Volume 23 — Illinois Reports

This was an indictment for murder, found by the grand jury of Clinton county, at March term, 1859 ; tried at the August term, 1859. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for eight years.

<p>APPEAL FROM MARION.</p> <p>Under a general prayer for relief, a court may modify the specific prayer of a bill, and decree a sale of the whole instead of a part of certain premises ; with or without declaring a specific lien.</p> <p>The debt is a principal thing, and the mortgage is only an incident, and the assignment of the evidence of indebtedness carries the mortgage with it. The mortgage is a collateral security for each installment of indebtedness, as it becomes due.</p> <p>. creditor by note and mortgage may pursue several remedies, until his debt is satisfied.</p> <p>judgment on a note secured by mortgage, which remains unsatisfied, is no bar to a proceeding to foreclose; or the two suits may he pending at the same time.</p> <p>A strict foreclosure of a mortgage does not extinguish the debt, unless the value of the land is equivalent to the indebtedness.</p> <p>If a defeasance in the usual form in a mortgage deed provides, that if the notes are not paid as they become due, that the mortgage is forfeited to that extent, the holder of a note is not obliged to wait for the whole indebtedness to ripen, before he can proceed to collect.</p> <p>A party cannot complain of an error, which in no wise affects his interest, or which makes to his advantage.</p> <p>The assignee of a note is in equity regarded as the purchaser of all the securities and remedies attached to it; and may pursue them at his discretion. So may the assignees in succession, of separate parts of the same debt.</p> <p>The assignee of the first due of several notes secured by mortgage, has a priority of claim, and can foreclose and sell. The holders of the other notes can redeem in succession, according to privilege.</p>

This was a bill in chancery filed by Kimball (now deceased) against Elias Chaffin and Jefferson Chaffin (Elias now deceased), praying that a commissioner be appointed to convey S. W. í of N. E. i See. 7, Town. 2 N., R. 2 E., in Marion county, containing forty acres.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by the defendants in error to compel a conveyance to them of certain coal and coal lands, and certain privileges connected therewith, purchased by the plaintiff in error, defendant below, as alleged by the said complainants, as trustee for them and for their use.

<p>APPEAL FROM HAMILTON.</p> <p>An infant who is aggrieved by the decree of a court of chancery, may file an original bill for redress, and is not bound to proceed by way of rehearing or bill of review.</p> <p>They must be sworn, and the statement of that fact and the oath they took, should accompany their report.</p> <p>The commissioners appointed to set off a widow’s dower, have no authority to make a partition of the land among the parties entitled thereto.</p> <p>A report made by others than the commissioners appointed by the court, is void.</p> <p>Applications by a guardian for the sale of his ward’s real estate, must be made in the county where the ward resides, although the estate may lie in a different county, and should state affirmatively such residence.</p> <p>It is the duty of the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of infant suitors.</p> <p>An agreement between parties not to bid against one another at a public sale, will vitiate the sale.</p> <p>A sale by a guardian of his ward’s land will not be sustained, unless it is shown that it was necessary for the infant’s education and support.</p> <p>A guardian must follow the directions of the probate court; and if, on an order being made, he finds he has no funds in his hands, he may then, but not sooner, make application for the sale of his ward’s land.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, brought by Kidder against Lender, in the Peoria Circuit Court, at the November term, 1857, for the recovery of so much of Claim No. 18, in the village of Peoria, confirmed to Pierre LaVasseur Dit Chamberlain by an act of Congress approved March 3rd, 1823, as is covered by Lot No. 12, in Block No. 39, in Bigelow and Underhill’s Addition to Peoria. The declaration and plea were both in usual form. Change of venue to Madison county, by agreement.

This bill charges that a judgment was obtained in the Hamilton Circuit Court in March, 1848, against Andrew McOallen, in favor of W. and 0. Fellows, for $794. That on the 31st of March, 1848, execution was issued on said judgment to the sheriff of Hardin county. That said execution came to the hands of Lewis Lavender, sheriff of Hardin county.

Jesse Steele sued Joel K. Finley and William Finley on a note given by the said Joel K. Finley, and William Finley, as security, to Sarah Hamilton, and indorsed in blank by Sarah Hamilton, and delivered to the said Jesse Steele, after the same became due.

This was an action of ejectment. Declaration in the usual form for Claim No. 697, survey No. 713. Aides filed his plea of not guilty. • Trial by court, O’Melveny, Judge, presiding, at May Term of Monroe Circuit Court, 1859. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. In order to sustain his title, the plaintiff introduced the following certificate: Springfield, Ilk., April 26, 1859.

This was a suit instituted on the chancery side of the Marion Circuit Court, by bill to foreclose mortgage, by said Abner Frances against John P. Reynolds, which mortgage was given to secure the payment of two promissory notes, payable to John G. Vaughn, for two thousand dollars each, bearing date February 5th, 1857, one payable on the first day of March, 1858, the other payable on the first day of March, 1859. Defendant waived service of process, and entered his appearance.

This was an action of debt on a bond by appellant, against Wrenn, and Solomon P. Nave and one Rufus P. McElwain, the latter parties being sureties on a bond given by Wrenn to Cunningham, conditioned that Wrenn should furnish two hundred thousand brick, at the times and in the manner stated in a contract relative to the brick, made between Wrenn and Cunningham, to which the sureties were not parties.

<p>This suit was commenced by attachment by appellees against appellant. Affidavit alleges that “ defendant conceals himself and evades the officers, so that the ordinary process of the law cannot be had or served on him.”</p> <p>Attachment was sued out on the 22nd April, 1858, was levied on property on that day, and served on defendant below on the 24th day of same month.</p> <p>Declaration in assumpsit in usual form.</p> <p>Defendant pleads in abatement that he “ did not conceal himself and evade the officers as alleged.”</p> <p>At May term, 1859, Kitchell, Judge, presiding, issue being joined on the plea, a jury was called, and after hearing the evidence, found the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff.” Defendant below was then called, and not appearing, it was adjudged by the court that he be considered in default, and that a jury be called to assess damages, who returned a verdict for appellees for $2,120.93. Judgment was entered on the verdict. Defendant below took this appeal.</p>

<p>ERROR TO PULASKI.</p> <p>A motion to dismiss a suit cannot be entertained while a regular default exists.</p> <p>A general demurrer is a waiver of a plea in abatement.</p>

Franklin Casey filed his declaration in debt in the St. Clair Circuit Court, on a note of which the following is a copy: “$160—On or before the first day of March eighteen hundred and fifty three I… Held: and that the parties thereto were citizens of Illinois and entitled to vote at such election. The cause was tried by the court, Snyder, Judge, presiding, by consent, without a jury. On the trial, the plaintiff below introduced in evidence the note above copied.

This was an action of ejectment to recover seventy acres of land, known as the “ John M. Hull Tract,” lying in the county of Monroe. The declaration was filed in favor of said plaintiffs, and against Silas T. Cheek. The defendant filed his plea of the general issue. On the 9th of November, 1858, the death of the original defendant was suggested, and the present defendants were substituted.

This was a scire facias on a recognizance in the Randolph Circuit Court. It recites that James Campbell was indicted for a rape, on the 6th of April, 1858, in said county, and recognizance ordered in $800; that on the 80th of April? 1858, “ there was executed before the sheriff of said county, a bond or recognizance” by said Campbell, and said appellees and others, in the penal sum of $800, which was filed on the day last aforesaid, with the clerk of said Circuit Court.

This was a petition for mechanics’ lien, filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs in error, in the Washington Circuit Court.

This was an action of trespass for damages to real estate, commenced before a justice of the peace by said Graham against Hoots. William Weaver died seized of North-East of North-West Sec. 15, Town. 2 South, Range 4 West, 3rd P. M., unimproved land; had never lived on it, but lived at time of his death about two miles therefrom on public land, and left said Serena, his widow, and some children.

This was a petition for a mechanics’ lien, filed by Holmes and Wickwire, at the April term of the Pulaski Circuit Court, 1859, against John Donaldson, and praying that the Emporium Company might also be made a party defendant to said petition.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit Court of Pulaski county, by Wm. Resor & Go., against Ezra Dreher and Alexander Frazier. . A capias issued for Dreher and Frazier, returnable at the April term, 1858, which was returned, indorsed, “ Served by reading to one of the within named, to wit: Alexander Frazier, December the 31st, 1857.” The declaration complains of Dreher and Frazier as in custody, etc., of a plea of trespass on the case on promises.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against Emily Ann I. Lefler, before a justice of the peace, for a violation of a corporation ordinance, and a fine of $5 assessed against her, from which the defendant took an appeal to the Circuit Court. At the May term of said court, 1859, the case was submitted to the court, proofs heard, and judgment for defendant for costs ; a motion for a new trial was overruled.

This was a bill in chancery filed by appellee against appellants, to compel them to convey to him certain land, which Franklin had bought with appellee’s money under an agreement to convey the same to appellee, but which he refused to do. The remaining facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The case was tried before O’Melveny, Judge.

This was an action of debt commenced by appellee against appellants, and tried at the September term, 1859, of the St. Clair Circuit Court, Snyder, Judge, presiding. The plaintiff below sued in debt, claiming debt $1,000, damage $1,500.

The defendant in error, Brown, filed his declaration in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of Marion county, against the plaintiffs in error, containing one count in usual form, averring that defendants, on the 21st June, 1857, were the proprietors of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad, which had been open for use from the 14th February, 1855, whereby defendants below were liable for injuries to stock, in case they failed to erect fences, etc., except at places excepted…

By the original bill, it is alleged, that sometime on or about the 27th of December, 1834, William Bennett, the father of the present defendant, purchased of the United States the premises in question. That subsequently, and in the same year, William Bennett, sen., bargained and sold the premises for a valuable consideration, to one James Kinzie.

The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Walkeb. The cause was tried at the October term, 1856, of the Adams . Circuit Court, before Sibley, Judge, and a jury. The damages were assessed at one hundred and twenty dollars, and judgment was rendered accordingly.

The appellant brought his action of ejectment to the November term of the Circuit Court of Peoria county, A. D. 1858.

This was an action of assumpsit brought at the April term of the Cook county Circuit Court by the plaintiff in error, to recover the value of a package of money which the defendant, as a common carrier, undertook to convey from Chicago, Illinois, to Madison, Wisconsin,' and there to be delivered to D. J. Baldwin, or his authorized agents, and which undertaking the said defendant failed to perform.

The points raised, as well as the pleadings in this case, are very fully stated and discussed in the opinion of the court. This cause was heard by J. M. Wilson, Judge, at November special term, 1858, of the Common Pleas Court.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the Circuit Court, by Emeline Castle, by her next friend, against plaintiff in error and others.

This case was fully stated in the previous report of it, as found in the eighteenth volume of these Reports, page 422. The following opinions were pronounced, after a rehearing of the cause, upon a petition to that effect.

This was an indictment for murder, charging the plaintiff in error with killing his wife, Clarissa B. Fisher, on the 18th day of July, 1859. A witness for plaintiff in error was called, and plaintiff in error offered to prove by her and by several others the infidelity of deceased, to which the counsel for the People objected ; the court sustained the objection, and the plaintiff in error excepted.

This was an action of replevin by defendants in error against plaintiffs in error. The declaration contains two counts; the first for taking, and the second for detaining. To the first count the defendant pleaded:' 1st. Traversing property in plaintiffs. 2nd. The levy upon the property as deputy marshal under the execution read in evidence, and averring that the property was subject to execution. 8rd. Property in Quincy and Chicago Railroad Company. 4th.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the St. Clair Circuit Court, by the appellant, as trustee of the bondholders of the Terre Haute, Alton and St. Louis Railroad Company, to restrain the appellees from selling on execution certain fuel and office furniture belonging to the said railroad company, which had been levied on by the sheriff of said, county, to satisfy certain judgments in favor of the appellees, on the ground that the property in question was held by the…

This was an agreed case from Marion county, tried in the Second Grand Division by consent of parties. At the March term, 1859, of the Marion Circuit Court, this cause was submitted to the court, without the intervention of a jury, and without having been tried before the sheriff, upon an agreed state of facts, as follows : This was an execution levied upon a lot of brick piled up in court house square, and supposed to contain 100,000, more or less.

This was a proceeding in chancery, commenced in the Tazewell Circuit Court, Harriott, Judge, presiding, Prettyman, who was the complainant, alleging that he was a bona fide purchaser bf certain lands in Tazewell and Mason counties, which had been conveyed to him by one Trent; and that said Trent had, before that time, given a trust deed to the defendants, Willard, Goodrich and others, by the instrumentality of Samuel; W. Fuller, who had been his counsel and attorney, and who…

This was an action of trespass brought to Macon Circuit Court, against the City of Decatur. The declaration alleges a trespass by defendant upon plaintiff’s close, to wit: lots one, five, north half of six, and other lots by number, in David L. Allen’s addition of out-lots to Decatur, etc. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury; verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial overruled, and exception by plaintiff. J. B. E. Sherrick surveyed and plotted Allen’s addition.

This suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, by Clifford against Waldrop, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff for fifty dollars.

<p>This was an action of replevin, brought by Newman to recover from Dick a pair of mules, taken by the latter upon execution, in favor of one James Pointer against Henry R. GiL lespie. The coroner executed the writ against Dick, who was sheriff, and returned the mules to Newman. The bill of exceptions is as follows:</p> <p>“ The parties in the above entitled suit agree to dismiss the same, the costs of the same to be divided equally between the parties, and the property replevied to be delivered to the plaintiff. B. NEWMAN, '</p> <p>JAMES A. DICK.”</p> <p>Pursuant to which, on the calling of the cause, the plaintiff, ■ by his counsel, moved the court to have said agreement entered of record, and to dismiss this suit; and the defendant, by his counsel, resisted said motion, and asked the court to disregard said agreement, and said he was ready for trial. Whereupon this cause is continued to the next term of this court at the costs of the defendant. The court disallowed the motion of the plaintiff, and continued this cause to the next term of this court at the cost of the defendant. To which disallowance of motion and continuance of the cause, plaintiff at the time, by his counsel, excepted, and excepts, and prays, etc.</p> <p>■ Besides the foregoing, the record contains this agreement:</p> <p>“ Benjamin Newman and James A. Dick hereby agree, that if James A. Pointer shall not, on or before the 26th day of January next, give James A. Dick, Esq., ex-sheriff of Cass county, Illinois, a complete indemnification bond, to be approved by said Dick, for all damages accruing to the said Dick, for or on account of the levying upon two mules, by virtue of an execution in favor of said Pointer, and against Henry R. Gillespie, then the above agreement shall be filed in the cause wherein it is entitled, and the return upon the said execution shall be as follows, to wit: ‘ I release the above levy, the said mules having been replevied and claimed by Benjamin Newman.’ January 20, 1859. B. NEWMAN,</p> <p>JAMES A. DICK.”</p> <p>At September term, 1859, of the Cass Circuit Court, Harriott, Judge, presiding, the plaintiff below dismissed his suit, and brought this cause to this court in error.</p> <p>The only error assigned is the refusal of the court below, to dismiss this suit on motion of the plaintiff, according to the written agreement of parties.</p>

<p>ERROR TO MACON.</p> <p>Our statute requires that the affidavit in support of a plea in abatement, should state positively the truth of the facts i-elied on. A statement by the affiant, that they are true “ to the best of his knowledge and belief” is insufficient.</p> <p>After forming an issue in fact, it is too late to urge objections to the form of the plea, or the sufficiency of the affidavit.</p> <p>The proper course is to move to strike the affidavit from the-files before filing replication; or if the plea is defective, it should be demurred to.</p> <p>When a plea, properly verified, is interposed, denying either the existence of a partnership, or the execution of the notes sued on, it becomes necessary to prove those facts.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit in the court below, brought by the appellee against the appellant, upon an assigned promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $1,300. On or before the 25th day of December, 1859,1 promise to pay S. IT. Fullenwider, or bearer, the sum of thirteen hundred dollars, for value received. Sept. 30th, 1857. G. B. WALTERS.” Indorsed—“ S. IT. Fullenwider.” Defendant plead non-assumpsit, and gave notice of special matter in defense.

On the 27th day of April, A. D. 1857, Francis Kerzinger filed in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of Madison county, Illinois, a precipe and bond for costs against said Wm. Berber and Johanna Berber, in assumpsit.

<p>ERROR TO EDGAR.</p> <p>It is not proper for the judge before whom a case is tried, to go to the jury-room while they are deliberating. All the proceedings in a case should be open, notorious and in the presence of the parties, so that if they are dissatisfied with them, they may take exception in the manner provided by law.</p>

Rogers, the plaintiff below, complained of Barnes, the defendant below, in trespass, for taking certain personal property, which Barnes had taken on an execution, he being at the time a constable of Hancock county. Rogers claimed that the pro perty was exempt from execution. The cause was tried before Sibley, Judge.

At,t, the facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The decision upon the demurrer was by Snyder, Judge, at the October term, 1857, of the Madison Circuit Court.

This was an action commenced by Rosannah Talbot, against Owen Tuller and others.

This was an appeal from the decision of the board of supervisors of Pike county, who had held certain property to be subject to taxation, to reverse that decision.

<p>ERROR TO ADAMS.</p> <p>When a codicil to a will is written on the same paper as the will, or unmistaJcahly refers to it, proof of the codicil is sufficient to establish such portions of the will as are not thereby revoked.</p> <p>Parties in interest may contest the validity of a will before the probate court, as well as by bill in chancery, and should be allowed to examine the attesting witnesses.</p>

<p>Tms case was tried before Sibley, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO HANCOCK.</p> <p>A ferry franchise is real estate, and can only be transferred in accordance with the provisions of the statute in reference to conveyances.</p> <p>An acknowledgment made before a mayor of a town in the United States is insufficient.</p> <p>The execution of a deed, which is not acknowledged in accordance with the statute, and to which there are no subscribing witnesses, may be proven by the testimony of any one who saw its execution, or by the admissions of the grantor therein, or any competent evidence.</p>

This was a proceeding on the part of the plaintiffs in error to enforce a mechanics’ lien for work done and materials furnished for William B. Thayer, and to hold the lot on which the improvements were made for the payment of their claim. A settlement was made between the parties, and a note of the firm of S. and W. B. Thayer was given in payment of the balance due.

The record in this case shows that John Villars, on the fifth day of May, 1856, filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Vermillion county, setting forth that Peter R. Leonard had executed to him four promissory notes, dated May 26th, 1854, for the sum of $700 each, bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, and the interest to be paid annually in advance, and that the first year’s interest was paid in advance, on the execution of the notes; that the principal of…

This was an action of trover and conversion brought by Dunnavan against Warner, in the Morgan Circuit Court, Wood-son, Judge, presiding. The first and second counts were in case for negligence in keeping certain hogs delivered to defendant below, and in consequence lost to plaintiff below. Third count in trover and conversion for hogs.

This was an action of replevin for some horses, etc., commenced by appellant against appellee, in the Circuit Court of Sangamon county, at the August term, 1859. The facts of the case are as follows: One Rodham loaned one Ford $600, and subsequently said Rodham assigned the note and mortgage, which he took from said Ford to secure said loan, to the appellant, Cass.

This was a suit brought by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, to recover for injuries arising from the negligence and lack of skill of the plaintiff in error, in the practice of his profession of physician and surgeon. The case was tried in the Adams Oircuit Court, Sibley, Judge, presiding.

This case was tried before Sibley, Judge, and is the same case reported in 19 Ill. R., page 379, where the facts are fully stated. The only new facts now presented are set out in the opinion.

This is a suit in attachment. The facts are these: The appellee in this case, on the 1st day of December, 1858, sued appellants in an action of assumpsit, at the special December term of the Circuit Court of Scott county, and on the third day of said month, appellee filed in the office of the clerk of said court, an order for dismissal of said suit, and on the same day commenced this suit of attachment against appellants for the same causes of action, as in the said action…

. This was a proceeding by indictment in the Circuit Court of Fulton county, Bailey, Judge, against plaintiff in error, for obstructing a road in said county, claimed as a highway. The evidence in the case is very voluminous, as are the instructions asked on the part both of plaintiff and defendant; but the facts on which the case turned are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The declaration in this case is substantially as follows : Frederick Gebhart, plaintiff, complains of Reason Adams, defendant in custody, etc., of a plea that he render unto the said plaintiff the sum of one thousand and twenty-eight dollars, which he, the defendant, owes to and justly detains from him, the said plaintiff; For that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the first day of Janpary, A. D. 1854, and from thenceforward continually until the commencement of this suit, at…

<p>APPEAL FROM SANGAMON.</p> <p>Where the record shows the introduction of evidence to establish a color of title only, a party will not be permitted to shift his ground, and use the evidence for another and different purpose.</p> <p>The word “paid ” on a collector’s book, opposite a tract of land, is not evidence that the taxes were paid by the person in whose name the land is listed.</p> <p>A claimant under a tax deed should show affirmatively that he paid the taxes.</p> <p>An affidavit of loss of receipts, might authorize proof of their contents, but not . the introduction of the collector’s book, to prove by the word “ paid,” entered on them, the contents of such receipts.</p>

This is an action of trespass commenced to the Sept, term, 1857, of the Pike Circuit Court, by appellee against appellant and four others. The declaration charges the defendants with an assault and battery on plaintiff. Service on appellants only, who appeared and pleaded the general issue. The venue was subsequently changed to Adams, where the cause was tried at the March term, 1859; verdict and judgment against appellants for $600. Sibley, Judge, presiding.

Edward Tisdale sued Daniel Kelleher and Dennis Kelleher, in assumpsit as partners, in the Piatt Circuit Court, for goods sold and delivered, and money due on account stated. Summons served on Dennis Kelleher alone, and plea in abatement sworn to, filed by him, denying partnership. Cause tried by a jury, and judgment for plaintiff below for $1,306.58, and appeal prayed and allowed.

This bill in chancery states that the complainant was the owner in fee of lot No. 3, in block No. 25, in the town of Marshall, on which was a dwelling house and other improvements, of the value, in all, of about $1,000 ; that he made an agreement to exchange with defendant for the N. W. qr. of the S. W. qr. of section 30—40 acres—and 20 acres off the W. hf. of S. W. qr. of section 29, to be taken out of any portion thereof which complainant might want—all of said lands…

Declaration by plaintiff in error alleges that, on the 27th day of August, 1858, the defendant was unlawfully possessed of a certain sorrel mare, the property of plaintiff, to be delivered to plaintiff by defendant on request, but that the defendant, though requested, refused to deliver said mare to plaintiff, and so the defendant wrongfully detains the same.

Potts sued Burnside before a justice of the peace in Eulton county, in September, 1858, on the following account: “ George Burnside, 1858. To Amos P. Potts, Dr. To damages for neglecting and refusing to boat and sell for plaintiff a lot of cord wood, supposed to be about seventy-five cords, by reason of which neglect and refusal, said wood was washed away and lost to the plaintiff. Damage claimed, $99.90.

Defendant in error filed his declaration below in replevin, claiming property and the right of possession in and to a certain bay mare, which had been duly replevied.

■ This was an action of trespass, brought by the appellee, who was plaintiff below, against the appellants, who were defendants below, to recover damages for two hundred cords of wood, of which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner. Plea, not guilty. Both parties claimed the wood under title derived from James F. Death & Sons.

This is an action of ejectment, instituted in Schuyler county Circuit Court, April term, 1857, brought to recover on title in fee, the possession of all that part of the south half of Lot No. 7, in William Manlove’s addition to the town of Rushville, situated in the county of Schuyler, and State of Illinois, bounded, etc The suit was commenced in Schuyler county, and the venue changed to Hancock Circuit Court. Plea, general issue.

This was an action on the case tried at August term, 1859, before Bailey, Judge. The declaration contains five counts; the first two charge the * defendant with maliciously -prosecuting the plaintiff before R. W. Scanland, a Justice of the Peace of said county, for having, on the 28th day of October, 1858, stolen one load of wood of the value of one dollar, the property of Otto Jarrett.

This was an action of replevin, by defendant in error. Pleas: 1, non cepit; 2, non detinet.

This was an action of assumpsit, by the appellee, against the appellant, in the Mason County Circuit Court, damages $1,500, at its October term, 1859. The declaration, contains two special counts, and the ordinary common counts.

This suit was brought against defendant, Allison, for a failure to perform road labor which he was bound to perform to the county, unless he was within the corporate limits of the town of Mattoon.

This case was submitted upon the following agreed state of facts: It is agreed that the report of the case of Polly Hopper v. Cavil Hopper et al., and the facts there stated, as in the 19th of Illinois Reports, is a part of the record in this case, and that Fielding Mitchell, one of the administrators of said deceased, with full notice of the terms and provisions of the decree in the divorce case of Polly Hopper v. Cavil Hopper, paid to him, after allowance of his claim…

The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The cause was heard before Woodson, Judge, and a jury, at October term, 1859, of the Morgan Circuit Court, which resulted ' in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff below, for the sum of $415.84. Defendant below appealed.

Samuel Stookey, the appellee, filed his bill for an injunction in the St. Clair Circuit Court, against the City of Belleville and Charles Palme, Street Inspector.

This was an action of ejectment brought by appellant to recover the north-east quarter of section 15, town 7 south, range 4 west, in the county of Pike. The declaration claims the premises in fee against Mary Porter, and was served on her on the 5th day of September, 1856. At the September term of the Pike Circuit Court, 1856, declaration was filed, and the plea of general-issue by defendant, Porter, filed, and cause continued.

John D. Pahlman as executor of the will of Asher Rossiter, made a contract with the defendant, Smith, to sell him certain property devised by the testator.

Whittaker filed his bill herein June 6th, 1854, in the Logan Circuit Court, alleging: That about the 7th day of January, A. D. 1853, Miller was recommending in complainant’s neighborhood, a patent cast iron cemetery tomb or monument, the patent right of which he was desirous of selling, representing himself as the agent of Henry R. Elinchbaugh, the patentee; that Miller made many misrepresentations for the purpose of selling the same, as to its popularity, usefulness,…

This was a suit in chancery, commenced by Mathias Ferraría and others, trustees of the Free Portugese Church, in Jacksonville, in the Morgan county Circuit Court of Illinois, Woodson, Judge, presiding, against John Yasconcelles and others, who claim to be trustees of said church.

This bill alleges that the trustees, in April, 1855, laid off and divided the township into nine districts, according to plat; that upon division, the inhabitants of district nine organized, purchased a school-house, and maintained schools until October, 1857, and levied sufficient tax to pay for school-house, ($2,050) ; that, on 5th October, 1857, the trustees, at the instance of citizens of district eight, without the knowledge or consent of a majority of district nine,…

This was an action of debt, on a bond, commenced by plaintiff in error against defendants in error in the Morgan Circuit Court, Woodson, Judge, presiding. The case was reversed in this court on account of the instructions given, which will he found sufficiently set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Walker.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Logan Circuit Court, on the 21st day of August, 1857, by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error and others, on a promissory note, by filing of praecipe, directing clerk to issue two writs of summons: One for George Michael and Elijah Wicklin, trading under the name and style of Michael & Wicklin, directed to the sheriff of Logan county, and one for Richard T. Gill, directed to the sheriff of Cook county.

In the foregoing cases the petitions omitted to show that the work was to be completed within two years. This decision has been so often reported, that a further statement is deemed unnecessary.

This was a bill filed by plaintiffs in error against defendant in error, in the court below, for an injunction and relief.

These causes were brought by the appellees against the appellant, by scire facias to foreclose mortgage, and depend upon the same… Held: had, since the year 1839, been in actual possession of said premises for seven successive years under claim and color of title made in good faith, and that during said seven successive years, he and they have paid all taxes legally assessed thereon; that such color of title originated with an auditor’s deed, prima facie perfect; and…

This was a proceeding commenced in the probate court of McDonough county, and it appears from the record that on the 4th day of April, A. D. 1855, David P. Wells filed in the office of the clerk of the County Court of that county, proof of the death of Asahel Langworthy, and requested that letters of administration issue on his estate to the public administrator. That said Langworthy died on the 24th day of September, A. D. 1884.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at March term, 1859, of the McDonough Circuit Court. The suit was commenced by plaintiff in error to recover from defendant $500, won by him from plaintiff on a horse race, run in said county in the spring of 1858, the same having been paid over to defendant by a stakeholder. The declaration contains the common money counts, including a count for money had and received.

This was an action of replevin brought for sundry goods and chattels by the defendants against the plaintiff, in the Circuit Court of Hancock county. At May term, 1857, Sibley, Judge, presiding, the cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict and judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs below.

This was an action on the case, commenced by Malthace Badger, in the Clark Circuit Court, against James Elam, for an alleged defamation of the character of plaintiff by slanderous words spoken by defendant. The declaration contained two counts, each of which embraces divers sets of words, upon which the plaintiff seeks to maintain her action in that behalf.

THIs is a bill exhibited by Noyes on the chancery side of the Coles Circuit Court, praying a decree rescinding a sale of lands made under execution, by John H. Jeifries, sheriff of Coles county, for tile reason that said sale was irregularly and illegally made, to the prejudice of complainant, as shown by return of officer, etc. The defendants answered, denying the allegations of the bill. The decree of the court dissolved the injul~ction, and dismissed complainant's bill.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, in the county of Effing-ham, at the October term, A. D. 1855. The suit was commenced in the Circuit Court of said county, on a promissory note, signed by the defendants and payable to the plaintiff, for the sum of $200. The defendants appeared and filed their several pleas to said suit.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover the possession of the east half of south-east 20, 4 north, 8 west, in Hancock county. By agreement, a jury was dispensed with, and the case submitted to the court, Sibley, Judge, presiding, for trial.

The appellant sued the appellee to the October term, 1859, of the Circuit Court of Morgan, in assumpsit, for money had and received to the use of the appellant.

This was an action of ejectment originally commenced by Henry McClure against Jacob Engelhard. The present plaintiffs in error are the heirs-at-law and widow of Jacob Engelhard, who were substituted in' the Supreme Court when this case was pending there at the November term, 1855, and the present defendants are the heirs-at-law of Ed. McClure, substituted in the St. Clair Circuit Court, after the cause was remanded there.

In this case an indictment was found for murder in the Green county Circuit Court, and removed to the Circuit Court of Mor-. gan county by change of venue. The questions raised in the. case arise upon the facts which are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The case was tried, and a verdict of manslaughter was returned, and the prisoner sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.

This was a suit in ejectment to recover possession of lot twenty-six in McLaughlin’s addition to the town of Winchester, Scott county, Illinois, and by consent of parties, tried by the court, Woodson, Judge, presiding, with judgment for the plaintiffs.

The complainants in the court below filed their bill in the Circuit Court of Effingham county, against the plaintiffs in error, to foreclose a mortgage on certain tracts of land.

<p>This cause was tried before Harlan, Judge, at October term, 1859, of the Edgar Circuit Court.</p>

These were complaints against Proctor, for a violation of certain ordinances of the town of Lewiston, prohibiting an incumbrance of the streets of that town, returnable before one Job K. Sweet, as the police justice of said town. Judgments were pronounced against Porter, who took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Fulton county.

The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Breese. The decree was pronounced by Woodson, Judge, at March term, 1859, of the Morgan Circuit Court.

This was a judgment upon a demurrer to pleadings, which are described in the opinion of the court. Emerson, Judge, decided the case below, at July term, 1859, of the Macon Circuit Court.

This was an application for a peremptory mandamus, founded, upon the following agreed case: It is agreed by the parties in this case, that, under and by. virtue of the provisions of an act entitled, “ An act to establish the twenty-third judicial circuit, and to fix the times for holding courts in the ninth judicial circuit,” approved February 10th, 1857, at a regular election for judge and state’s attorney, for. the said twenty-third judicial circuit, held in the counties…

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the appellee' against the appellant, to the March term, 1856, of the Adams Circuit Court, for the recovery of the south-east 25, 2 south, 8 west, in Adams county, Illinois. Declaration in the usual form, and plea of not guilty. At the October term, 1859, of said court, a trial was had before Sibley, Judge, and a jury. The jury found for plaintiff, and defendant entered a motion for new trial.

This was an action of assumpsit. The first count of the declaration sets forth, that plaintiffs in error, on the 9th of February, 1857, at, etc., made their promissory note and promised to pay the defendant in error, by the 15th of January, 1858, the sum of $753.68, for value received, and then and there delivered, etc. The usual money counts were added. The plaintiffs in error plead the general issue; also several special pleas.

This was an action on an account for $97, originally Cornmenced before a justice of the peace by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, for medical- services rendered, as per bill of items filed. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court, and upon a trial of the cause by a jury, before Rice, Judge, a verdict was rendered for the defendant in error, for the whole amount of the bill, $97, and judgment rendered thereon against the plaintiff in error.

Appellees brought ejectment against appellant and one Garret 0. Milum, for recovery of Lot 4, Block 3, west of public square, in Sublett’s addition to the town of Lebanon, St. Clair county.. Appellant only served, who plead the general issue and appeals} singly, by leave. • The c.atise fwas tried by the court, Snyder, Judge, by consent. - On the trial,-the following facts were agreed upon: 1. Plaintiffs are chil'drehbf Catharine Dwire and James Dwire. 2.

This was an action in case for malicious prosecution. Declaration in the usual form. Plea, not guilty.

This was a suit in chancery, originally brought in the court below, by Thomas W. Wason, against Benjamin Godfrey, Rebecca E. Godfrey, Henry Dwight, Jr., Charles S. Olden, and the Metropolitan Bank.

This bill, which is a bill of revivor, presents the following state of facts: In December, 1838, one-Jesse McKee, of Morgan county, died, being the owner of the real estate now in controversy.

This was an action of trover, brought in the Circuit Court of Randolph county, by the appellee, who was plaintiff, against the appellant, defendant. The cause was tried by the court, without a jury, by consent of parties, at the term which was held in the month of October, 1859, ensuing, by. virtue of the order and appointment set out in the opinion following.

Archibald Williams filed in the Hancock Circuit Court, a declaration in ejectment, in the usual form, against Richmond Merritt, for the recovery of south-west 36, 6 north, 7 west, in said county,… Held: the parties waived a jury, by consent, and the cause was tried by the court before Sibley, Judge. The court found for defendant; a motion for a new trial was made by plaintiff and overruled, and judgment rendered against plaintiff for costs.

Philip Penn, administrator de bonis non of William Baker, deceased, on the 17th March, 1847, filed his petition at law in the St. Clair Circuit Court, against Sarah Baker, widow of Wm. Baker, John Baker and others, as heirs-at-law of Wm. Baker and Richard Bradsby and Thornton Peoples. Said petition alleges, that the debts of said estate exceed the amount of the personal estate, in the sum of $4,212.33. That said deceased died seized of the lands therein described.

This was a suit in chancery, brought by the said Sarah Gather, as widow of Zenas Gather, deceased, against the said Gove and others, in the Adams Circuit Court, t° recover dower in certain real estate in the city of Quincy, called the Gather House, and damages for the detention of such dower, from the thirtieth day of September, A. D. 1858, the time of demand made.

This was an action of covenant, brought by appellee against appellant in the Edgar Circuit Court. The declaration consists of two counts, both of which are based upon a certain writing obligatory. General issue joined, and trial before the court, Hablan, Judge, presiding, and a jury. Verdict against appellant for $110.60, whereupon appellant moved the court below for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and judgment rendered against appellant for $110.60, and costs.

This was a proceeding on the part of the Rock Island and Alton Railroad Company, to condemn certain lands for its use. One of the commissioners to assess the damages to the land, was proved to be a stockholder in the road, and the award was, on that account, set aside. Afterwards, other commissioners made an assessment of the damages, which was confirmed by the court, Woodson, Judge, presiding.

Schultz filed his petition to enforce a mechanics’ lien for building a barn for Stein. The contract alleged in petition is as follows, to wit: “ That by the terms of said contract, said Stein was to furnish all the materials for said building, and your petitioner'was to put up the same for the sum of one hundred and eighty-five dollars. One hundred and twenty-four dollars of said sum to be paid on the first day of January, A. D. 1858.

This was a bill in chancery by appellant against appellee and others, to foreclose a mortgage. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Breese. The cause was tried in the Adams Circuit Court, Sibley, Judge, presiding.