the defendants filed in the cause be stricken from the files for the want of a sufficient affidavit of merits, and that default be entered for want of plea, which was accordingly done.</p> <p>And thereupon judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for their damages, $516.87, and costs; from which judgment they prosecute this writ of error, and now here assign for error this ruling of the court.</p>

This was a proceeding in chancery, by bill, asking an injunction against the treasurer to restrain him from levying, selling or distraining the property of the railroad company, for the taxes levied in Bureau county. The record in this case shows that the said railroad company duly filed a list and valuation of all their taxable property in Bureau county as required by law.

This was an action of debt brought in the La Salle County Circuit Court, by Ira McFarland, executor, etc., of James McFarland, deceased, against Bussell L. Winston (Appellant,) and tried at the Nov. term of said court, 1858, before Hollister, Judge, and a jury, and a verdict had for the plaintiff for $1,184.06 debt, and $536.12 damages, and judgment entered thereon.

<p>ERROR TO TAZEWELL.</p> <p>The Supreme Court has not jurisdiction of a case, on error, while it is pending in the court below.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit brought on a promissory note made by defendants. The declaration contained special and common counts. The defendant filed two pleas. The first was the general issue.

Peters sued Waggeman in assumpsit on open account of $1,320.16, for a steam engine and fixtures, to the September term, 1858; of said County Court. The declaration contains the common counts only, for goods sold and delivered. Pléa—general issue with notice of payment, set-off, and also a claim for damages for breach of contract by plaintiff, with copy of specifications amounting to $1,498.50. Issue was joined. At November term, 1858, there was a verdict for plaintiff.

<p>At February term, 1858, of the Lake Circuit Court, Manierre, Judge, presiding, a final decree was entered in this case, dismissing plaintiff’s’ bill with costs.</p> <p>The pleadings and facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action of replevin commenced in the Knox Circuit Court to recover two horses, one double wagon, and one double harness, claimed by the plaintiff, and was tried in that court before a jury at the April term, A. D. 1858. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial by the defendant overruled. Declaration that defendant unlawfully took two horses, one wagon, and one harness, and unjustly detained the samé.

This is a suit for a mechanics’ lien. The petition was filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, November 6,1857, and sets forth that the petitioners entered into a written agreement with the defendant, bearing date the 25th day of April, A. I). 1856, whereby they agreed to build, finish and complete in a careful, skillful and workmanlike manner, to the full and complete satisfaction of W. W. Boyington, or his assistant superintendent, the mason work of a marble front dwelling…

This was an action of replevin in the detinet. Issues—non detinet; property not plaintiff’s; property defendant’s, not plaintiff’s. Verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial overruled.

This suit was brought by appellee against appellant for work and labor. Appellee proved that he had worked for the appellant from the 5th March, 1856, until the 25th August, 1856, as a common farm laborer, and that his services were worth from $17 to $18 per month.

The complainants filed their bill in the Will County Circuit Court, alleging that the complainants were the owners of taxable property, in the school district, in the town of Plainfield, in the county of Will aforesaid, known as number seven, and hereafter more particularly described, all of whom, except one, reside in and are taxable inhabitants of the said town of Plain-field.

This was an action of replevin, brought by Kroger against' Cranz, in the court below. The declaration alleges the unlawful detention by defendant of certain articles of personal property, to wit: One piano, one .piano stool, six chairs, one card table, and one sofa; and a demand made by plaintiff for the same, and a refusal of defendant to deliver, etc. Pleas: 1, non detinet; 2, property in defendant; 3, property in Amelia Alexander. Issues to the country.

The bill, in this case, seeks to set aside a sale of a quarter section of land and a town lot, made on the 2nd day of November, 1850, by the deputy sheriff of Peoria county, by virtue of an execution in favor of defendants in error against Ballance, plaintiff in error.

This was a proceeding by scire facias to recover judgment against bail, impleaded with the principal, in Recorder’s Court of Chicago. On February 7, A. D. 1855, the grand jury of said court returned a bill of indictment against George Van Blaricum for the crime of larceny. Van Blaricum was tried, found guilty, and sentenced for the larceny aforesaid.

<p>APPEAL EROM COOK COUNTY COURT OE COMMON PLEAS.</p> <p>A declaration upon an appeal bond is sufficient, which avers that the appeal was not prosecuted, and that the judgment appealed from was not paid, and that the judgment was affirmed. It need not be averred that the order dismissing the appeal was filed in the court from which it was taken.</p> <p>The dismissal of an appeal is equivalent to an-affirmance of the judgment.</p> <p>An averment that the judgment appealed from was final, or that the judge of the court from whence the appeal was taken approved the bond, is unnecessary.</p>

This was a judgment by confession, upon a cognovit in vacation, December 22nd, 1858, on note for $173.69, dated November 11th, 1858, due at forty days, with exchange on New York, and ten per cent, interest. Upon this judgment, execution was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff. A motion was filed March 29,1859, to stay proceedings, set aside levy, etc., for the following reasons, to wit: 1. There is no legal judgment to warrant the execution. 2.

This was an action of debt, commenced by appellee against appellant, in the Circuit Court of Bureau county, to the January term, 1858. Appellee filed his declaration in the case, containing three special counts, and the common counts. The special counts are on a sealed note, alleged to have been given by the appellant to Mary Loughrey, the intestate, on the 16th of February, 1852, for $184.18, with interest at ten per cent, from date.

The note was endorsed to plaintiff. Garfield denied the execution of the note, by plea in writing, under oath, and also insisted that a former suit tried before that time, between same parties, was a bar to this suit. The justice decided in favor of Garfield, and Douglass appealed to the Circuit Court.

G-elston filed his declaration in Peoria County Court against Lucius L, Day, Larkin B. Day and James T. Robinson. The declaration has one count, on a note dated November 25, 1856, for $1,281.90 at twelve months. Appellant filed three pleas. 1. General issue. 2. Payment. 3.

<p>This suit was commenced in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, and by change of venue removed to Peoria county.</p> <p>On the 11th December, 1856, the plaintiff filed a petition in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, for a common law writ of certiorari against the defendant, for the purpose of reviewing the decision and judgment of N. Duncan, a justice of the peace of said county, rendered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff, on the 12th November, 1853, for ¡$71.20 and costs.</p> <p>The petition states, in substance, that the “ Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company,” were duly organized under an act of 27th February, 1847, and an act of February 7th, 1851. That they, during the year 1853, were constructing and operating their said road by contractors.</p> <p>That Whipple sued plaintiffs below before N. Duncan, a justice of the peace of La Salle county, in November, 1853. Upon the summons the constable returned, that he had served the same by leaving a copy with George H. Buck, an agent of said company, the president of said company not residing in his county, on the 7th November, 1853.</p> <p>That the plaintiff’s claim was for cattle killed upon the road before that time; that such action (trespass) would not lie against defendants in said suit, because they were not running, controling or managing the road, ■ but the same was run, controled and managed by Farnham and Sheffield, contractors to build the same, for their own use and profit. That the justice had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, or person of the defendant; that the said petitioners, nor any one for them, appeared before the justice upon the day of trial, or any other time to answer to said suit; that Buck, on whom the process was served, was never their agent, and that there never was any service of process on petitioners, and they knew nothing of the suit until more than six months had elapsed after judgment was rendered against them, and not until they were again sued upon the same judgment about the middle of September, 1854. Petition further states that the judgment of the justice is unjust and erroneous, and prays for a writ of certiorari to bring up the record to review the proceedings, etc.</p> <p>The petition is verified by affidavit.</p> <p>Writ of certiorari was issued 27th December, 1856.</p> <p>At the December term, A. D. 1857, the defendant moved to quash the writ of certiorari and dismiss this suit for the following reasons:</p> <p>1. No common law writ of certiorari lies in such case.</p> <p>2. The facts appearing on the face of the petition in said cause do not authorize the issuing of any such writ.</p> <p>3. The transcript and papers on file show that the justice decided correctly in said cause.</p> <p>4. By return of said justice it does not appear that said justice has committed any error in law.</p> <p>5. The justice had jurisdiction, and did not proceed illegally, so that no such writ lies.</p> <p>Upon the hearing of this motion, the defendant's counsel offered to prove that the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company was not in existence at the time of the rendition of said judgment in the court below, and that the said judgment and all costs had been fully paid, since the rendition of said judgment, and also that another suit had been brought on said judgment below, and a new judgment rendered upon the said judgment before A. Putnam, a justice of the peace of La Salle county, on the 30th September, 1854, for the amount of the said judgment and costs, by which subsequent judgment the defendant insisted the said original judgment had been fully satisfied, and merged in said subsequent judgment.</p> <p>The court rejected the evidence offered, dismissed the writ of certiorari, and plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>The errors assigned are, that:</p> <p>1. The court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari.</p> <p>2. The court erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. The court erred in not reversing the judgment of the justice of the peace, and in not rendering judgment for the appellant.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit commenced in Rock Island Circuit Court by said Bidders against said Riley as such administrator, on a promissory note for $750, given by said Hume to Bidders. Declaration contains three counts: first two, charge defendant as administrator, and third, a promise to pay on his part. The defendant filed several pleas, upon which issues were made up.

This was an action of trespass on the case commenced on 4th March, 1857, by the appellee against the appellant in the Circuit Court of Warren county. The case was tried by a jury before Thompson, Judge. Judgment was rendered for the appellee for the sum of $84.50 and costs. The appellant brings the case to this court by appeal.

This was an action of replevin for two iron safes. The declaration contains one count in the detinet. The pleas filed were— 1st. Non-detinet. 2nd. Not the property of the plaintiff. 3rd. Property of John M. Farnum. Issues were tried by the court, J. M. Wilson, Judge, presiding, who found for the defendant.

This was an action of ejectment to recover the seizin and possession of north-east quarter of section nine, and the east half of the north-west quarter of section nine, township thirteen north, range two west, fourth principal meridian. Plea: Not guilty. The plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, introduced and read in evidence a duly authenticated copy of patent from United States, granting to William Edwards the land in question, dated 6th day of July, A. D. 1818.

This was an appeal from County Court of Will County to the Circuit Court, showing appeal to be from a judgment rendered on a special assessment of taxes on real estate of appellant by the city of Joliet, for improvement on Jefferson street.

This case, with the exception of the names of the parties, is precisely like that preceding it; and therefore it is not necessary to give anything more than the following opinion of the court:

This was an action of assumpsit counting upon the following promissory note: $1,680. Rock Island, March 5th, 1856. On or before the tenth day of October, A. D. 1857, 1 promise to pay Miles YY. Conway, or order, at the Rock Island Bank, in the City of Rock Island, the sum of one thousand six hundred, and eighty dollars, with interest, for value received. Signed, COYELL CASE. The declaration contained the common counts. The defendant pleaded as follows: 1. The general issue. 2.

This case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. The cause was heard before J. M. Wilson, Judge, and a jury, and there was a finding and judgment for $500.00. The defendant below appealed.

The property in question was levied upon by virtue of an execution upon a judgment before a justice of the peace, in favor of John Dexter against John Smallridge, dated 5th December, 1857, on judgment recovered by said Dexter against Smallridge, on 5th December, 1857, for $110 and costs, and'the property levied upon as the property of Smallridge by a constable, on the 15th day of December, 1857.

This was a petition for a mandamus which recites, That on the 12th of February, A. D. 1849, the General Assembly passed an act incorporating the Peoria and Oquawka Railroad Company, with power to construct a railroad from Peoria to Oquawka, and to Burlington, in Iowa. By amendatory acts, passed February 10th, 1851, and 22nd June, 1852, said company was further authorized to extend said road from Peoria eastward, through Tazewell county, to the Indiana State line.

This was a bill in chancery to correct an indorsement of levy, and certificate of purchase given by a sheriff.

This was a trial and conviction in the Bureau Circuit Court, upon an indictment which charges that the defendant, with force and arms, in and upon one Elizabeth Farnum, then and there, violently and forcibly, did make an assault, and her, the said Elizabeth Farnum, then and there, forcibly and against her will, feloniously did ravish and carnally did know. The opinion states the objections to the trial, upon which the reversal is grounded.

The pleadings and facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The decree of the Circuit Court was rendered by I. GL Wilson, Judge, at May term, 1858, of the Kane Circuit Court.

This was an appeal from the board of supervisors of Knox county, upon the refusal of that board to allow the clerk of the Circuit Court for the printing of blanks for the use of his office, and was tried in the Circuit Court of Knox county before a jury, at the October term, A. D. 1857. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial by defendant, overruled.

This was an action in covenant commenced by the defendant in error, against Elliot Anthony, plaintiff in error, and one Julius 0. Smith, to recover payment of an installment due upon certain articles of agreement, made between said Ward, of the first part, and Smith and Anthony of the second part. July 15, 1858. Defendants filed plea of non est factum, in the usual form.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Rock Island Circuit Court, by appellant against appellee, at the September term, 1858, of said court. Plaintiff’s declaration contained a special count, for lumber sold and delivered to the defendant, and the common counts for goods sold and delivered, etc. Defendant pleaded the general issue, and filed notice that on trial he would prove an offset of $500. Issue joined.

This was an appeal from the verdict of a jury, on a trial of the right of certain property, levied upon by the sheriff of Bureau county, on several attachments, in favor of the appellees, against Abner M. Moore, and which property was claimed by appellant. The verdict of the jury empanneled by the sheriff, was in favor of the claimant, (the appellant,) and the appellees appealed to the Circuit Court of Bureau county.

Sarah E. Bergen, the defendant in error, filed her bill of chancery, for a divorce, against John Bergen, the plaintiff in error, on the 28th day of February, 1855, in the Will Circuit Court, and obtained a summons, returnable to the following March term of said court, which summons was served and returned in time for a hearing at said March term, 1855.

This was an action of covenant upon a lease containing, among other things, a covenant on the part of the defendant to yield up the demised premises to the plaintiff, at the expiration of the term of the lease. The plaintiff, in his declaration, assigns a breach of this covenant, upon which the defendant takes issue.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought in the County Court of Peoria county, by Freeman, against Holloway & Bogges. The summons was issued June 17,1858, and was directed to the sheriff of Warren county, by whom it was served on the 23rd June, 1858, returnable on the first Monday in July. The declaration is in the usual form, and contains a copy of the note, which is as follows: “8401. Peoria, April 24th, 1857.

<p>ERROR TO COOK.</p> <p>The Circuit Court may set aside a judgment by confession, on motion, during the term at which it was rendered. This exercise of discretion is not matter for review in the Supreme Court.</p> <p>If the conscience of the court in reference to the exercise of this discretion, is aided by the trial of a feigned issue, and the finding is in favor of vacating the judgment, the case then stands for pleading and trial.</p> <p>This practice not approved of. Error will not lie to correct the finding under thefeigned issue, the judgment thereon not being final.</p>

This action was brought on a replevin bond where the action . of replevin was not tried on the merits, but was dismissed for want of prosecution. The declaration was on a replevin bond for the replevy, by Bishop, of 8,918 feet first clear lumber, 207,197 second clear lumber, 220,540 common, 55,174 culls. Declaration contains two counts, neither of which allege the issuing of a retorno habendo.

This was a suit against an indorser of a promissory note after return of nulla bona to fi. fa. against the principal.

This action, case, was brought to the Cook Circuit Court, and was tried at the November term, A. D. 1858, before the court and a jury, Manieres, Judge, presiding.

<p>appeal from ogle.</p> <p>The Circuit Court has jurisdiction on appeal from a justice of the peace, where the justice had jurisdiction, however defective the service of summons by the constable may have been. And by taking an appeal, the appellant gives jurisdiction, even in cases where there was not any service.</p> <p>Evidence must be heard, before it can be determined that a justice of the peace had not jurisdiction.</p> <p>A party may succeed in any form of action, if the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of the subject matter.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration counted upon a promissory note, and also embraced several common counts. To this declaration the defendants filed a demurrer, which was overruled by the court, Drury, Judge, presiding. The defendants stood by their demurrer. A judgment was rendered against the defendants below for the sum of $3,064.44. The causes assigned for supporting the demurrer were principally mistakes in grammar.

This suit was commenced in the court below by John L. Griswold and Matthew Griswold, plaintiffs, against Samuel P. McLean and Eliza J. McLean, and summons returned served upon both. The Griswolds filed their declaration against both defendants in assumpsit. The first count avers that Samuel P. McLean and Eliza J. McLean executed their promissory note for $615.81, to John King, and John King indorsed and assigned the same to plaintiffs below.

This was a proceeding by the appellant, to obtain the right of way across the land of the appellee. At the instance of the railroad company, three commissioners had been appointed, who assessed the damages to Unsicker at one dollar. From this assessment he appealed to the Circuit Court. There was a hearing in the Circuit Court before Harriott, Judge, and a jury.

This was a case like the preceding one of Unsicker against the same company, and the proof shows much the same state of facts. The jury assessed damages at one thousand dollars.

The plaintiffs filed a declaration in assumpsit, containing one special count and the common counts. The first count sets out the execution of a note by the defendant, dated September 19,1857, for $478, payable in thirty days to R. W. Jorden, at the Bank of N. B. Curtiss & Co., and an assignment to the plaintiffs below, and a presentation of the note on the twenty-second of October, 1857, at the said bank, and the same was not paid.

February 16th, 1858, a justice of the peace issued a capias ad respondendum against Henry Nash and Henry B. Roberts, which was returned same day, indorsed: “ I, Ashbil Hurlburt, acknowledge myself special bail for the appearance of the within named Henry B. Roberts. ASHBIL HURLBURT.” “I have arrested the above Henry B. Roberts, and taken special bail as above. G. W. CAMPBELL, Constable.” On the return day Roberts appeared, waived process, and confessed judgment for $289.64.

<p>This was an action in assumpsit, commenced in the County Court of Peoria county, at the February term, A. D. 1858. The action was upon three promissory notes.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded the general issue and the following special pleas, which are sustained by the opinion:</p> <p>2. And for a further plea in this behalf the defendant says actio non, because he says that the cause and causes of action in said declaration mentioned are one and the same, and that the only cause and causes of action is and are the said several promissory notes, and not other or different, and that there was no consideration for the said notes, nor either of them, in this: Before the time of making said several promissory notes by defendant, he, the defendant, purchased from Caleb Whittemore and Sandford Moon, doing business under the firm name and style of Caleb Whittemore <fe Co., in the city of Peoria, in said county and State, a certain printing establishment known as the Peoria Daily and Weekly Transcript office, and paid therefor a valuable consideration; and at the time of such purchase, defendant further agreed with said Whittemore & Co. that he would assume and pay off the debts then justly due from said Whittemore & Co. on account of said printing establishment, to various persons then owing.</p> <p>That said defendant, at the time of making the said purchase, knew nothing in regard to the amount of indebtedness owing by Whittemore & Co., nor the persons to whom such indebtedness was due, and was forced to rely upon the information that he could obtain from the said Whittemore <fc Co., relative to such indebtedness. That one James K. Murphy had been for a long time, and was at the time of said sale and purchase, the book-keeper of said Whittemore & Co. That defendant was referred to said Murphy, as such book-keeper, for information relative to the indebtedness of said firm of Whittemore & Co. That said James K. Murphy, to whom defendant was referred as aforesaid, then and there stated and. represented to defendant that said Whittemore & Co. were indebted to him, said Murphy, as book-keeper aforesaid, for services rendered as such book-keeper, in the amount of the said several promissory notes in said declaration described and sued on in this action, which statement and representation defendant then believed to be true, and relied upon the same, and thereupon did execute the said several promissory notes to secure the said supposed indebtedness, in the following manner: That is, said Murphy stated to defendant that he was and had been for a long time indebted to various persons, in large amounts of money, then residing East, and that said Murphy wanted to take the notes as aforesaid, and make the same payable to one Gilman Merrill, and then have the-same indorsed and assigned by said Gilman Merrill to the plaintiff, who was and is the brother-in-law of said Murphy, all of which he, Murphy, desired to be done for the expressed purpose of delaying, hindering and avoiding his, said Murphy’s, creditors.</p> <p>That defendant did then and there execute said several notes, and make the same payable to said Gilman Merrill, at the request of said Murphy, and then and there delivered said notes to said Murphy. That said Murphy then and there obtained the indorsement and assignment of said Gilman Merrill on the back of said notes, but never delivered said notes to the plaintiff, but caused this suit to be brought in the name of said plaintiff merely to carry out his said fraudulent purposes against his, said Murphy’s, creditors—and further to compel defendant to pay said notes on the ground that the same were in the hands of a bona fide holder before maturity.</p> <p>Defendant states and avers that the statements and representations of said Murphy in regard to the indebtedness, to pay which said several notes were given, were wholly false and untrue, and that in truth and in fact, said Whittemore & Co. did not at the time of making said several notes, owe him, said Murphy, one cent. That said false statements were so made to defendant for the purpose of obtaining said notes as aforesaid, and that defendant did wholly and entirely rely upon said statements being true, and executed said several notes as aforesaid upon the sole faith that said statements were true, and said supposed indebtedness then honestly and bona fide existed.</p> <p>Defendant further avers, that there never was any consideration of any description passed between this defendant and said Gilman Merrill, nor between said Murphy and Gilman Merrill, nor between the plaintiff and Gilman Merrill, relative to the transaction of giving, indorsing and assigning said several notes, nor either of them.</p> <p>That said plaintiff had not, at the time of commencing this suit, and has no beneficial interest in said notes, nor either of them, nor had he ever any such interest, but on the contrary was and is and ever has been, a mere nominal plaintiff and holder of said several notes, to aid- said Murphy in his, said Murphy’s, fraudulent purposes, aforesaid; that said notes are, and ever have been, the sole and exclusive property of said Murphy, and that said several notes, and each of them, were assigned to plaintiff as aforesaid, long. after they and each of them became due and payable, and were taken by the plaintiff with full notice and knowledge of all the matters aforesaid, wherefore the defendant says that there never was any consideration for said notes, nor either of them; and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment, etc.</p> <p>And the said defendant comes, and by leave of the court for that purpose first had and obtained, files herein his additional plea, and says actio non, because he says that the said several notes are the sole and only cause and causes of action in this cause, and that the several notes and each of them, were given by defendant to the said Gilman Merrill, under the following circumstances: setting forth the same state of facts in reference to the purchase, as the foregoing plea, and the giving and transferring of the notes.</p> <p>That at the time of said purchase by defendant, there was also included in the same, all the book accounts, notes, bills, bonds, choses in action and effects of every description belonging to said Whittmeore & Co., made, accrued or contracted on account of said printing establishment, and then owing from various persons to said Whittemore & Co., and held by said Whittemore & Co., the amount of which and the persons so owing, defendant never knew with any certainty, and cannot state.</p> <p>That it was further agreed by and between said Murphy and defendant, after the execution of said notes, that said Murphy should, as the book-keeper of this defendant, collect from the various persons then owing defendant, and owing the said firm of Whittemore & Co., such sums as were due, and that he, Murphy, should apply a certain amount so to be collected, (not to exceed the amount of said notes,) as a payment on said notes, all of which was agreed to between the parties to said notes.</p> <p>Defendant avers that long prior to the commencement of this suit, the said Murphy did, as such book-keeper, under the arrangement aforesaid, collect of various persons, the sum of twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars, money at the time owing from various persons to the said firm of Whittemore & Co. and this defendant, on account of said printing establishment, which sum should in right have been applied as a payment on said notes, under the agreement aforesaid, but that said Murphy neglected and refused to indorse and credit the said amount so collected, on said notes.</p> <p>Defendant further avers that the amount so collected was and is a full payment of said notes, and that the said plaintiff in this suit has no beneficial interest whatever in this suit; that said notes were transferred to said plaintiff at the request of said Murphy, for the purpose of collection and nothing else.</p> <p>That said notes and each of them were so transferred to said plaintiff, long after the same became due and payable, and were taken by the plaintiff with a full knowledge of all the matters aforesaid.</p> <p>He further avers that there never was any consideration of any description passed or moved between the said defendant and said Gilman Merrill, nor between .the said Gilman Merrill and said Murphy, nor between said Gilman Merrill and the plaintiff, nor between the said defendant and plaintiff, in any manner, concerning the making or indorsing of said notes, nor either of them.</p> <p>He further avers that said Murphy ever has been and is now the sole and only beneficial holder and owner of said notes, and the proceeds thereof, and that the same were given to said Gilman Merrill, and by said Gilman Merrill transferred to the plaintiff, and by the plaintiff sued in this action for the sole use and benefit of the said James K. Murphy, and for no other person, wherefore he says that said notes are fully paid; and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment, etc.</p> <p>To these pleas there was a demurrer, which was sustained.</p> <p>The court rendered judgment against defendant for the sum of §2,258, to which the defendant excepted.</p> <p>The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied.</p>

This was a proceeding by scire facias to recover judgment against bail, in a criminal case in the Recorder’s Court of the city of Chicago. On April 19, A. D. 1855, the grand jury presented an indictment against the said John T. Gould, for the crime of larceny. April 24,1855, the said John T. Gould procured said cause to be continued until the next ensuing term of the said court.

This was a petition by H. B. Hurd, one of the trustees of Town 41 N., R. 14 E. of 3rd P. M. The petition states that W. L. Greenleaf is school commissioner of Cook county, and has moneys in his hands as such, etc. That George H. Reynolds and others are trustees of T. 41N., R. 14 E., etc. That by the laws of this State, of 16th February, 1857, it was provided that each congressional township, is established a township for school purposes.

This was an. action of assumpsit on an assigned note, brought by appellee against appellant. The declaration has one special count declaring on a note, given by Stevenson to one T. Sweet, for $700, with twelve per cent, interest, dated 16th July, 1841, and by Sweet indorsed to Sherwood. There was a plea of the general issue, and a special plea of payment of the note to Sweet, while he was holder and owner of it. To the special plea, there was not any replication.

This petition by Jehial H. Montgomery, of the county of Kane, in the State of Illinois, represents, that Lyman E. Montgomery, on the 23rd day of September, A. D. 1858, in vacation after the June term of the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora, A. D. 1858, by confession before Hon. A. C. Gibson, judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora, recovered a judgment against Robert Jones and Peter Jones, for the sum of three hundred and forty-one dollars and…

This action was assumpsit, commenced in the Cook Circuit Court by attachment. The declaration contains two counts upon a special executory contract for the sale of goods, and the common counts.

This was an appeal from a justice, commenced November. 3rd, 1858. Justice’s transcript shows that suit was brought on book account for $100. Verdict in Circuit Court, $70, for plaintiff; motion for new trial overruled, and judgment upon the verdict. The suit was brought to recover for work and labor, wood, rails, posts, hay, and damages for the breach of a contract for letting forty acres of land by defendant to plaintiff.

This was an action of assumpsit by an administratrix against an executor. The plea was the general issue. There was a trial and judgment for Merkle as administratrix, against Granjang as executor. The judgment was for $236.25 and costs, with an award of execution against Granjang, as executor.

This was a petition for a mechanics’ lien, filed in the Peoria Circuit Court, alleging a verbal contract made on 5th December, 1854, to furnish materials and erect a building in the town of Peoria. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict found for the defendants, in the court below. The petitioner in the court below sued out, this writ of error.

This is an action of ejectment by the appellants- against the appellee, for the east or upper half of lot No. 5, between Main and Diagonal streets, commenced in the Jo Daviess Circuit Court, on March 9th, 1854. The second trial resulted in a judgment for the defendant. From this judgment the plaintiffs below appeal to this court. The bill of exceptions contains an agreed statement of facts, as follows: 1.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by said McClure against said Morton, in said County Court, at March term, 1858.

This was a proceeding to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The appellant appeared and moved for security for costs, on the following affidavit: “ James Hamilton personally appears, and being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the defendant in the above entitled suit; that he is well acquainted with, and has, for some months last past, well known the said Patrick Dunn, the plaintiff in said suit, both personally and by reputation.

This was an action of ejectment by appellee against appellant, for the recovery of Lot 5, Block 14, in Freeport, Stephenson county, Illinois. The cause originated in Stephenson county, but went to Jo Daviess county, by change of venue. The action was commenced on the 12th September, 1856. The cause was tried on the 11th March, 1858, and a verdict had in behalf of the appellee.

This was art action on the case brought by Dill, against the appellant, in the Kane Circuit Court, but by change of venue the cause was tried in the Cook Circuit Court.

These two cases came before the court, upon the same state of pleadings.

This was a suit against defendant as common carrier of passengers and baggage, the suit being for baggage of plaintiff, lost by defendant. Plea, general issue ; joinder, and jury waived, and trial had by court.

Summons in debt, $50,000; damages, $1,000. The declaration in first count, avers that defendant owes $50,000, etc., and alleges that defendants executed their writing obligatory, binding themselves to pay the City of Chicago the sum of $50,000, conditioned that, whereas, defendant Russell was, on the 6th day of March, 1855, elected city collector of said city for one year, and until his successor should be duly elected and qualified, if said Russell should faithfully execute…

This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the price of one thousand bushels of wheat, brought by appellee against appellants in the Rock Island Circuit Court, and taken to Mercer by a change of venue. The declaration alleges that the defendants were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $900, the price of eight hundred bushels of wheat sold, etc.; declaration also contained the common counts. Plea, general issue.

This was an action of debt, commenced by Bayless against Denman in the McLean Circuit Court, on an award. The declaration contains a special count on the award, and the common counts.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Stephen Merritt, James P. King, Samuel Rickey, John Dunlap, Jr., William S. Honeywell, William Murray, John Batts, M. Shackleford, and H. Beaumont, complainants, in the Marshall Circuit Court, at the January term, A. D. 1859, to enjoin the collection of a school tax levied by the directors of school district No. 10, in Township 13 N., Range 9 Bast, in that county.

This suit was brought in the Peoria County Court, for the June term, 1858. The plaintiff below filed a declaration upon a promissory note, containing two special counts and also the common counts. The defendant below demurred to the declaration, which was sustained as to the first special count, and overruled as to the others. Plaintiff below then filed an amended declaration. To this amended declaration the plea stated in the opinion was filed.

This indictment in the Recorder’s Court of Chicago, contains but one count for conspiracy, the substance of which is: “ That defendants, on the 3rd day of May, 1858, at Chicago, wickedly and unjustly devising and intending one Joshua B. Casey to defraud and cheat of his goods and property, did then and there falsely and fraudulently conspire, combine, confederate and agree together among themselves, to get and obtain knowingly and designedly, by false pretenses, of the said…

This was an action of assumpsit. Declaration contained common counts. Plea,' general issue. Cause tried before Powell, Judge, without jury, and judgment for appellees, of $291.83.

Robert J. Cunningham, John McIntosh, and Henry Wilson, administrators of Richard L. Wilson, deceased, filed their bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of Will county, against the Kankakee Bridge Company, Lucius B. Boomer, A. B. Stone and George A. Gray, John S. Smiley, Samuel Carr, John Leich, the collectors of the towns of Wilmington, Essex, Reed and Norton, Charles H. Weeks and David Perry, county treasurers of the counties of Will and Kankakee, setting forth that on or…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Roney against Rupert and Haines, at the Tazewell Circuit Court, to recover a sum of money for an amount of the bills of the “ Rhode Island Central Bank,” which Rupert and Haines as bankers had paid out in the course of their business, to Roney, and afterwards, when the bills of said bank had ceased to be current, refused to receive back on deposit. The declaration contains the common counts. Plea, general issue.

The.declaration contains, first, a count on promissory note, for $720, made by defendants payable to the order of plaintiff, and by him ordered to be paid to himself. Note dated 5th February, 1857: One year after date at ten per cent, after due. Also the common counts. Pleas filed: 1st. General issue by both defendants to whole declaration. 2nd. As to $220 of said promissory note.

This action was assumpsit, brought to the Cook County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff, Daniel Moor, declared upon a bill of exchange, bearing date at Chicago, July 9,1857, drawn by Thomas W. Egan, upon the defendant, Michael Diversy, for two thousand dollars, at ninety days, payable to the order of the drawer. The declaration also contained the common money counts.

On the 12th December, 1854, the appellants presented to the Circuit Court of LaSalle county their petition for a writ of certiorari, for the purpose of reviewing the records and proceedings in a certain suit in which Mary Fell was plaintiff and appellant was defendant, which suit was commenced before a justice of the peace of LaSalle county on the 2lst August, 1854, and judgment rendered against the defendant on the 28th August, 1854, for 164.16 debt, and $1.37¿- costs.

This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace in LaSalle county, on the 19th day of September, A. D. 1854. The , summons was served by leaving a copy with George H. Buck, and designating him as agent of the defendant. The parties appeared. The plaintiff claimed to recover the amount of a judgment, which had previously been rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, by N. Duncan, a justice of the peace of said county, on the 12th November, 1853.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Mills et al. against A. B. Sears and the plaintiff in error, (H. G. Howlett,) as partners under the firm of A. B. Sears & Co. The declaration was filed September, 1857, counting on three promissory notes described therein, and an account for merchandise. Howlett, one of the defendants below, (plaintiff in error here,) filed a plea that the “ said defendants did not promise,” etc., as alleged; concluding to the country.

The complainant, Harrow, filed his bill in chancery, setting forth: That on or about the 23rd of February, 1854, he purchased of Samuel M. Hart, of Cincinnati, out lot, or block, number 13, in Canal Trustees’ subdivision of section 7, township 39, R. 14 E., containing 10 acres, more or less, for $12,000, one-fourth cash, balance in three notes of $3,000 each, bearing .six per cent, interest, payable in one, two and three years, respectively, and secured by mortgage on the…

This action was an action of assumpsit, brought in Cook Cpunty Court of Common Pleas, at the November term, A. D. 1858, and was tried before the court and a jury, J. M. Wilson, Judge, presiding. The plaintiffs below declared in indebitatus assumpsit, on common count, for work and labor, and materials furnished.

This is an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee against the appellant, impleaded, etc. Suit commenced by summons; service on George C. Smith, appellant only, others not found. The declaration contains three special counts and the common counts. The first count is on a note as follows : Chicago, III., Sept. 30,1857. Received of N. L. Williams, sixty dollars, cash, which we promise to pay on demand, with interest, at the rate of 3§- per cent, per month. $60.

The declaration was in assumpsit by Thomas C. Moore second indorsee, against David Chalmers, indorser; first count averring due diligence by suit, etc.; second count, insolvency when notes fell due, etc.; and the common counts. There was a trial by jury ; motion for a new trial; judgment for $213.69 and costs. Execution to Knox county, dated July 17th, 1858. Received by sheriff, July 20th, 1858. Returned, no property found. Return not dated. Writ not marked filed.

This was a petition for a re-hearing of the case reported in 20th Illinois R., page 549. The petition states, that the court in .the former decision, did not refer to the interest of Mary G-. Garrett, one of the plaintiffs in error, and wife of Augustus 0. Garrett, in said premises.

The complainant, Erastus Tefft, filed his bill in which it is set forth: That on the 10th day of December, 1847, Joseph Tefft and Benjamin W. Raymond, (who were seized in fee simple of about forty acres of land, situate at Clinton, in Kane county, on the west bank of Fox river, extending several rods above and below the dam, and also of the west half of the dam and.water power thereby created),, entered into an agreement with one G-.

This was an action of replevin for twenty gold watches and twelve silver watches, valued at $2,500. Writ issued December 12, 1857, and served December 15, 1857, and property delivered plaintiffs. Declaration filed, claiming above property.

The facts upon which the decree in the court below is reversed, are stated in the opinion of the court. The bill in the Circuit Court was dismissed by Powell, Judge, on bill, answer, exhibits and testimony, at April term, 1857, of the Stark Circuit Court.

In 1856, Samuel Hadlock commenced this suit in the Circuit Court of Woodford county, for certain tracts of land, described in the declaration. On the application of appellant, the venue in the cause was changed to Tazewell county, where, at the April term, 1858, the same was tried by jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of appellee; from which defendant appealed to this court.

This was an action of assumpsit. The praecipe was filed on the 26th May, 1858, praying a summons in damages $600. On the same day a summons was issued, “ to the damage of the said plaintiff, as he says, one hundred dollars.” The declaration was filed on the 26th May, containing a special count on a promissory note for $400, and also the common counts—ad damnum, $600. The summons was served on both defendants, on the 27th of May. The defendants did not appear.

<p>APPEAL FROM COOK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.</p> <p>The records of a court in which a suit is pending, are admissible as evidence, and prove themselves.</p> <p>A bill filed for a divorce, is to be taken against the party filing it, as true. The recitals in a decree are conclusive against the party who sought it.</p> <p>A deserted wife may acquire property and control it and her person, and may be sued as a feme sole, and if divorced and again marries, her husband will be jointly liable with her for debts contracted.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to the Cook County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff declared upon a bill of exchange, dated the 3rd day of December, A. D. 1857, for five hundred dollars, drawn by S. D. LaRue, upon the defendant, Diversey, at three months, payable to the order of the drawer, at the office of Greenbaum & Brothers, Chicago ; and also upon the common money counts.

This suit was commenced by defendant in error, by writ of replevin, and tried at the January term of the Kane county Circuit Court for 1858, 1. G. Wilson, Judge, presiding, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the defendant in error. The property replevied was a quantity of goods in a store.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, in the Kane Circuit Court. The declaration contains two counts, and alleges divers trespasses, which were, in substance, that the appellant constructed a part of its railroad through the close described. The damages are laid at §2,000.

This was a suit commenced in the Circuit Court of LaSalle county, at the February term, A. D. 1859, by a writ of replevin. The articles replevied, were merchandize in a store. The coroner of LaSalle county, to whom the writ was directed, returned the same with the indorsement following, to wit: Rowland Carlton, 1 vs. > Writ of Replevin.

Bill in chancery, filed by appellant against appellee, for divorce. The bill was taken as confessed by defendant. A decree was entered dissolving the bonds of matrimony theretofore subsisting between the complainant, Anna B. Foote, and the defendant, William E. Foote; and that the custody of the infant children of said parties be given to the appellant, Anna B. Foote.

This was an action for work, labor and services, brought by the appellee against the appellant, before a justice, in Stephenson county, and was taken by the appellant to the Circuit Court of said county, and tried by a jury before Sheldon, Judge, at the September term of said court, 1858. Judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee in said court, for the sum of $46.80, and costs, from which judgment the said Angle took an appeal to this court.

Assumpsit upon a promissory note, made October 10,1857, by Samuel A. Hatch and Thomas Speer, for $813.48, payable to John Craig. Indorsed to R. S. Craig. The declaration is filed in the name of R. Solon Craig. Plea non-assumpsit, and sworn to. In the descriptive allegation relating to the indorsement, it is simply stated that John Craig indorsed the note to the plaintiff. Errors assigned: The court erred in admitting the note and indorsement in evidence.

The opinion of the court, contains a full statement of the case, condensed from a very voluminous record, which it is not deemed necessary to present, otherwise than as it is there presented.

This was a declaration in ejectment, in the usual form, by defendant in error, against plaintiffs in error, filed in the Lee county Circuit Court, as of the June term, A. D. 1858, for premises therein particularly described, together with notice of rule to plead, affidavit of service, etc. Plea not guilty, etc., by plaintiffs in error, to which defendant in error added a similiter. Trial by jury at November term, 1858, of Lee Circuit Court, and verdict for defendant in error.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, of Peoria county, and taken by appeal to the County Court of Peoria county, and tried at January term, 1859.

This was a petition, filed by Samuel Bennett and Hiram Whitman, executors, and Matilda Whitman, executrix, of Seth S. Whitman, deceased, against C. Golden Whitman, Ogden H. Whitman, Julia H. Whitman and Charles N. Whitman, in the Boone Circuit Court, setting forth, That on or about the 1st of January, 1851, Seth S. Whitman, formerly a resident of Boone county, died at Janesville, in Wisconsin, seized of certain real estate situate in Boone and Winnebago counties, giving its…

This was an action of debt commenced by John Abraham against the above named appellants in the Winnebagb county Circuit Court.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Edward Wright, against the Atlantic Insurance Company, upon a policy of insurance. The declaration contains three counts. Held: for one of the defendant’s company. The plaintiff’s agent at that time asked Mr. Van Burén if it was necessary for him to take any further steps in the matter, in order to have it all right.

This was a judgment by confession, on a note of hand for $1,370, dated Sept. 16th, 1857, payable sixty days after date, with interest at ten per cent., given by plaintiffs in error to defendants in error. With the note was a warrant of attorney to any attorney of a court of record, to confess a judgment for amount due on note and costs, and $100, attorney’s fee.

This was an indictment found by the grand jury of Peoria county, presenting that Henry Keech, on 7th of September, 1857, built a fence across a public road running north and south on the east line of township ten north, range seven east of fourth principal meridian, commencing at north-east corner of said township, and terminating in the Princeville and Mt. Hawley road; said fence being on south half of north-east quarter of section twelve, in said township, and south half…

This was a bill in chancery, filed by appellant in the Cook Circuit Court.

<p>APPEAL PROM MARSHALL.</p> <p>If an unanswered demurrer is on record, and the party filing it goes to trial by consent, it will not be cause for reversal of the judgment.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought upon a promissory note, dated and made payable at Atlanta, Logan county, Illinois. The plaintiff resides in Oook county. Hamilton and Dugger were both made defendants. A summons issued to sheriff of Cook county for both defendants. Also to sheriff of Logan county for both defendants. Summons to Cook county returned, served on Bugger, in Cook . county. Hamilton not found, October 22nd, 1858.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in Cook County-Court of Common Pleas. Summons issued to sheriff of Lake county, and returned served by said sheriff, on 19th December, 1857.

This was an action brought by Michael Geiselman, in the month of January, 1854, in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, against Cyrus P. Bradley, for an alleged trespass in seizing certain personal property, on or about the 18th January, 1854.

This was an action of trespass brought to the Cook county Circuit Court, by said Abraham Vehon against the above named John A. McNall. The declaration contains three counts. First count for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s messuage and house on the 10th day of September, 1857, and taking and carrying away certain goods and chattels which are therein described, and consist of a stock of cabinet ware.

This bill of complaint sets forth: That Honora Teresa Murphy, wife of said Patrick, is the daughter of one Catherine Byrne (deceased), late of the town of Borris, in the county of Carlow, in Ireland; that Patrick and Honora were married in Ireland, in November, 1850, and shortly after removed to the United States, where they arrived in the fall of 1851; that the said Catherine Byrne died in 1849, leaving a will, which after her death was duly proved and admitted to record in…

This was originally an appeal from the Boone County Court in probate, heard before I. G. Wilson, Circuit Judge, at February term, A. D. 1858, of the Boone Circuit Court. The finding of the County Court was affirmed, and an appeal was taken to this court.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought upon a promissory note, by Holmes against Parks, in the La Salle County Court. The declaration contained two counts. The first count alleges that the defendant on, to wit, the 28th day of October, 1857, made his note in writing, by the name of B. Gr. Parks, pr.

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

On October 9th, 1855, Harrison P. Heacox mortgaged a lot of ground in Chicago, to Silas B. Cobb, for $13,380, payable in installments: One for $3,880, payable in one year; another for $2,640, payable in two years ; another for $2,480, payable in three years; another for $2,320, payable in four years ; and the last for $2,160, payable in five years from the date of said mortgage respectively. The first note was paid.

This was an action for money had and received, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to recover back excess of usurious interest over the legal rate, alleged to have been taken by the defendants, of the plaintiff, during the years 1854, 1855 and 1856, and was tried by a jury, before Sheldon, Judge, at December term of Stephenson Circuit Court, A. D. 1858.

The facts are, that on the first Tuesday next after the first Monday of November, 1854, James Andrew was elected sheriff, and James S. Beach, coroner of the county of Cook, and State of Illinois. That on the 27th of February, 1856, the sheriff died. The clerk of the County Court of Cook county notified the Governor of the vacancy. The Governor neglected to issue a writ of election to fill said vacancy.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellee as indorsee, against the appellant, as indorser of a bill of exchange, drawn in this State, and addressed to the drawee, at Albany, in the State of New York.

The first of the above cases was assumpsit, upon an agreement for the purchase, of Kimball, of his interest in the staging business in Missouri and Kansas. The first count is special on the agreement, setting it forth in lime verba. The second is a general count on the account stated by Mr. Vernon under said agreement. The third and fourth are the common counts.

<p>APPEAL EROM LASALLE.</p> <p>The appointment of a treasurer by school trustees, is a removal of the prior officer.</p> <p>The approval of the bond of a treasurer of a school district, is evidenced by an official indorsement of the members of the board.</p> <p>A school trustee is a competent witness to prove the loss of a treasurer’s bond, although he may be a party to the suit.</p> <p>A notice should be given a party to produce a paper, if it is supposed to be, or ought to be, in his possession, as a foundation for other proof in relation to it.</p>

About the month of July, 1857, Miller and Scott, doing business as partners, in St. Louis, Missouri, filed two bills in the Circuit Court of Sangamon county.

This was a suit instituted below, upon an assessment warrant, by the collector of Chicago, under the provisions of the act entitled “ An Act to amend the act entitled 6 An Act to reduce the law incorporating the city of Chicago, and the several acts amendatory thereof, into one act, and to amend the same,’ ” approved February 16,1857.

On the 11th day of May, 1857, the Common Council of the city of Chicago ordered that Canal street, from Yan Burén street to Old street, be filled in accordance with estimate and specifications of the city superintendent, and also ordered that $20,814, be assessed upon the real estate in the west division of the city, deemed benefited by said improvements, and elected three disinterested freeholders, to make such assessment.

This case is presented, upon the same state of facts, as that preceding it, of Gibson et al. v. The City, where the point decided in this case, is set out in the statement.

Silas McBride shows, by his bill, that he is the owner, in fee, of certain real estate, situate in said city, and described as follows, viz.: Lot four, block thirty-five, school section addition to Chicago. That he was such owner on the first day of July, A. D. 1855, and from thence hitherto.

The bill of exceptions sets forth in substance, that defendants filed the following among other objections, to the rendition of a judgment: The order of the Common Council, directing that the sum of $18,200 be assessed on real estate of the city of Chicago, deemed benefited by the filling, curbing and paving of Washington street, from the west line of LaSalle street to the east line of Market street, “ in accordance with the superintendent’s specifications for the same,” was…

This was a proceeding to levy a special assessment in the city of Chicago. The collector reported to a special term of the Common Pleas, that the warrants for the collection of these assessments were issued, as required by law, and were delivered to him on or before the second Tuesday of October, 1858.

This was a proceeding to levy a special assessment. The collector reported to a special term of the Common Pleas, that the warrant for the collection of this assessment was issued as required by law, and delivered to him on or before the 2nd Tuesday of October, 1858.

This was a proceeding to make a special assessment for deepening and widening the North Branch of the Chicago river. The collector gave due notice of his having the warrant for collection, and also of his intended application to the January special term of the Cook County Court of. Common Pleas, for judgment against the delinquent lots and lands.

This bill alleges that Munson owns the north-east quarter and south-east quarter, section 1, township 35 north, range 3 east, and lives on the south-east quarter; that said land is a part of school district No. 5, in Serena, township 35, range 4 east, and has been for six or seven years.

This was an action of ejectment,- declaring for the undivided half of lot No. 8, block A, in the city of Galena, county of Jo Daviess, Illinois. Plea, general issue. Stipulation by parties, upon which cause was tried. Lot entered by David Smith and John McNulty, July 26,1837. May 29, 1838, deed of partition made of said lot between Smith, McNulty and James Nagle. Recorded July 26th, 1839. Wm.

Defendant in error filed his declaration in assumpsit, against plaintiffs in error, containing- a special count upon a promissory note, made at Davenport, Iowa, by plaintiffs in error and one Bailey to defendant in error, dated March 11th, A. D. 1857, for $2,165, payable one hundred and seventeen days after date, at Davenport, Iowa, with a penalty of two per cent, per month after due, if not paid; and also the common counts.

The plaintiff in error brought this action of ejectment to the Circuit Court of La Salle county.

This declaration in assumpsit states that Eames, at Chicago, made his draft or order, in writing, for payment of money, usually called a check, on a banker, directed to E. H. Huntington & Co., requiring them to pay Hennessy or bearer, $109.20 ; that on same day said draft was presented to Huntington & Co., and payment demanded and refused, of which Eames had notice.

This suit was commenced in Peoria county, and removed by change of venue to Tazewell county, where it was tried by jury at the April term, 1858, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $4,000. The declaration contained two counts. The first count states, in substance, that the defendants were lessees and proprietors of the Peoria and Oquawka Railroad, and cars used thereon for carrying passengers for hire, from Peoria to Edwards Station.

This bill charges that Orrington Lunt, of Chicago, one of the defendants hereinafter named, was, on and before the 10th of March, 1853, seized of certain real estate, to wit: Lots 20, 21 and 22, in block 62, and lots 1, 2 and 3, in block 63, in the Illinois and Michigan Canal Trustees’ subdivision of lots and blocks, in the W. part of the S. W. i of sec. 9, T. 39 N., of R. 14 E., old town of Chicago.

This was an action in ejectment, in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, 1857, claiming ownership in fee of a lot in the original town of Chicago. Plea, general issue.

<p>APPEAL EROM LA SALLE COUNTY COURT.</p>

This bill states that, in September, A. D. 1851, complainants recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of Stephenson county, Illinois, for $>1,014.66, and costs taxed at $20.55, against David McAusland, who, with William Waddams, late father-in-law of said McAusland, are made defendants. That, September 15,1851, execution issued on said judgment , against said David McAusland.

This was an application to the court for an injunction. The bill in this cause was prepared to be filed in the Hancock Circuit Court, to enjoin the collection of taxes levied for railroad purposes, upon the ground of fraud upon the people of Hancock county in the submission of a proposition to take stock in two roads by one vote, and that the bonds issued were payable at the American Exchange Bank, in the city of New York.

The County Court of Mason county ordered a' road to be opened, and refused to allow the plaintiff in error any damages for crossing his land; from that decisioñ he appealed to the Circuit Court, which affirmed the order of the County Court. The plaintiff in error then prosecuted his writ pi error in this court. The defendant in error moved to dismiss the cause from this court because the decision of the Circuit Court was final.