Volume 23 — Kansas Reports

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action in the nature of ejectment, brought by Susan Maynes against George W. Veale and twenty-five others, to recover possession of a certain tract of land which… Held: used, owned and occupied by the Indian. And yet it has always been well understood that the Indian title is a mere right of exclusive possession, with the ultimate fee resting in the United States.

Error from Osage District Court. Ejectment, brought by Morrell, against Edward Ingle and wife, to recover the possession of certain real estate situate in Osage county. Trial at the April Term, 1877, of the district court, and verdict and judgment for defendants. The plaintiff brings the case to this court.

Error from Atchison District Court. At the November Term, 1878, of the district court, C. H. & L. J. McCormick, as plaintiffs, recovered a judgment for $231.80 and costs, against defendant Marbourg, who brings the case to this court. The facts, pleadings and proceedings are fully stated in the opinion.

Error from, Shawnee District Court. Action on an account stated, brought by the Kansas Pacific Railway Company against T. J. Anderson. The amount claimed was $7,617.16, with interest from March 1, 1874. The action was commenced February 10, 1875. To the petition, the defendant filed a general denial, and in a second count of the answer set forth new matter as an additional defense.

Error from Neosho District Court. Action brought by Lemert against Sponenbarger as principal, and five other defendants as sureties, on the official bond of Sponenbarger, as constable of Mission township, in Neosho county. Trial at the April Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. New trial denied, and defendants bring the case to this court. The facts fully appear in the opinion.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action brought by Smith against Auld and two other defendants, for the rents and profits accruing from certain real estate previously in litigation between the same parties. Trial by the court at the November Term, 1877, and findings and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants bring the case here.

Error from Howard District Court. Action brought by Donelson against The Board of Commissioners of Howard County, to recover certain fees alleged to be due him from said county, as county attorney, for collecting certain moneys, in 1874. Trial by the court, at the November Term, 1875, and findings and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff brings the case to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from, Marion District Court. Action brought by John Franhlin (a colored boy), a minor, by Wilson Franklin, his next friend, against the A. T. & 8. F. Railroad Co., to recover damages for personal injuries.

Error from, Leavenworth Eistriot Court. Action brought by 'Havens, as administrator of the estate of Elijah C. Stevens, deceased, against Thomas Carney and Thomas C. Stevens, as partners, for work and labor done by the decedent, and for moneys by him deposited with the defendants. Trial at the September Term, 1875, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. Carney brings the ease to this court. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Allen District Court. Ejectment, brought by Sarah Fleming and three others-against Bale, to recover certain real estate. Trial at the November Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for defendant. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court, the facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Miami District Court. Ejectment, brought by Margaret Bauder and two others, plaintiffs, against Bryan, to recover certain real estate. Trial by the court, at the November Term, 1875. Upon the trial it was admitted that Simeon Bauder owned the land in controversy at the time of his death in 1860. The plaintiffs proved that they were the heirs of Simeon Bauder.

Error from Pottawatomie District Court. Action brought by Nina Garrett against Uriah Stephens and Martha J. Stephens, his wife, John Dial, John M. Wheeler, W. H. Ryus, and Howard M. Holden, upon a… Held: “A lien by attachment, or by a judgment, will hold against a prior unrecorded deed.” Subsequently a different registration law was passed, and since then the decisions of the supreme court have been in conformity with the existing law.

At the October Term, 1878, of the district court of Pawnee •county, Moore and two others had judgment against Eddy, who brings the ease here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Cowley District Court. Action brought by Broohs against Eager, to perpetually enjoin the defendant, as treasurer of Cowley county, from collecting a certain alleged illegal personal-property tax assessed against the plaintiff. The board of commissioners of said county was also made a party defendant. Trial at the May Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. Brooks brings the case to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from, Saline District Court. Action brought by Bondi against the Board of Commissioners of Saline County for probate judge’s fees and sheriff’s fees, which accrued in a certain proceeding had before the probate judge, to determine the sanity or insanity of a person alleged to be insane. Trial at the November Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. Other facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Saline District Court. Action brought by the Weed Sewing Machine Co. against James R. McQonigal, as principal, and four others as his sureties, on a certain penal bond given by the defendants to the plaintiff. At the October Term, 1878, of the district court, plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant sureties,. Bond, Palmer and Jones, making the other surety, Henry, one-of the defendants in error, bring the case to this court. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action brought by Egly against Adam Brenner and George Brenner, upon a promissory note by them executed to the plaintiff. At the November Term, 1878, of the district court, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and against the defendant George Brenner, who brings the case to this court. The facts fully appear in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee District Court. At the January Term, 1879, of the district court, in an action wherein Heller was plaintiff and the Board of Comm’rs of Shawnee Co. was defendant, the said board had judgment against the plaintiff. Heller brings the case here.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Eeplevin brought by Bulkley against Green, to recover the possession of two mares. At the December Term, 1878, of the district court, plaintiff took judgment against the defendant, who brings the case to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

<p>At the January Term, 1879, of the district court of Shawnee county, the Board of Commissioners of said county, as-defendant, had judgment against Heller, as plaintiff, who brings the case to this court.</p>

At the March Term, 1878, of the district court of Lincoln county, John Geis and William Geis, as plaintiffs, recovered a judgment .against the Board of Commssion'ers of Lincoln County. The defendant brings the case here.

■ Error from Osage District Court. Action brought by Thomas against Gillespie, to compel the specific performance of a contract to convey certain real «state situate in Osage county. Trial at the April Term, 1875, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here.

Error from Dickinson District Court. At the March Term, 1878, of the district court, Perry had judgment against the National Land Company, which brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Morris District Court. On September 2, 1878, L. P. Rude commenced an action against the The State Bank of Council Grove, in the district court of Morris county,- to recover the sum of $300 for the unlawful conversion and disposition of certain promissory notes formerly owned by one W. F. Shamleffer.

Information for robbery in the first degree, alleged to have been committed by Roark, in Edwards county, in January, 1878. A change of venue was granted the defendant to Butler county, where the case was tried at the March Term, 1879, of the district court, the defendant found guilty as charged, and sentenced accordingly. Roark appeals to this court. The court erred in not granting the defendant time to procure the attendanceof his witnesses.

At the November Term, 1878, of the,district court of Linn county, the appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and now appeals to this court.

Error from Chase District Court. Dunlap filed his petition in the district court of Lyon county against the defendants, on February 3, 1876, to recover $691.77 upon two promissory notes. Caleb Beekes and Baxter Beekes were charged in the petition as makers and E. B. Peyton as indorser of the notes.

Error from, Barton Bistriot Court. Action brought by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Bid. Co. against Maher, for money had and received. Trial at the March Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. New trial denied, and the Bailroad Company brings the case to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from, Barton District Court. Action in the nature of ejectment, brought by the A. T, .& 8. F. Bid. Co. v. ‘Mecklim. Trial by the court at the March Term, 1878, and findings and judgment for the defendant-The plaintiff brings the ease to this court. The facts, pleadings and proceedings are fully stated in the opinion.

Error from, Wyandotte District Court. Action brought by Brown against Grandstaff and wife and two other defendants, upon a note and mortgage. At the July Term, 1878, of the district court, the plaintiff had judgment against the defendants, and Grandstaff and wife bring the case here for review. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

M-ror from Wyandotte District Court. June 19,1878, Tutt and Balter made a motion in the district court to revive a certain judgment against Margaret E. Scroggs, as administratrix of the estate of James A. Cruise, deceased, which motion the court sustained at the July Term, 1878, and found that there was still due on the judgment the sum of $1,144.

Error from, Doniphan District Court. A sufficient statement of the facts in this case is contained' in the subjoined opinion. The district court, at the March Term, 1878, gave judgment for Manville and against Felter,. who brings the case here.

<p>Action brought in the district court of Wyandotte county, by Mary Gruble against William H. JRyus as principal, and nine others as his sureties, on his bond as sheriff of said county. Trial at the July Term, 1878, when the court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence, and gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.</p>

Error from Dickinson District Court. At the March Term, 1876, of the district court, the National Land Company, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against the Board of Commissioners of Dickinson County for $1,232.09, and costs. The Board brings the case to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Marshall District Court. At the Decetnber Term, 1878, of the district court, the •court sustained the motion of the St. Joseph & Kansas Loan and Building Association to amend a certain judgment for Wm. Thompson and wife, and against said association, so as to decree the foreclosure of a mortgage given by the former to the latter. Thompson and wife bring the case to this •court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Reno District Court. Action brought by Myton against Thurlow on a promissory note given by the latter to the former for a horse. Trial at the November Term, 1877, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Action brought by Harris against Day and another, upon-a promissory note. Trial at the December Term, 1878, of the district court of Cowley county, and verdict and judgment for the defendants. The court sustained plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, to which order defendants excepted, and have brought the case here.

Error from, Sedgwiclt Eistriet Court. On March 14, 1878, W. C. Woodman filed in the district court of Sedgwick county his petition against W. A. Thomas, N. W. Ellis and others, praying that the defendants be compelled to abate and remove a certain dam across the Little Arkansas river, and to fill up a race-course diverting the water above the said dam into a stream called Chisholm creek; and also, that said defendants be enjoined from rebuilding and maintaining said dam, and…

Error from Douglas District Court. Action brought by Horton against Watson, under the pror visions of article 6, chapter 36, of the General Statutes of 1868 to determine the right of the contestor to the office of county-treasurer of Douglas county.

Error from Coffey District Court. On the 14th day of March, 1874, one John W. Henderson, who was at and before that date the duly appointed-, qualified and acting administrator of the estate of James H. Parker, deceased, made his final settlement as such administrator in and with the probate court for the county of Coffey.

Prosecution for murder in the first degree. At the November Term, 1879, of the district court, the appellant O’Kane was found guilty of an assault and battery, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and costs, and to be imprisoned in the county jail until said fine and costs were paid. O’Kane appeals to this court. The facts appear in the opinion. 1. The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to quash the information.

Prosecution for the violation of an ordinance of the city of Humboldt, requiring, in certain cases, a license to peddle merchandise in said city. At the November Term, 1878, the district court sustained the defendant’s motion to quash the complaint filed against him, adjudged that the defendant be discharged from arrest and go hence without day, and that the city of Humboldt pay the costs. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Indictment against Pitzer, for selling intoxicating liquor without duly taking out and having a license so to do. At the'May Term, 1879, the district court sustained defendant’s motion to quash the indictment filed against him, and discharged the defendant to go hence without day. The State appeals.

Action brought by Morning against Scott and four other defendants, upon a note and mortgage. Trial at the April Term, 1878, of the Cherokee district court, and judgment for plaintiff. Scott brings the case here.

At the March Term, 1879, of the district court of Butler county, Levis, as plaintiff, had judgment against Jenkins, who brings the case to this court.

Ekror from Osborne District Court. Action brought by Honn against the Board of Commissioners of Osborne County, to recover for his, costs and expenses in a certain case of misdemeanor. Trial at the April Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. The facts are stated in the ■opinion.

At the May Term, 1879, of the district court of Clay county, Sterling, sheriff of said county, as defendant, had judgment against Wingrove, as plaintiff, who brings the case here¡

Original Proceedings in Quo Warranto. Original proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, to determine by what authority A. J. Buckland attempts to hold the office of justice of the peace of Great Bend township, in Barton county.

Error from Doniphan District Court. Action for divorce. At the September Term, 1879, of the district court, Florence M. Ashmead, as plaintiff, had j udgment against Albert S. Ashmead, as defendant, who brings the case to this court.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. On the 19fch day of December, 1879, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of this court, upon a petition filed therefor on behalf of the state, by Willard Davis, attorney general, and directed to the board of commissioners of the-county of Hodgeman, and 8.

Error from Woodson District Court. Action brought, by 8. A. Brown & Co. against Moore and wife and four' other defendants, to subject certain real estate to sale for the payment of a judgment previously recovered by said plaintiffs against said Moore and one William Bacus. The nature of the action, and all necessary facts, appear in the opinion. Trial at the June Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiffs. The defendants bring the case here.

Error from Bourbon District Court. Action brought by Ewing, against the Railroad Companyr to recover damages for killing a cow belonging to plaintiff Trial at the September Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff The defendant brings the case to-this court.

Error from Chase District Court. Action in the nature of ejectment, brought by Hallett against Russell and wife.. Tx’ial at the May .Term, 1878, of the district coux’t, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendants bring the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from, Greenwood District Court. W. C. Huffman, plaintiff in error, was county attorney of Greenwood county in 1875. In September, 1876, he brought suit in the district court for $500, for services rendered by him in 1875 for his county, at the request and instance of the board of county commissioners, in the case of The State v. Nicholas, tried in Lyon county on a change of venue from Greenwood.

This action was commenced on November 25, 1876, by The Board of County Commissioners of Riee County against Blachman JE. Lawrence, county treasurer of said county, and his sureties on his official bond. By consent of parties, a change of venue was taken to Reno county. In January, 1878, a trial was had, the jury failed to agree, and thereupon the case was referred to A. R. Scheble, of Hutchinson.

Error from Harvey District Court. At the March Term, 1879, of the district court, Elliott recovered a judgment against Neal, who brings the case to this court. The facts fully appear in the opinion.

Error from Chautauqua District Court. Replevin, brought by Bellew against Ahrburg, to recover possession of a span of mares. Trial at the March Term, 1879, of the district court, and verdict and judgment for the •defendant. Bellew brings the case here.

Error from Atchison District Court. Replevin, brought by Tilghman against Seip, sheriff, etc.,, claiming that certain property levied upon by the defendant was exempt from execution. Trial at the March, Term, 1876,. of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. The opinion, contains a sufficient statement of -the facts.

Error from, Harvey District Court. Injunction brought by Ross against Leonard, sheriff of Harvey county, to enjoin the sale of certain land claimed by plaintiff as his homestead. Held: in Comm’rs of Sedgwick Oo. v. Bunker, 16 Kas. 498, that to issue bonds, they must not only be executed, but must be delivered. It requires delivery to constitute issue, issuing, or issuance. This court has also held in several cases that there is no conveyance without the delivery of the deed.

Error from Bourbon District Court. At the December Term, 1878, of the district court, Sackett, as plaintiff, had judgment against Bobbins and another, as defendants, who bring the case here on error. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Lyon Distriet Court. On the 19th day of April, 1879, Charles Germy and Sarah Germy filed their petition in the district court of Lyon county against J. W.'Bowman and the First National bank of Emporia in the following words: “Plaintiffs for their cause of action show to the court that on or about February 13, 1878, said defendant, J. W. Bowman, and one Maggie W. Bowman, his wife, then owning a tract of land in Lyon county, Kansas, described as follows, the west…

Error from, Dickinson District Court. On September 4th, 1877, Haxtun and Ogden commenced their action in Dickinson county district court against E. W. Sizer, for $2,724.34, money had and received by the defendant .to and for the use of the plaintiffs, and caused an order of attachment to issue therein. The order was leviéd by the sheriff on a lot of wheat, which was appraised'at $2,675.40.

Error from Ottawa District Court. Replevin brought by Dresher against Corson, as sheriff of Ottawa county, to recover possession of certain property, of which plaintiff claimed to be owner. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Trial at the May Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from Cherokee District Court. Action for -labor, brought by Eakins against the North Center Creek Mining & Smelting Company. Trial and judgment for the plaintiff, at the January Term, 1879, of the district court. The defendant brings- the case to this court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Error from Osage District Court. At the April Term, 1876, of the district court, Shepard and another, as plaintiffs, had judgment against defendant Marshall, who brings the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Barton District Court. Action brought by Buckland, against Goit, under the-provisions of article 6, chapter 36, of the General Statutes of 1868, to determine the right of the contestor to the office of justice of the peace of Great Bend township, in Barton county. Trial at the March Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the contestee. The contestor brings-the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

<p>1. Evidence, Rule Of; Exceptions and Limitations. As a general rule, parol testimony is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of the contract which the law implies from the indorsement in blank of negotiable paper, yet this rule has its limitations and exceptions.</p> <p>2. Exception to Bule, Sufficiently .Pleaded. In an action by a bank, against L., its president, to recover of L. as an indorser on a certain promissory note, payable to the order of L., president, at the bank, an exception to the rule is sufficiently set forth in the following answer: “Defendant admits the execution by the maker of the note, and the indorsement by the defendant, on the back thereof; but says the note was not executed to defendant, but to the bank in the name of the defendant, as president of the bank, and was so executed, because it was customary for the bank to take notes of its debtors, in the name of its officers as payees; that it was executed in consideration of a preexisting and overdue indebtedness of the maker to the bank; that afterward, without any consideration or benefit whatever moving between the bank and defendant, or between the bank and anyone else, but merely in accordance with the custom of the bank, the defendant, as president of the bank, and not otherwise, indorsed his name on the back of the note; that at no time was the defendant the owner and holder of the note, nor was any other person than the bank the owner thereof; and that the indorsement of the note by defendant was wholly and entirely without consideration.”</p>

Error from Ellsworth District Court. In an action pending in the district court of Ellsworth county, at the September Term, 1879, to compel George Huyelo, as treasurer of the county, to execute and deliver to John O. Briscoe a certificate of redemption for certain land sold to the county for the non-payment of taxes, the following agreed statement of facts was filed: “Whereas, on the 5th day of September, 1876, there was a tax charged against the following-described real…

Thompson was charged by information with having, on-July 28, 1878, and in the night time, in Atchison county, unlawfully, forcibly, feloniously and burglariously broken and entered a frame building used and occupied by the Atchison & Nebraska railroad company, a corporation, as a tool shop,, in which building there were then kept, stored and deposited certain valuable goods, wares and mechanical tools, to wit: One pick, of the value of one dollar, six feet of fuse, of the…

Error from Miami District Court. At the October Term, 1877, of the district court, Patten, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against Gossett, defendant, who brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action on a promissory note and a mortgage, brought by Pears against Wilson and two others.

Eh'ror from Atchison District Court. Action brought by David Henigh, as administrator of the estate of Charles W. Henigh, deceased, against The Central Branch Union Pacific Bid. Co., to recover $10,000 damages, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the death of said Charles W. Henigh, whose death was alleged to have been caused through the negligence of the said railroad company. The facts, pleadings and proceedings sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Atohison District Court. Action brought by Knauer against Morrow, to recover damages for malicious prosecution and imprisonment, at the instance of said defendant, before E. C. Wells, a justice of the peace in Winthrop, Buchanan county, Missouri, and in the circuit court of said county. Trial at the March Term,, 1877, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion contains a. sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Atohison District Court. At the June Term, 1878, of the district court, the Manhattan Fire Insurance Co., as defendant, had judgment against C. El. Fitch & Co., as plaintiffs, who bring the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Allen District Court. Action brought by Jarvis against Campbell, upon a promissory note, given March 2, 1874, by the defendant to the plaintiff, for- a claim to a certain piece of land which was a part of what was then called the “Osage ceded lands.” Trial at the June Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Wabaunsee District Court. Ejectment, brought by Harris against Thompson. Trial, and judgment for the defendant, at the March Term, 1877, of the district court. The plaintiff brings the case to this court. The nature of the action, and the facts, sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from, Gherohee District Court. Action originally brought by G. C. Gfregg, the defendant-in error, in a justice’s court, of Cherokee county, against the Adams Express Company, to enforce a certain alleged', claim for rent. The case was appealed to the district court, and, a jury being mutually waived, was tried before the-judge of the court, May 7, 1878. After argument, the cause-was taken under advisement by the court.

Error from Elle District Court. Action brought by McBee, against Bruce, to quiet title to certain real estate in Howard City. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. Trial at the October Term, 1878, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case to this court.

Hr or from Montgomery District Court. Action of replevin, brought by Oottingham and another, against J. T. Brook and Uri Coy. Trial at the March Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiffs. Brock brings the case here. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts. It was error to reject the evidence as to the substance of the execution.

Error from, Leavenworth District Court. At the September Term, 1878, of the district court, Geo. W. Horder and three others as plaintiffs had judgment against Lucy Horder and two others as defendants, who bring the case to this court. 'The nature of the action is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Error from, Cowley District Court. Action by Cox, against Chambers and wife, upon a certain note, and a mortgage. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. Trial at the August Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants bring the case here.

Error from Greenwood District Court. Mandamus brought by Hall against Steioart, to compel him, as clerk of the district court of Greenwood county, to issue an execution upon a certain judgment. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. Judgment for the defendant, at the May Term, 1878, of the district court. Hall brings the-case here.

<p> Error from, Johnson District Court. </p> <p>Action by the Eagle Manufacturing Company against the makers of a certain promissory note. The petition was filed January 8, 1879, and is as follows:</p> <p>“Plaintiffstates that it is a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Iowa, and that said defendants, by their certain promissory note, herewith filed and made part of this petition, dated March 30th, 1878, promised, for value received, one hundred days after the date thereof, to pay plaintiff, at the Mastín Bank; Kansas City, Missouri, the sum of three hundred and fifty-nine and ffjy dollars, with ten per cent, interest per annum after due.</p> <p>“Plaintiff says that at the date of maturity of said note, to wit, on the 11th day of July, 1878, the same was presented to the teller of said Mastín Bank at Kansas City, and payment demanded; that the teller of the bank refused to pay off said note, or any part thereof; whereupon the said note was duly protested on said day, and all the parties concerned notified according to law; and that in consequence of the non-payment of the note at its maturity, and the protesting of the same, plaintiff is damaged in the sum of twenty-five dollars in addition to the costs and expenses of the protest, and that said sum of three hundred and fifty-nine and dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent, per annum from said 11th day of July, 1878, and also the sum of twenty-five dollars for damages, and the sum of two and dollars paid out by plaintiff for protest fees, and the further sum of twenty-one and dollars, being six per cent, of the sum due at the date of protest, are all due from .said defendants to plaintiff, and unpaid.</p> <p>“Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for said sum of three hundred and fifty-nine and dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent, per annum from the 11th day of July, 1878, until paid, and for the further sum of forty-nine and yJq- dollars in full for the plaintiff’s damages, interest, .and costs of protest, and for all other proper relief.</p> <p>“Enoch B. Gill,</p> <p>“Geo. B. Lord,</p> <p> “Att’ysfor Plaintiff.” </p> <p>The following is the copy of promissory note to said petition attached, and marked “ Exhibit A”:</p> <p>■“$359.60. Gardner, Johnson Co., Kansas, 1</p> <p>March 30th, 1878. J</p> <p>“One hundred days after date, we promise to pay to the Eagle Man’f’g Co., or order, three hundred and fifty-nine ■jTy-Q dollars, at Mastín Bank, Kansas City, Mo., with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum after due, value received. Abram Cramer.</p> <p>J. B. Todd.”</p> <p>The proper revenue stamp was affixed to said note, and duly canceled; and the following words were written acro'ss the face of the note, to wit: “Protested for non-payment, July 11th, 1878. — J. H. Lipcomb, Notary.” And upon the back of said note were the following indorsements, to wit: “Eagle Mfg. Co., T. O. Dwinney, Treas.” “ Pay Jno. J. Mas-tin, Cash’r, or order, for collection, account of First National Bank of Davenport, la.- — John B. Eiddlar, Cash’r.” But those parts of said indorsements printed in italies were erased by ink-lines drawn through them.</p> <p>On February 25, 1879, the defendants filed an answer, admitting that they executed the note sued on, and denying the other allegations and statements in the petition. Trial had at the March Term, 1879, before the court, ajury being waived. General finding for plaintiff, and judgment for the full amount of the note and interest, and in addition, the sum of $2.50 for costs of protest paid by plaintiff, and $21.57, being statutory damages on account of the protest of the note. Defendants excepted to the protest fees and protest damages being allowed, and the objections being overruled, they bring the case here.</p>

Error from Sumner District Court. Action by Parker, against Plymell and wife, upon two* promissory notes, and a mortgage given as security for their payment. The facts are stated in the opinion. Trial at the* April Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from Doniphan District Court. At the March Term, 1879, of the district court, Moyer, as plaintiff, had judgment against Clouch, as defendant, who brings the case to this court. The nature of the action, and the facts, sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Johnson District Court, At the June Term, 1879, of the district court, Kennedy,. as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against J. Moráis, ET. Moráis, and B. F, Lignon, partners as Mordis, Son & Lignon,. as defendants, in an action on an account for corn sold and delivered. , The defense was, payment. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendants bring the 'case-here.

Error from, Allen District Court. Action in the nature of ejectment, brought by Brubaher and two others against Jones and another, to recover certain real estate. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. Trial at the February Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs bring the case here.

Error- from Allen District Court. Ejectment brought by Nancy Fudge and nine others against Conrad Fudge and another, to recover certain i*eal estate which • defendants held under an administrator’s deed. Trial at the. February Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for • defendants. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court.. The .facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Error from Johnson District Court. Replevin brought by the People’s Savings Bank, of Olathe, against Dayton and three others, to recover the possession of certain fruit trees or nursery stock, valued at $75t>. The opinion states the facts. At the March Term, 1879, of the district court, the plaintiff had judgment against the defendants, who bring the case here.

Error from Doniphan District Court. 1 Ejectment, brought by Zanders and another, against. Greenstreet and wife. Trial at the December Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendants. New trial denied, and the plaintiffs bring the case here.

Error from Jefferson District Court. September 22, 1876, C. 8. Northrop filed his petition against James M. Cotton and Elizabeth Cotton in the district court of Jefferson county, for judgment against James M. Cotton upon certain notes, and the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure their payment. December 8, 1876, plaintiff amended his petition, making four others defendants, and asking simply equitable relief against them. All were duly served with summons.

Error from, Lyon District Court. E. Epstein & Co. sued Graffenstein for damages, for the alleged breach of a written contract for the sale of certain wool. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion. At the September Term, 1879, of the district court, the plaintiffs had judgment against the defendant, who brings the case here. 1.

Error from, Franklin District Court. On January 3, 1878, John Jeffries took possession of a ■small house and lot in Ottawa, under and by virtue of a tax deed. On January 31, 1878, he brought an action against W. H. Clark, who claimed to be the owner of the premises, to quiet the title. On February 25, 1878, Clark brought an action, in the nature of an ejectment, against Jeffries, for the same property.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. On the 22d of November, 1879, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of this court, and directed to T. H. Stevens, F. B. Singer, and J. W. Clehouse, commissioners' of Harper county, commanding them as a canvassing board to meet, on the 12th day of December, 1879, at the county seat of said county, and then and there to canvass and declare the result of the election held on the 4th day of November, 1879, for county officers and on the…

Error from Bourbon District Court. Action brought by Bury and two others, against Conklin, on certain promissory notes. Trial at the September Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court. The facts, pleadings and proceedings sufficiently appear in the opinion. 1.

Error from Elk District Court. Action brought by Osborn against Ziegler to recover for money alleged to have been«advanced by the former to the latter, April 16,1877. Trial and judgment for the plaintiff, ■at the April Term, 1879, of the district court. Ziegler brings the case here.

Error from, Atohison District Court, Action by Lincoln, against Howe, for wages. At the March Term, 1879, of the district court, plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, who brings the case to this court.

Error from, Linn District Court. At the April Term, 1879, of the district court, Biddle, as defendant, had judgment against Parker, as plaintiff, who brings the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, sufficiently appear in the opinion.

<p>Unconscionable Contract, Not Enforced. On June 11,1875, C. was indebted to K. & M. in the sum of $600; at the time, C. had in his possession an endowment policy issued by an insurance company, insuring his life in favor of his wife. In consideration of the satisfaction of this indebtedness and $275, C. and his wife executed a written assignment of the policy to M., and delivered the policy and.assignment to him, and thereby transferred all their right, title and interest in the policy. Afterward, M. paid to the company all subsequent premiums and premium notes. The policy matured May 12,1878. The amount then due thereon was $1,477.73. K. & M. demanded this sum from the insurance company, but it refused to pay without Mrs. C.’s receipt on the back of the policy. Mrs. C. refused to sign her name, unless she was paid $477.73 when the policy was collected. In compliance with this extortionate demand, K. executed to Mrs. C. his written promise to pay her this sum on the payment of the policy, and M. guaranteed the payment of the money within ten days after the policy was paid. When the policy was paid, K. & M. refused to comply with their written promise. Mrs. C. brought her action thereon, and the court gave her judgment for the full amount, interest and costs. Held, That as Mrs. C. availed herself of the situation in which K. & M. were placed to exact an unreasonable sum and an unconscionable bargain, she cannot enforce their written promise, but may recover what is fairly due her for the inconvenience, or service in writing her signature.</p>

Error from, Lyon District Court. Action, brought July 1, 1878, by Babb, against Lindley, to have the defendant declared the trustee of the legal title to a certain piece of land in Lyon county, for the benefit of plaintiff, and to compel him to convey the legal title. The facts, pleadings and proceedings are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Trial by the court, which made certain findings of.fact, and thereon entered judgment for the defendants for costs.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action by Crall against Best and another, on a certain promissory note. Held: then upon what rule of law or equity ? From the record, the court below evidently viewed the transaction between Crall and Lamberson as a transfer of' the right, title and interest of the latter in the notes to the former, and it must have regarded the transfer as of such a character as would amount to an absolute, unrestricted…

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action brought by Gore, against Smith and various other-defendants, to subject a certain note and mortgage held by Smith against one Michael McDonald, to the payment of a. certain judgment held by plaintiff against said Smith. Trial at the September Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. Smith brings the case here.

Error from Montgomery District Court. Action brought by Woodruff against Thos. J. Baldwin and his wife, Margaret A. Baldwin, upon a note and mortgage executed pursuant to the provisions of art. 17 of the code of criminal procedure, by the wife as trustee of the estate of her husband, who was a convict in the state penitentiary. The defendant Thos. J. Baldwin, for himself, demurred generally to the plaintiff’s petition.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. Mandamus, brought by the A. T. & S. F. Rld.

Original Proceedings in Quo Warranto. Quo warranto, brought February 21, .1880, by the attorney general, challenging the right of the Bankers’ and Merchants’ Mutual Benefit Association, of Atchison, Kansas, to transact business in this state, and praying that the defendant be required to show by what warrant or authority it ex-ercises certain rights and franchises, and that said association may be dissolved, etc. The nature of the action appears in the opinion.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action by Helmers against Shepherd and McKee, because of the refusal of Shepherd, the county treasurer of Leavenworth county, to pay two county warrants issued on the general fund in payment of jurors’ services in the district court of that county, prior to 1879. The facts are fully stated in the following agreed case: “The said plaintiff, H. J. Helmers, and said defendants,.

<p> Error from, Harvey District Court. </p> <p>Action brought before a justice of the peace of Harvey county, Kansas, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error. The bill of particulars filed is in the words and figures following, to wit:</p> <p>{Court, and Title.) The plaintiff, by its attorneys, Nichols & Greene, complains of defendants, and says that at Newton, Kansas, January 8, 1877, defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff their note, in writing, of that date, and thereby promised to pay plaintiff or order, on or before October 1, 1877, $202.11, with interest at 10 per cent. Plaintiff further says, that a copy of said note, with all indorsements thereon, is hereto attached, marked “Exhibit A,”'and made a part hereof; and that said note has not been paid, nor any part thereof. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against said defendants for the sum of $202.11, with interest at 10 per cent, from January 8, 1877, and costs.</p> <p>Nichols & Greene, For Plaintiff.</p> <p>EXHIBIT A.</p> <p>$202.11. Newton, Kansas, Jan. 8, 1877.</p> <p>October 1st, after date, we promise to pay to the order of the people of the state of Illinois, at the office of Nichols & Greene, Newton, Kansas, two hundred and two and dollars, with 10 per cent, interest per annum from date until paid, value received, with attorneys’ fees, if collected by law.</p> <p>B. P. Esley.</p> <p>William Mortimer.</p> <p>G. W. Arnold.</p> <p>Samuel Aiken.</p> <p>At the trial the defendants questioned the right and authority of Nichols & Greene to appear as attorneys for the plaintiff, and the court required them to show by what authority they so appeared; and thereupon one of said attorneys testified that they appeared for said plaintiff upon the direction and authority of Mr. Brock, state’s attorney for Mercer county, Illinois, in the first place, and under the same direction and authority of Brock’s successor, whose name he did not remember. Whereupon defendants objected to their appearing, which objection was overruled. Then the defendants moved that the plaintiff be required to make its bill of particulars more definite and certain, by stating whether it was a state government, corporation, or copartnership, and if a corporation, to state what kind; which motion was overruled, and exceptions duly saved. Then the defendants demurred to said bill of particulars, stating as grounds therefor — first, that the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue beyond its territorial limits, or in the state of Kansas, or in this court; and second, that the bill of particulars does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff' and against defendants, which was overruled, and exceptions duly taken. Thereupon the plaintiff below introduced the note in evidence, and the defendants introduced a witness; and the court, upon the pleadings and evidence, gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff over the objections of the defendants. To reverse said judgment, the defendants filed their petition in error in the district court of Harvey county, which court, after duly hearing the same, affirmed the decision and judgment of the justice’s court. The defendants, Esley and Mortimer, have brought the case here.</p>

Error from Marion District Court. Action brought by Avis F. Comstock, against Loretta Adams,, alias Loretta Comstock, and others, to set aside a certain will executed by Ira Comstock, and to procure a decree declaring-the said Avis F. Comstock to be the owner of one-half of all the property, real and personal, of which the said Ira Com-stock died seized.

Error from, Doniphan District Court. Action brought by Dryden, against The St. Joseph & Denver City Rid. Co., for the assessment of damages for a right of way over plaintiff's land. Trial at the September Term, 1876, of the district court, aud judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from, Barton District Court. At the March Term, 1879, of the district court, E. P. ■Shaffer, as administrator of the estate of F. M. Shaffer, deceased, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against Brinkman, .as defendant, who brings the case to this court. The nature ■of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

<p>1. Bill of Particulars; Practice. In an action of replevin in a justice’s court, the plaintiff may, if he chooses, and with the permission of the justice, use and treat his affidavit for the summons.and order of delivery as a bill of particulars.</p> <p>2. --Held, Under the circumstances of this case, that there was no tenancy in common as to any of the property in controversy.</p> <p>3. Replevin; Modification of Judgment; Power of Court. Where a justice of the peace, in a replevin suit before him, first renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff) and against the defendant, for all the property in ' controversy, and afterward modifies the judgment so as to give a portion of the property to the defendant, and the district court (on petition in error by the defendant from the justice’s court) affirms the judgment of the justice as thus modified, held, that whether said modification was right or wrong, valid or void, the district court itself had the power to paake it; and whether it .was correct or erroneous, it being for the benefit of the plaintiff in error, he has no ground for complaint because thereof.</p>

Error from Atchison District Court. At the June Term, 1879, of the district court, Luckey had judgment against Lapere, who brings the case here. The opinion contains a full statement of the facts.

Error from Lyon District Court. Action by Geisendorff & Co. against Powell, to recover damages for the wrongful obtaining of money belonging to the plaintiffs. Trial- and judgment for the plaintiffs, at the September Term, 1879, of the district court. Powell brings the case to this court. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts. •

M'ror from Cowley District Court. Action by Jackson, against the Winfield Town Company,. and others, to set aside two certain deeds executed by the probate judge of Cowley county to said town company for certain lots in the town or city of Winfield. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. Trial, and judgment for the defendants, at the December Term, 1878, of the district court. Jackson brings the case here.

<p> Error from Johnson District Court. </p> <p>At the June Term, 1879, of the district court, Púgh, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against Reeder as defendant, who brings the case here. The opinion fully states the facts.</p>

Error from Wyandotte District Court. At the July Term, 1878, of the district court, Collins, as defendant, had judgment against Humphrey, as plaintiff, who brings the case to this court.

Error from Anderson District Court. Action brought by Henry Barnes against G. A. Manners, Lettie Manners, F. C. Barber, and Thomas Hogan, to foreclose a chattel mortgage executed and delivered by G. A, Manners to said Barnes, upon said mortgagor’s one-and-one-half-story frame house, located on lot twenty-four (24), in block forty-seven (47), in the town (now city) of Garnett, to secure the payment of $383.05, according to the terms of a certain promissory note, which the…

M-ror from Johnson District Court.. Ejectment, brought by Eftrnshaw against Grout and another, to recover possession of the west half of southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 34, township 12, range 24, in Johnson county. Trial at the June Term, 1879,' of the district court, and judgment for the defendants. The-plaintiff brings the case to this court for review. A sufficient statement of the facts is contained in the opinion.

<p>Jurisdiction in Indian Territory; Presumption; Practice; Error. In an action by a brakeman against a railroad company to recover damages sustained while engaged in running a train through the negligence of the company, an objection to the introduction of any testimony was sustained on the ground that the petition, which averred that the injury was done in the Indian country south of Kansas, contained no allegation that either plaintiff or defendant had license or legal authority to enter that country, or engage in the running of railroad trains through it, or that there was any law in force within its limits, either giving a cause of action for such a wrong or prescribing a rule of damage. Held, Error; that there is no presumption that a party is a wrong-doer because of entering into any state or territory of the United States or engaging therein in any ordinarily lawful occupation; the presumption is the reverse.</p> <p>That if we take judicial notice of the laws and treaties of the United States designed to secure to the Indians the occupation of this country, we find special reservation of a right to license the construction of a railroad through it, and from the long continuance of the defendants in running this railroad, we' are to presume that they have received such license. That as the act complained of is one which both by the common and the civil law, as well as by the dictates of natural justice, entitles the injured party to compensation, we are to presume that the laws in force within that locality are so like ours as to give a right to relief; or perhaps it were better to say that no law has been enacted in that jurisdiction which countenances such a wrong, or permits it to go unredressed.</p>

Error from Sumner District Court. Replevin, brought by Cooper against Brown, to recover the possession, of certain calves. Trial at the November Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. Cooper brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Erro?' from Atchison District Court. Action brought by Twine against the Bailroad Company, to recover damages for obstructing plaintiff’s access to a certain lot belonging to him. Held: in an action similar to the one at bar; that “evidence tendered for the purpose .of showing a diminution of the salable value of the premises was inadmissible.” (50 Cal. 194; 10 Pa.

Action brought by the Burlingame Savings Bank against T. E. and Thomas Condell, to recover the sum of $3,221.35 on an overdrawn account kept with said bank, and in the name of T. E. Condell. The petition alleged that Thomas Condell and T. E. Gondell were partners doing business under the firm-name of T. E. Condell; and' that the money sued for was lent and advanced to the partnership by the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the said partnership.

On March 8, 1878, MeGrath obtained judgment against Ida Rasure, in a justice’s court in Harvey county, upon a note containing the words, “ without any relief or benefit whatever from stay, valuation, appraisement or homestead-exemption laws;” and on the same day, he caused an abstract of the judgment to be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of said county.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. On the 1st day of December, 1879, upon the petition of N. B. Welsford, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of this court, and directed to Philip Weidlein, as mayor of the city of Peabody, in the county of Marion, commanding him as said officer to sign a certain license recommending the said Welsford as a suitable person to keep a dramshop for the sale of intoxicating liquors in said city, or to show cause, etc. The above-mentioned…

Error from, Wyandotte District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, sufficiently appear in the opinion. Trial at the April Term, 1879, of the district court, when Thomas Bullene and three others, partners-as Bullene, Moores & Emery, as plaintiffs, recovered a judgment against Allison B. Bartlett and Joseph C. Welsh, as defendants, who bring the case to this court. The alleged cause of action was barred.

■ Error from Allen District Cowrt. ■ Replevin, brought by C. H. Pratt against M. S. Carter and A. J. French, on February 28, 1878, for fifty thousand pounds of bars of railroad iron, of the value of five hundred dollars. Trial at the June Term, 1878, bythe court, a jury having been waived. The court made the following findings of fact: 1.

Error from Bourbon District Court. Action brought by Mylius against Cynthia Copes and five others, upon a certain note and mortgage. Trial by the court at the September Term, 1879, and judgment for the full amount of the note, interest, and certain taxes; but the court ordered that only the mortgaged premises should be sold to satisfy the judgment, and denied execution to the plaintiff after the mortgaged property was exhausted. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Replevin brought by Piazzeh, against White, for three hundred bushels of corn. Trial at the May Term, 1879, when the court gave among others the following instruction to the jury: “9.

Error from, Chase District Court. Action brought by Reeve, against Prather and another, to recover for damages committed by defendants’ stock trespassing upon plaintiff’s lands. Trial at the May Term, 1879, when the court instructed the jury in regard to fences as follows: “ . . . The second simple question for you to. determine is, whether the fence at the place where the stock broke in was a lawful fence, without regarding the remainder of the fence around the inclosure.

Error from, Atchison District Court. Action by The Eagle Chair Company against Kelsey and' another, to recover $402.10, with interest, for certain chairs-alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendants. Trial November 22, 1878, and verdict for plaintiff. On November 30, 1878, the defendants’ motion for a new trial and the-plaintiff’s motion for judgment upon the verdict came on for hearing.

<p> Error from Lyon District Court. </p> <p>Action brought by Webster against Coolce, to enjoin the latter from interfering with the plaintiff’s flocks of sheep, in grazing upon certain land in Lyon county. May 5, 1879, .a temporary injunction was granted the plaintiff by the probate judge of said county, the judge of the district court being absent therefrom. July 24, 1879, the judge of the district court, at chambers, dissolved the injunction. The plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.</p>

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Action brought by Grinter, against the Kansas Pacific Pailway Company, to recover damages in the sum of $5,675, for an alleged trespass upon certain lands claimed to be possessed and occupied by the plaintiff. The nature of the action, and the facts, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Trial at the October Term, 1873, of the district court, and judgment for the defendant. Grinter brings the case to this court.

Original Proceedings in. Mandamus. Action brought February 3, 1880, by Adkins, an elector of Labette county, who sued as well for himself as for all others… Held: then the board could not order another; and it matters not that the board should have given a wrong reason for a correct de^ cisión. To entitle a party to the writ of mandamus, it must be made to appear that he has a legal right to have something done by the board to which he seeks to have the writ directed.

Error from, Wyandotte District Court. Action brought by Murray, against Kelley, to recover $720 alleged to be due plaintiff. Trial at the April Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff for $38.50, to which he excepted, and brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from, Pawnee District Court. Action brought October 19,1877, by Gillett & Co., against Timothy McCarthy and three others, to set aside a fraudulent conveyance made by said McCarthy and wife to one I). A.. Bright, on December 20, 1876, and duly recorded in the office' of the register of deeds of Pawnee county.

Brror from Wyandotte District Court. Brown, and four others, claiming to be the owners of an undivided half-interest in certain lands in Wyandotte county, brought this action against Steele, and three others, to assert such right. Trial at the July Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendants. New trial denied, and the plaintiifs bring the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from, Reno District Court. Action brought by J. B. Brown and L. A. Bigger, partners as Brown & Bigger, and E. Wilcox, against The Water • Power Company, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Kansas, upon a certain promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$3,000.

Error from. Reno District Court. At the April Term, 1879, of the district court, J. B. Brown and L. A. Bigger, partners as Brown & Bigger, and E. Wilcox, as plaintiffs, recovered a judgment against the Water Power Company, as defendant, for money paid by them as sureties for the said defendant, and obtained an order for the sale of certain property attached on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Replevin, to recover the possession of a certain one-horse buggy, valued at $50, brought by Lynds against Winkler, before a justice of the peace of Iowa township, in Doniphan county, and by the defendant appealed to the district court of said county. Trial before the court without a jury, at the September Term, 1879, and judgment for the defendant. Lynds brings the case here.

Action under ch. 94, Laws of 1874, brought by Frazier, against the Railroad Company, to recover damages for killing one red calf of the value of $10, belonging to the plaintiff. Trial before a justice of the peace for the city of Paola, in Miami county, and judgment for the plaintiff.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action brought by Augusta Ktemp against Charles F. Winter, her former guardian, and the surety on said guardian’s bond, to recover money wrongfully detained from her under circumstances which are fully stated in the opinion herein. Trial at the May Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for defendants. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action brought by C. H. & L. J. McCormick against Trowbridge & Galbraith and J. S. Galbraith, to recover the sum .of $216.94, claimed to be due from Trowbridge & Galbraith to the plaintiffs, and for the payment of which J. S. Galbraith was liable. The liability of J. S. Galbraith was based upon a letter, a copy of which is set out in the opinion. Trial at the June Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment entered against J. 8.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action brought by Eggan against Briggs and another, on a written guaranty for the payment of a certain promissory note. Trial at the January Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the defendants. Eggan brings the case here. The opinion fully states the facts. The execution of the contract of guaranty, as set forth in plaintiff’s bill of particulars, was admitted, and there was no issue authorizing evidence to be introduced.

Error from Jefferson 'District Court. Action brought by Johnson against the Board of Comm’rs of Jefferson Co., to recover for money by him paid upon a certain tax sale which he claimed to be invalid. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts. Trial at the June Term, 1878, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here.

Error from Osborne District Court. Action to quiet title, brought by Gregg against Herzog. ■ Trial at the September Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here.

<p>1. Jury; Unauthorized Allas in Jury Boom; Error. After the jury in a case of felony retired to consider their verdict, the bailiff, by request of a juror, and without the authority of the court, passed into the jury room an atlas of the county where the crime was alleged to have been committed. During the deliberations of the jury, the atlas was spread out before the jurors, and examined by them. No showing was made by the prosecution that the rights of the defendant were not prejudiced thereby. Held, That the refusal of the trial court to grant .a new trial was error.</p> <p>2. --- In the case of The State v. Taylor, 20 Kas. 646, the word “lib-ally” has been interpolated without authority. In the original opinion, “reasonably” appears where “liberally” is reported.</p>

Action under chapter 94, laws of 1874, brought by Taylor against the Railroad Company, to recover damages for killing two horses belonging to plaintiff. Trial at the November Term, 1879, of the Davis district court, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff The Railroad, Company brings the case here.

At the October Term, 1879, of the district court, Farry was charged with and convicted of obstructing a public highway, and adjudged to pay a fine of $100. From this judgment he appeals to this court.

Error from, Bourbon District Court. Replevin, brought by Mary Batchelor against Walbnrn and three others. Trial at the September Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for defendants. The plaintiff brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Action against the Board of Commissioners of Chase County, S. A. Breese, county clerk, and W. B. Beebe, brought in the district court of said county by Nancy E. Gandy, who stated in her petition that a certain lot belonging to her, to wit, lot one (1), in block twenty-two (22), in the town of North Cottonwood Falls, in said county, had been sold to Beebe for the delinquent taxes of the years 1871 and 1872, and that she desired to redeem the same, but claimed that the sale…

Error from, Neosho District Court. Action brought by Barton against Hodgin and another, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful taking and detention of a horse belonging to the plaintiff. Trial at the April Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants bring the case here for review. The nature of the action, and the facts, fully appear in the opinion.

Error from Marshall District Court. Action begun by the C. B. TJ. P. Rid.

Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus. Petition filed in this court, on May 15, 1880, on behalf of Charles H. Payson, for a writ of habeas corpus.