Volume 25 — Illinois Reports

This indictment, filed at the April term, A. D. 1860, of the Recorder’s Court, of the city of Chicago, contains two counts for conspiracy.

The bill in this cause was filed in the court below by the appellant against the appellees, and states, in substance, that in one Calvin D’Wolf became the owner in fee of the north fifteen acres of the west half of south-west quarter of section 34, township 39 north, range 14 east, in the county of Cook and State of Illinois, and that by subsequent sales and conveyances, duly executed, acknowledged, delivered and recorded, Amos Pratt, in May, 1852, acquired the title and…

This was a bill in chancery by appellants, against appellees, to compel payment of a check drawn by 0. Wright on appellees’ bank. On the 5th September, 1857, complainants, who are grain merchants in Chicago, sold to one Bissell a quantity of wheat, to be paid for by C. Wright, who, on the same day, being Saturday, gave to complainants, in part payment, a check for $6,500 on the bank of Burch & Co., where he kept his bank account.

At a special term of the Circuit Court for Whiteside county, held in December, 1858, the plaintiff in error was indicted for “ selling liquor without a license.” He was arrested, and such proceedings were afterwards had in the premises that on the 30th day of December, 1858, this cause, to wit, number 76, came on for trial.

The defendants in error filed their bill in chancery, which alleges that the complainants are an incorporated company and own a railroad track and the land on which it is built, a part of which is located in the city of Ottawa. That the city council of said city ordered a sewer to be constructed in said city, and the sum of $4,200 to be assessed upon the real estate in the natural division of the city benefited thereby, to defray the expenses of such improvement.

This was a proceeding taken by change of venue from the County to the Circuit Court, for the reason that the judge of the County Court was personally, interested in the question. A motion was made to have the same assessment confirmed, which is stated in the preceding case.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note, in the Circuit Court of Kane county. The note is as follows: St. Charles, Nov. 19th, 1856. By the first day of April, 1858, 1 promise to pay to Erastus Hallack, and not to any other person, except his heirs and executors, the sum of Four Hundred and Fifty-five Dollars and 23-100, for value received. STEPHEN MARCH, BOWMAN & LLOYD, (Surety).

This action was covenant, brought in the Circuit Court of Cook county, by Cyrus Bentley against Robert Law and Ezekiel R. Hooper.

This was a bill of complaint by Margaret Crean against Williams, in which she alleges that she is entitled to the east half of lot six, in block seven, in the original town of Chicago. Williams had obtained, under a claim for pre-emption, a certificate of purchase of the whole lot from the canal trustees, and complainant insists, in her bill, that she has an equitable right to one-half of it.

James A. Martin filed his affidavit in the County Court of Peoria county as a judgment creditor of William H. Cruger, Charles A. Secor, Thomas C. Field, and Samuel Gilman, therein stating that the said defendants in execution had no property within his knowledge, liable to execution, and that he had reason to believe appellants had effects in their hands belonging to defendants in execution, Cruger, Secor & Co. A garnishee process was issued and served on appellants, and…

<p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

The facts of this case are fully stated in .the opinion. The cause was tried in the Stephenson Circuit Court, Sheldon, Judge, presiding.

This was an action by the People against the plaintiff in error on an indictment for false imprisonment. The case was tried before R. S. Wilson, Judge, and a jury, and a conviction had. The facts are stated in the opinion.

The complainants, plaintiffs in error, filed in the Kane county Circuit Court their bill of complaint against Mary Ann Kirwin, executrix, etc., of Francis M. Kirwin, and by supplemental bill made Henry Stevens, administrator of F. M. Kirwin, deceased, and Augustus M. Herrington, administrator of Rolla French, parties defendant.

This was a proceeding by defendants in error, against plaintiff in error, to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The bill states that Phillips, being about to erect a building on lots 30 and 31, in block four (4), in Port Dearborn Addition to the city of Chicago, on South Water street, near the Richmond House, had plans and specifications drawn by an architect or superintendent. That according to the plans, the building was to have patent rolling shutters. That at that time Wm.

This was an action by the People against plaintiff in error, under the 151st section of the criminal code.

This was an action on a covenant by defendant in error against plaintiff in error. No special damages are set out in the declaration. It appears that Olmstead had leased to Burke a piece of land containing twenty acres, and having a house on it which Burke had previously occupied.

This was a proceeding by appellee against appellants to foreclose a mortgage by scire facias, under the statute. A general demurrer was filed to the sci. fa., which was overruled, and defendants below, abiding by their demurrer, judgment was rendered for $1,120 in damages, and execution awarded, not against the mortgaged premises, but against defendants. The defects in the sci. fa. are fully stated in the opinion, and a correct precedent is pointed out.

This was an action of assumpsit by plaintiff in error against defendant in error, on a promissory note.

This was an action of debt on a decree of the Circuit Court of Mason county, in the State of Kentucky, in favor of Payton White, for $1,503.96, against the plaintiff in error, rendered on the 26th day of October, 1853. The declaration contains but one count. The defendant pleaded seven pleas. 1st. Nul tiel record. 2nd.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by defendant in error. The bill alleges that in 1851, J. Sloan purchased from one Treat, the land in dispute, for $75, of which $50 was paid.

Semple sued out a summons against George Abbott and John L. Lemon, returnable to the Circuit Court next to be holden at the Court House in .Waterloo, within and for said (Monroe) county, on the 4th Monday of September next. Service was had upon Abbott; Lemon not found. The action was upon a promissory note.

<p>The appellant leased to appellee a steam mill for twelve months. The lease was in the usual form. The rent was to be paid quarterly, at the rate of five hundred dollars per annum. The mill was to be delivered up at the end of the term in as good repair as when it was received, reasonable wear and unavoidable accidents excepted. The lessee brought his action for repairs, to the extent of $160, before a justice of the peace, crediting the lessor with ninety-five dollars on account of rent, leaving due to lessee, on account of repairs, sixty-five dollars. Lessor filed his claim for rent, amounting to $156.91.</p> <p>Ledwidge, the plaintiff below, filed his account with Marshall, a justice of the peace. Account for repairing mill, one hundred and sixty dollars ($160). Credit by rent of mill, ninety-five dollars ($95). Balance claimed, sixty-five dollars ($65).</p> <p>Summons issued in usual form. Peck, defendant below, files his account for rent of mill three months and twenty-three days, at forty-one dollars and sixty-six cents ($41.66) per month, $156.91.</p> <p>Trial, and judgment for the defendant below against plaintiff, for costs, upon the ground that the court could not render judgment for $156.91, amount of defendant’s claim. Cause appealed by Ledwidge, plaintiff below. Defendant below, on the trial, admitted that the plaintiff, had expended, in repairing mill, $157.16.</p> <p>It was admitted by plaintiff below that he had occupied the mill of defendant below for three months and twenty-three days, under the lease, and then surrendered the key and premises to defendant; that ten weeks of the time the mill was running, and the remainder it was being repaired.</p> <p>The plaintiff below then called Silas L. Bryan as a witness, who testified that Ledwidge had called on him in the fore part of the winter of 1859 and 1860, and informed witness that some part of the boiler in the mill had given away, and that the mill would have to stand still till repaired; that it would cost some thirty dollars to repair it. He wished to know of witness if he should make the repairs at the expense of Mr. Peck. Witness stated to him that he did not know whether Mr. Peck was bound to repair or not, but that plaintiff should repair the boiler, and that Mr. Peck would be down from Chicago soon, and that if he was bound in the lease to repair the mill, he would pay him for the repairs, or deduct it from his rent; but that if he was not bound by the lease to repair, he would not pay for the repairs. Witness and his partner acted as the agents of Mr. Peck in leasing the mill, and drawing the lease. • Witness gave it as his opinion to Ledwidge that Peck was not bound to repair, but that Peck would be down soon, and they could settle it, and told Ledwidge he could do the repairs.</p> <p>Crawford Hardcastle testified: He was a mechanic. The breakage on the boiler was not the fault of Ledwidge. Witness worked in repairing mill for plaintiff. Weather was cold and disagreeable. Witness was working on the mill, and Peck, the defendant, came round once or twice or several times, and remarked to or told witness to make a good job of work. One of the times Peck told him to put in the valve, which he would not have done but for Peck’s order. He was at the mill.</p> <p>The court then instructed the jury for the plaintiff as follows:</p> <p>1st. That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff did the repairs to the mill at the instance, and by the authority of Peck, or his agent, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the same what the repairs are reasonably worth.</p> <p>2nd. That if the jury shall find, from all the evidence and circumstances proved in the case, that the repairs were made by authority of the defendant Peck, or his agent Bryan, as a matter of contract, then he is entitled to recover.</p> <p>3rd. That if the jury find, from the evidence, that Peck was about the mill while the repairs were being made, and gave directions as to how the work should be done, this is a fact which may be considered by the jury; and if they find, from a view of all the evidence, that the work was done by authority of Peck or Bryan, as a matter of contract, the plaintiff should recover.</p> <p>4th. That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that there was either an express or implied agreement of Peck, or his agent, to pay the plaintiff for their repairs, they should find .for him the value of said repairs.</p> <p>5th. That if the accident to the mill was unavoidable, then the plaintiff was not to repair; and if he did repair at the instance of the defendant or his agents, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.</p> <p>To the giving of each of the said instructions to the jury, the defendant, by his counsel, at the time excepted, and prayed that this his bill of exceptions should be made a part of the record.</p> <p>The court, at the instance of the defendant’s, counsel, instructed the jury,</p> <p>1st. That if there was a written lease or contract between the parties, in reference to the renting of the mill, and that defendant Peck did not in such lease or contract agree to keep the mill in repair, then he was not liable for any amount that the plaintiff may have expended in repairing the mill; to which the court added these words, “ unless the jury believed, from the evidence, a subsequent agreement to pay for the repairs was made by defendant;” to the making of which addition by the court, defendant at the time excepted.</p> <p>2nd. That in law, Peck, the defendant in this action, was not bound to keep the mill in repair while it was occupied by the plaintiff; and unless the plaintiff can show a contract to repair, on the part of Peck, the jury must find the issue in the case for the defendant.</p> <p>3rd. That if, under the proof, the jury believe the plaintiff cannot recover for the work in repairing the mill, and the proof shows that the defendant’s claim for rent is more than one hundred dollars, then the jury must find for the defendant a verdict for costs simply against the plaintiff, but if the defendant’s claim should, from the proof, turn out to be less than one hundred dollars, the jury should find for the defendant such amount not exceeding one hundred dollars, as the proof may show.</p> <p>4th. That Peck, the defendant, could not make himself liable to the plaintiff for work done by his (plaintiff’s) hands on the mill, by simply saying to them to make a good job, and that in order to make Peck liable to the plaintiff, there must have been such an understanding on the part of Peck as amounted to a contract to pay either plaintiff,' or the hands, for the work done.</p> <p>5th. That plaintiff was liable for the whole time he occupied the mill, and that he is not entitled to any abatement from the rent, unless he has shown by the proof that the defendant expressly agreed that the plaintiff should not be liable for the rent while the mill was undergoing repairs; to which instruction the court added this qualification, “ unless the jury believe that defendant is liable for the repairs by contract subsequent to the lease to which modification the defendant at the time excepted.</p> <p>6th. That if the plaintiff undertook the repairs by a conditional authority from Bryan, agent, that the defendant would pay for the same, provided he was bound to do so by the terms of the written lease between the parties, then he can recover only by the terms of such written lease, and is bound by the terms of such written lease.</p> <p>7th. That if the mill became out of repair, while in the hands of the plaintiff, and the terms of the lease required him to surrender the mill in as good repair as when he received it, it was his duty to put the mill in repair before surrendering it.</p> <p>Which seventh and last instruction asked by the defendant, the court refused, and wrote thereon abstract law and refused ; to which refusal the defendant at the time excepted.</p> <p>The jury brought in a verdict for sixty-five dollars for the plaintiff below.</p> <p>Defendant entered motion for new trial. Motion, overruled, and judgment on verdict, and defendant prayed an .appeal.</p>

This was a motion to have the fee bill, issued from the Supreme Court, which included the cost of the record as sent up from the Circuit Court, re-taxed; assigning that the record from the court below was unnecessarily voluminous, and pointing out what was deemed surplusage.

This was a suit instituted on the chancery side of the Clay Circuit Court, and was heard and decree rendered finally in that court upon bill, answers, replication, and depositions of witnesses. This bill was filed by William Liston and Joseph D. Morgan, administrators of the estate of William C. Morgan, deceased, against Aquilla M. Ramsey and Cam McBride, and the widow and minor heirs of decedent, for specific performance, and for an order to sell land.

This was an action of assumpsit by Gill and company against Evans and Smalley, on an indorsed note. The declaration also embraced the common counts. A summons was issued against Evans and Smalley, returnable at March term, 1858, of the Marion Circuit Court. Service was made on Evans on the 25th of February, which was more than ten days prior to the 1st day of term, and on Smalley on the 27th day of February, which was less than ten days before the first day of term.

The complainant below, filed his bill against E. H. Ridgeway, since deceased, substantially as follows : That Robert Castles, with complainant as his security, executed to the Bank of Illinois, at Shawneetown, two notes, one dated July 3rd, 1841, payable seven months after date, for $770, the other dated August 4th, 1841, payable seven months after date, for $900; that Castles died intestate, about the 25th of September, 1846, leaving said notes unpaid, and his estate in an…

This was a bill filed by plaintiff in error to foreclose a mortgage. The bill sets out a note and mortgage executed by defendant to plaintiff. Alleges that on June 10,1859, the parties submitted all their matters, including partnership and individual dealings, to arbitrators.

This was an action on the case for killing stock. The declaration was framed in accordance with the statute concerning fencing, and contained a negative of all the exceptions named in the first section of that statute. The declaration averred that five head of stock were killed, and also averred that it was not at any place or point where the statute holds the railroad company exempt from liability for killing stock.

This was an action of debt on a judgment rendered on the 21st day of July, 1857, for $4,000 debt, and $7.75 costs, in the District Court' of the city and county of Philadelphia, of the State of Pennsylvania, in favor of defendant in error against plaintiff in error. Defendant filed three pleas. 1st. Nul tiel record. 2nd.

This case was brought before this court by the ancestor of appellees, and decided at the November term, 1855 ; see 17th Ill. R., p. 25. In June, 1856, the opinion and judgment of this court was filed in the court below, when the cause was docketed for trial, and continued.

This bill alleges that complainant was on the 4th day of October, 1854, a minor of the age of twenty years, and on intimate terms with Spencer Blankenship, deceased, the ancestor of the defendants. That on said 4th of October, 1854, complainant was the owner in fee simple of the south-east quarter of section twenty (20), town one (1) north, of range four (4) east, in Marion county.

This was an appeal from a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of Saline county, in this State. The appellants assign for error, that the judgment was rendered at Harrisburg, and not at Raleigh, the seat of justice of said county.

The complainant below, Cynthia Errissman, filed a bill in the Jefferson Circuit Court, praying a divorce upon the ground of the extreme and repeated cruelty of her husband. There was a change of venue to Marion county. The bill alleged that the respondent, Isaac H. Errissman, owned real and personal property, which it was prayed he might be enjoined from disposing of, and that it might be held as security for the payment of alimony.

This was an action of slander, commenced by defendant in error in Wayne county, and taken by change of venue to Clinton county. Defendant filed a plea of justification, which was the only plea filed.

<p>In March, 1859, plaintiff below filed his declaration in the Circuit Court of Marion county, claiming damages for stock killed by the trains of the railroad company. The declaration was framed upon the statute of 1855, respecting the fencing of the right of way by railroad corporations.</p> <p>Defendant below filed three pleas, the general issue, and two special pleas, actio non, denying any liability under the statute, on the ground that it was no part of the charter of the corporation, not having been asked for, or assented to, by the railroad company, and that by the the terms of its charter, granted in 1851, it was not bound, under the statute of 1855, to fence the road, nor in any way liable for the value of the cattle killed without any fault on the part of the corporation, or its agents or servants.</p> <p>Plaintiff below demurred to the second and third pleas. The issues being made up, the cause, on motion of the defendant below, was changed in its venue, and taken to Jefferson county, and came on for a hearing at the May term, 1860. The demurrer to the second and third pleas was sustained by the court. The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict returned for plaintiff in the sum of $100. Motions for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, were made and overruled, and exceptions taken. Judgment was entered upon the verdict rendered by the jury.</p> <p>Defendant excepted to the judgment and finding, and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court.</p> <p>By consent these cases were heard in the Second Grand Division.</p> <p>The issues were the same in both cases.</p>

This was a proceeding by bill, presented by the defendant in error, as administrator of the estate of John Fridley, deceased, to the Fulton Circuit Court, for leave to sell real estate to pay debts.

<p>ERROR TO MORGAN.</p> <p>Corporations possess only such powers as are specifically granted by their charters, or are necessary to carry into effect the granted powers.</p> <p>A corporation has no right to pass by-laws which will impair the effect of contracts previously made with it.</p>

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

This was an action by appellee against appellant for obstructing a road, commenced before a justice of the peace, and after-wards carried by appeal to the Fulton Circuit Court. The defendant denied that the road obstructed, which crossed his land, was a public highway, or that he had dedicated it to the public, and offered evidence tending to show that he had never designed to give the land for a road, but had claimed it as its owner, and had demanded rent for its use.

<p>ERROR TO PIATT.</p> <p>Our statute has modified the common law, by confining a distress for rent to the property of the tenant, and by authorizing the seizure to be made at any place within the county.</p> <p>But crops growing on the land leased, are liable to distress for the rent for the current year, even though they are the property of a sub-tenant.</p>

This is an action of trespass, commenced by the appellee against the appellants in the Hancock Circuit Court, in which the declaration contains a single count, and alleges that the defendants, on the 21st day of May, A. D. 1859, and on divers other days between that day and the commencement of the suit, with force and arms took and carried away 500 cords of wood, the property of the plaintiff, of great value, etc., and converted the same to their own use, etc., and to the…

This was an action” of ejectment brought by Miller, to recover the north-east fractional quarter of section No. five, (5) in township No. eight (8) north, range five (5) west of the third principal meridian, in Montgomery county, and was submitted to the court and jury for trial at the September term, A. D. 1858. Verdict and judgment for defendants.

In April, 1860, George Adam Montag filed his bill of complaint in the Adams Circuit Court, on the equity side thereof, against James J. Lynn, Almeron Wheat, Isaac M. Grover, and James H.… Held: the court, Sibley, Judge, sustained said demurrer, and dismissed said bill as to said Wheat, Grover, Hendrickson and Lynn. Errors assigned: Eirst. In sustaining demurrer to said bill. Second. In dismissing said bill as to said defendants in error, Wheat, Grover, Lynn and Hendrickson.

These were proceedings in the court below to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The plaintiffs in error are incumbrancers, and were made parties defendants below.

The complainants, Lucy Sharp and Wilburn Brown, allege themselves and Patsey Dowdall, who, with her husband, are made defendants, to be the sole heirs-at-law of one Clark Brown who died many years ago, (date not given), in Jersey county.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, commenced by Nuckolls against Lockridge in the Circuit Court of Sangamon county. The appellant appeared and filed the general issue and notice.

These cases were, by consent, tried together, upon the same evidence. Held: said subscription to be made, or said bonds to be issued; that the act of February 14,1855, and the act of February 14,1857, are respectively void; that by neither of said acts had the board of supervisors power to cause said election to be held, said subscription to be made, or any bonds to be issued; that the same was not done…

This was an action of ejectment by appellee against appellant. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a copy of a deed from James J. Dozier to Elisha L. Conant, which formed a portion of his chain of title. The court below admitted the copy in evidence, and defendant excepted. The remaining facts necessary to a full understanding of the decision are stated in the opinion.

This was an application for a mandamus. The following is the petition: To the honorable the Justices of the Supreme Court, at a term thereof begun and holden at Springfield, on the Tuesday after the first Monday of January, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-one.

The grand jury of Macon county returned into court the following indictment: Of November term of the Macon county Circuit Court, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-eight. State of Illinois, Macon county, ss.

This was a bill in chancery, by Levi Nale against Joseph A. Athens and William Bandy, filed in Macon Circuit Court, on July 15th, 1859.

This was an action commenced by the appellee against the appellants before a justice of the peace. Judgment was rendered by the justice in favor of the appellants for costs of suit. Appellee appealed to the Circuit Court of Crawford county. Cause came on for trial at the April term, 1860, before Kitchell, Judge, and a jury, and judgment was rendered for appellee.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note of the defendants, Bushway, Eccles and Gunning, to the plaintiff, 5th November, 1858, at six months date, for $200.

This was an action on the case, for the deceitful sale of a stable horse, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, and tried at the October term, I860, of the Edgar county Circuit Court, before Harlan, Judge, and a jury. The declaration contains two counts, and is in the ordinary form, charging, substantially, in each, that the plaintiff represented the horse’s eyes to be sound, when he knew them to be unsound. The defendant plead the general issue.

This was an action of debt, commenced in the Mason Circuit Court, by summons returnable to the Circuit Court of Mason county, wherein the debt was claimed to be $750, and damages $750, which said summons was returned served on Mathew Tomlin and James J. Pelham, two of the defendants.

The appellees, as judges of the County Court, sued appellants in debt, as sureties of Wm. V. Newcomb, deceased, late a justice of the peace, of said county. Declaration filed 7th October, 1859, containing three counts, alleging collection by Newcomb, as justice of the peace, of $50. use of, etc., and non-payment of the same.

This was an action on a note of hand, made by Amos Davis, payable to one I. Davis, or bearer, for $480, with interest at ten per cent., dated 16th May, 1857, payable 1st January, 1858, and avers that “ said I. Davis then and there indorsed the same to the said plaintiffs.” Amos Davis filed the following plea in said cause: And, for a further plea in this behalf, the said defendant says actio non, because he says that the said promissory note sued on in this cause was not…

This cause was tried before A. Kitchell, Judge, without a jury. Declaration in assumpsit, common counts. Plea, general issue. The parties argued on the trial, that in the fall off 1856, they swapped horses, and in the trade plaintiff was to pay to defendant, fifty dollars, or seventy-five dollars, on a certain house and lot of defendant then bargained to plaintiff, who claims that only fifty dollars was to be paid, and that there was no particular time for payment.

This was an action of assumpsit in the Mason county Circuit Court, by plaintiffs in error against defendant in error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, in the Mason Circuit Court.

Appellee commenced suit against appellants in the Morgan Circuit Court. The declaration contained one special count, declaring on a promissory note, dated January 6th, 1859, due twelve months after date, with ten per cent, interest per annum from date, for $630. Defendants filed two pleas in said case. First plea, general issue. Second.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Green in the Edgar Circuit Court, to set aside a sale.

This was a suit brought before a justice of the peace by the defendants in error, and from the judgment of the justice an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court by the plaintiffs in error. The account upon which the suit was brought, is exhibited against township number fourteen, range five west, third principal meridian, by school district number four, in township number fourteen, range four west, third principal meridian.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by appellee against appellant, in the Circuit Court of Richland county.

Jesse R. Cunningham filed his declaration in replevin, in the usual form, against William R. Hamilton, for the wrongful detention of one bay horse, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of one hundred dollars. To this declaration the defendant plead: 1st. Non detinet; and plaintiff added similiter. 2nd. That the property was not the property of the plaintiff; and plaintiff added similiter. 3rd. That it was the property of one Milton Williford. 4th.

<p>This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Edgar Circuit Court, by John Crabtree against William Hagenbaugh, to recover damages for breach of contract.</p> <p>The declaration contains nine special counts, and the usual common counts.</p> <p>The special counts allege that the plaintiff, about the 1st of May, 1856, rented of the defendant a certain pasture containing about six hundred acres, (some of the counts say from about the middle of May, 1856, to the 1st of January, 1857, and other counts say from about the 15th of May, 1856, to the 1st of February, 1857,) for the use of plaintiff’s cattle, and that he paid said defendant the sum. of five hundred dollars, in advance, for the rent of said pasture, and by the terms of said contract of renting, the said defendant was to furnish sufficient water for said cattle; and as the pasture was inclosed only on three sides, he was to herd the cattle until the fence was completed, which was to be by the first of June following, and to allow no other cattle than his own to run in said pasture. That the plaintiff turned into said pasture about three hundred head of cattle, and that the defendant wholly failed to furnish sufficient water for the cattle, as he contracted to do, and that by reason of his failure to furnish them with water, they became shrunken and greatly deteriorated in value; that he permitted other stock than his own to run in the pasture, and failed to herd the cattle and complete the fence as he contracted to do, by the 1st of June, and permitted some eighty head of the cattle to wander off, and that they were lost to the plaintiff; by reason of the defendant’s failure to comply with his contract, he was compelled to abandon the pasture, and take the remaining cattle out; and lays his damage at three thousand dollars.</p> <p>To all the counts of the declaration, the defendant pleaded the general issue. The case was tried before a jury, at the October term, 1860.</p> <p>The plaintiff called as a witness, William, Albin, who testified that on Sunday morning, some time from the 10th to the 15th of May, 1856, (not certain as to the date,) that he went with the plaintiff Crabtree to the house of the defendant; that Crab-tree rented the pasture till the 1st of February, 1857, for the sum of five hundred dollars, which he paid in advance; that one Peter Smith was present at the time ; that the defendant was to complete the fence by the 1st of June, to herd the cattle until the fence was completed, to allow no other cattle than his (defendant’s) own to run in said pasture, and to furnish sufficient water for the cattle. That Crabtree turned in about two hundred and eighty head of cattle. That all the conversation about fencing, herding, furnishing water and keeping out other stock, took place before the payment of the money in the house at Hagenbaugh’s; defendant said he would throw a sewer across a slough in the pasture, and if that gave out, he would dig a well. The water gave out in the slough, and defendant dug a little well, but whether it furnished water or not, the witness did not know. The cattle were taken out some time in June; there was no fence completed then.</p> <p>On cross-examination, witness stated that he did not recollect stating on a former trial that the conversation about fencing, water, etc., took place in the yard ; did state on that trial that the money was paid first, but on reflection became satisfied he was mistaken ; had no recollection of writings being spoken of.</p> <p>Several other witnesses were called.</p> <p>The defense then introduced in evidence the deposition of one Franklin Grimes, who stated that in the month of March, 1856, he was present when plaintiff came to rent the pasture of defendant; that no one else was present; that plaintiff agreed to give defendant $500 for the pasture from that time up to Christmas, the money to be paid in advance, but it was paid at that time ; that defendant agreed to take the $500 ; the fence on the south side was not built at that time, about one mile in length ; Crabtree said the pasture would be worth more if the fence was up ; defendant told plaintiff that he would build the fence as soon as he planted his corn, and he intended to stick to it till he got it up ; there was no set time agreed upon; plaintiff wanted defendant to bind himself to furnish water; but witness told defendant he ought not to do it, and defendant then refused; they then agreed to throw a dam across a pond or slough in the pasture, that would furnish water; I heard nothing said by plaintiff about taking the pasture, but I understood it to be a contract; Crabtree got on his horse and rode away.</p> <p>John Arthur testified: Had no recollection of the conversation spoken of by Josiah Wagoner; said he had known witness, Albin, for about thirty years; Albin was about thirty-three years old now. Was then asked if he was acquainted with his general reputation for truth and veracity among his neighbors, and those with whom he associated. Whereupon the court refused to permit the witness to answer said question, and explained that he must first state that he had heard a majority of all his neighbors and those with whom he associated, speak of his character for truth and veracity. To which ruling of the court, in refusing to permit the witness to answer, and explaining, the plaintiff excepted. To the witnesses Crawford and Silas H. Elliott, plaintiff offered to put the same question, without the explanation of the court, but the court refused to permit the question to be answered unless the explanation was first given; to which ruling of the court the plaintiff then and there excepted.</p> <p>The court then gave for the defendant, on motion of his counsel, the following instructions:</p> <p>1. The declaration in this cause alleges that the pasture of the defendant was rented to the plaintiff from the 15th of May, 1856, or from or about the 15th or middle of May, 1856, until the 1st of February, 1857 ; now in order for the plaintiff to recover upon this declaration, he is bound to prove that the contract was that the plaintiff should have the pasture either from the 15th of May, 1856, or the middle of that month; he cannot recover on this declaration if the pasture was let to him either from or on the 4th or 11th day of May, 1856.</p> <p>2. If the jury believe, from the testimony, that the contract for the renting the pasture, in the declaration specified, was made in March, 1856, and in the presence of witness, Grimes, and that the contract was that the pasture was let from that time till the next Christmas, the plaintiff cannot recover in this action under the present declaration.</p> <p>3. If the jury believe, from all the testimony in the cause, that the contract was in fact made in March, 1856, in the presence of Grimes, the contract then made must govern the parties ; and though the parties may have rehearsed the contract afterwards, at the time of paying the contract price, yet. the defendant is not bound by that if the contract was not stated as made.</p> <p>4. If the conversation at the defendant’s, at the time the cattle of plaintiff were turned upon the pasture, was not a conversation which led to a contract, but the attempted repetition of the alledged contract formerly made, whatever that conversation may have been, it cannot affect the contract as made; if it was erroneously stated or understood, it makes no difference, the contract as made must stand.</p> <p>5. If the witness, Albin, or any other witness, has testified wilfully false, his whole testimony should be rejected; and so if any witness has shown himself incompetent or amenable, either from want of mind or recollection of facts, to speak the truth at all times, so that he contradicts himself directly upon oath ; and if the jury also believe that the witness has attempted wilfully to cover up and conceal his contradictions, or that he has been under the influence of and been tampered with by the plaintiff, but little if any credit should be given to his testimony.</p> <p>6. If the jury believe, from the testimony, that by the terms of the contract, the commencement or termination of the time for which the pasture was rented, was different from the time stated in the declaration, the plaintiff cannot recover on this declaration.</p> <p>7. If Crabtree turned upon the pasture more cattle than could reasonably be pastured, then Hagenbaugh was not bound to water the cattle, even though lie had agreed to water them; such contract is only to be construed, if proved, as an agreement to water only such number as the pasture would constantly keep.</p> <p>8. That the contract, sought to be established by the plaintiff, is one and entire, and could not be so violated on the part of the defendant as to vest a right of action for such breach against the defendant, until the full term of its contemplated duration had transpired, and until Christmas, or the first of February, after the making of the contract, as the jury may find the extent of the contract to be, had been reached and passed; provided the jury find that the plaintiff ever entered upon the enjoyment of the benefits of the contract, and enjoyed them to eny extent whatever.</p> <p>9. That the plaintiff cannot hold the defendant liable for any of his stock supposed to have been lost, unless he proved to the satisfaction of the jury that the identical stock, supposed to be lost, were delivered into the possession of the defendant, and that at the expiration of the time during which the defendant had undertaken and promised to keep the same, the plaintiff demanded the return of such stock, such demand having been made on the defendant before the commencement of this suit, and that the defendant refused or neglected and failed to return them, and that he continues so to neglect such return.</p> <p>10. That the plaintiff, if he have proved the contract as alleged, in his declaration, cannot recover back the five hundred dollars, paid for the rent of the pasture, if he had the use of such pasture for any length of time, although it was profitless for a greater part of the time for which it was rented.</p> <p>11. That the testimony of a witness or witnesses swearing affirmatively to the existence of a fact or facts, in the estimation of the law, will outweigh any amount of the testimony when the witness or witnesses on the other side swear that such fact or facts do not exist nor have ever transpired, so far as their knowledge extends ; and in considering contradictory testimony, the jury are required by the law to accord credit to such affirmative testimony rather than that which is negative.</p> <p>12. That the testimony of witnesses who are called to prove the existence and terms of a contract by detailing the conversation and statement of the parties in which they were understood, as intending to show what the contract was when made, by recapitulation of its terms and incidents, at an after period, is the weakest and least reliable evidence, from the fact that it is most easily fabricated so as to subserve the purpose for which it is sought to be proven, greatly liable to be misunderstood, and from human fallibility to be inaccurately remembered and repeated by the witnesses, without an opportunity most frequently to correct such inaccuracy.</p> <p>13. If the testimony in this case be, in the opinion of the jury, equally balanced so far as it tends to establish what the contract between the parties was, or should it in their opinion preponderate in favor of the defendant, they should in either case find for the defendant.</p> <p>14. That an offer to compromise a pending or apprehended difficulty is, in contemplation of law, no evidence of a concession of the claim of the party to whom such proposition is submitted, and is not to be weighed against the party offering such adjustment.</p> <p>The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff, by his counsel, moved the court to set aside the verdict and grant him a new trial, and filed, as the basis of said motion, the following reasons:</p> <p>1. That the court erred in refusing to permit John Arthur, Herod Crawford, and Silas H. Elliott to answer the interrogatories, propounded to them by plaintiff’s counsel, touching the general reputation of the witness Albin.</p> <p>2. The court erred in refusing to give the instructions asked for by plaintiff’s counsel.</p> <p>3. The court erred in giving the instructions asked for, and given for the defendant.</p> <p>4. That the finding of the jury was contrary to the law and evidence of the case.</p> <p>5. That the court erred in permitting defendant to give in evidence his own statement about his efforts to get fencing lumber.</p> <p>The court overruled the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and entered judgment in favor of defendant; to which rulings and judgment of the court the plaintiff, by his counsel, excepted, and prayed an appeal, which was granted.</p> <p>The errors assigned are the same as the reasons filed for a new trial, with the additional one, that the court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and giving judgment in favor of the defendant.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit for goods bargained and sold, and goods sold and delivered. Plea of general issue. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff below for $337.50.

This was an action on the case upon promises, instituted in the Alton City Court. There are three counts in the declaration, all setting out substantially the same state of facts.

This was a suit upon a promissory note for the sum of $800, in the County Court of the county of Bond, by the appellee against the appellant. Appellant plead to the jurisdiction of the court, that the amount claimed was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, being for $800. Issue upon the plea. The declaration and summons were read in evidence upon the trial of the issue, and the court found the issue for the appellee, and rendered judgment for him for the sum of $708.23.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by James B. Crawford, assignee of William D. Blackburn, against the appellant, on a promissory note for $250. The declaration contains a special count, and the usual common counts ; to which defendant pleaded the general issue; and it was agreed between the parties, that under that plea, everything’ which could be specially pleaded might be given in evidence. A jury was waived, and the cause tried by the court.

James P. Erskine filed in the Circuit Court of Brown county, a declaration in ejectment, in the usual form, against Thomas Davis, claiming in fee simple the undivided seventeen-eighteenths of the north-west eight, township one south, range four west of fourth principal meridian, and in Brown county. . Declaration also contained a second count, filed by leave of court, claiming the undivided eight-ninths of the same premises in fee simple.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by complainants against defendants, for an injunction to restrain them from interfering or meddling with certain property levied upon by defendant Brown, as sheriff, by virtue of two executions in favor of the other defendants severally, and prays for relief, and that the injunction be made perpetual.

This was an action for alleged breach of covenant, against incumbrances in a deed conveying the following lands, viz.: south-east quarter of section seven, containing one hundred and sixty acres ; east half of east half of south-west quarter of section seven, containing forty acres ; and east half of south-west quarter of section eleven, containing eighty acres ; all in township one north, range five west; in all, two hundred and eighty acres.

This was a bill filed to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, executed by James 0. Gault and Joseph Smeetzer, (plaintiffs in error,) to Julien S. Hoagland and John Ricketts, to secure the payment of a debt of $2,400, due from mortgagors to mortgagees. The mortgaged property is described in bill and mortgage.

<p>APPEAL FROM ADAMS.</p> <p>The record of a suit in chancery is admissible, in a different case, to show what the complainant claimed in that proceeding,, and to prove the fact of such a claim having been prosecuted by the complainant. But he is not bound by all the statements in the bill, if he has not sworn to them. Such statements are not considered as his admissions.</p>

On 23rd January, 1859, Wilcox filed in the Hancock Circuit Court, a bill in chancery, stating that on the 16th day of June, 1856, Thomas McCormick executed two promissory notes of that date, to Daniel A. Burr, payable, one on 22nd May, 1857, for $400, the other payable 22nd May, 1858, for $500, both at six per cent, interest. On 25th June, 1857, when only $257 of said note had been paid, said note was indorsed to Wilcox.

It appears from the record that this was a proceeding commenced by the levy of a distress warrant on behalf of Kimball, the plaintiff in error, on certain property of Riter, his tenant, claiming $100 rent due, and that after the distress warrant was levied, it was returned and filed before John Bauer, a justice of the peace of Hancock county, with an inventory of property levied on, and' Bauer thereupon issued a summons, tried the case, and rendered a judgment against…

This was an ejectment commenced in the Fulton Circuit Court by the plaintiffs in error against the defendant, John Lance, for south-west seventeen, six north, one east, fourth P. M. The declaration was filed, the rule to plead entered, and the general issue pleaded by Lance at the June term, 1859.

This was an action of debt on a note for $337.60, with ten per cent, interest, given July 12th, 1851, by defendant below to plaintiff. Plea, general issue, payment, and notice that defendant would give in evidence under the general issue, that the note sued on was secured by certain mortgaged property, goods and chattels, which plaintiff took possession of in payment of said note.

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

This was a bill for an account, filed in the St. Clair Circuit Court, by J. W.-Pulliam, against S. B. Whiteside, E. Penseneau and Narcisse Penseneau.

This was an action commenced in the probate court of Menard county, and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court. It was in assumpsit on a note signed by the plaintiffs in error. The note was drawn in the usual manner for twelve hundred dollars, to bear ten per cent, interest. On the same paper, below and apart from the signatures, was this memorandum: “When due to draw fifteen per cent.” The judgment was for the plaintiff below.

This was an action of debt brought by Richards and others, appellees, against Simon Eimer, appellant, upon a recognizance entered into in open court, upon an attachment suit brought against Isaac Shelby and others. This suit was originally commenced by said Richards and others against Isaac Shelby, Jr., and Simon Eimer. A demurrer having been filed to all the counts, it was sustained by the court.

This suit was brought on an account for money paid for the use of defendant — money due on note, and money due on subscription for building a church — before a justice of the peace, and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court of Adams county. The jury found for the plaintiffs the amount of the note only. Motion by plaintiffs for a new trial; motion overruled, and judgment entered for plaintiffs for thirty-one, fifty-hundredths dollars, amount of said note only.

This is a suit in chancery, from the Moultrie Circuit Court, filed by Lemuel T. Dazey, Jacob Black and Elizabeth D. Black, his wife, Nancy E. Dazey, by her guardian, and George R. Foster. The said Lemuel T. Dazey and Elizabeth Black, were children of Jenettian Dazey, deceased. Nancy E. Dazey was his grandchild, and Foster a creditor.

This is a suit originally commenced before a justice of the peace, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, to recover the value of eight bushels of wheat. Trial by justice, and judgment for plaintiff in error. Appealed to Circuit Court of Macon county by defendant in error. Trial by jury, and verdict for defendant in error for four dollars; upon which, judgment was entered for four dollars and costs of suit.

The original bill of appellant was filed August 31st, 1858, in Hancock Circuit Court, and alleges that Zadock Stevens, deceased, the father of all the complainants therein, except William Stratton, was in his lifetime seized as owner of the south-east quarter of section one, township three north, range six west; that Zadock Stevens being so seized, died in July, 1838, leaving complainants, (except Stratton,) and also Epaphras B. Stevens, Joseph F. Stevens, Jerusha Wheeler…

This was an application to the Mason Circuit Court to set aside a sale of real estate made by the sheriff upon execution from that court.

Marrs sued Rives in the Edgar Circuit Court, as the indorser of a bill of exchange, of which he (Marrs) was the holder. The declaration contains two special counts, and a common count upon an account stated. The first special count alleges the making of the bill of exchange to one Curtis, directed to one Dickerson, payable to one Bartholomew Whalen, six months after date, at the Edgar County Bank ; and that Rives indorsed the bill.

This was an action of debt brought by the appellee, Warfield, against the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Adams county, and tried by Sibley, Judge, a jury being waived, at the June term thereof, A. D. 1860, who rendered a judgment against the appellant for- $1,523.22 debt, $72.99 damages, and costs of suit, from which judgment an appeal is taken..

This was a bill for partition and assignment of dower. A decree was rendered approving the allotment of dower, and also the report of commissioners, stating that the premises were so situated that a division thereof could not be made without manifest prejudice to the proprietors of the same, and the master was directed to sell the premises, (subject to the dower interest) at public vendue, after giving notice, etc., and directing a division of the proceeds, after the payment…

This was a suit in attachment, by Turney against Craft. Writs were returnable to third Monday of May, 1859, and levied on personal and real estate, but no return was made by sheriff as to defendant. By act of February, 1859, the term of court was changed to the first Monday of April, 1859. The defendant, by his attorney, moved for a continuance, because declaration was not filed ten days before the term. Motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.

The relator in his petition recites, that on the thirteenth day of November, 1860, he received from the clerk of the County Court of McDonough county, a certificate of his election to the office of clerk of the Circuit Court for said county, (setting it out verbatim) ; that he subsequently, on the first day of December following, received his commission from the governor, (setting it out) ; that he afterwards took the oath of office, gave bonds, etc., and filed the same as…

This was an action of debt on the office bond of Lewis W. Link, as master in chancery, of Greene county, with Samuel Heaton, Z. A. Morrow and Anthony S. Seely, as securities thereon. The suit was instituted against all the parties to said bond ; (said bond being joint and several in its terms.) Heaton, Morrow and Seely were before the court. Heaton filed a plea of non est factum, with affidavit of its truth as to him. Morrow and Seely pleaded non est factum.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellees against appellant. The first count of declaration is for twenty-eight thousand brick purchased by Blank from appellees at $5.75 per thousand, to be delivered at the depot of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company in Summerfield, and alleges that said brick were there delivered accordingly. Second count is in the usual form, for twenty-eight thousand brick, sold and delivered by appellees to appellant, at his request.

The first count in the declaration filed in the case of Clark, appellee, states that the appellants, on the 9th day of March, 1858, at Bond county, Illinois, made their joint note to the appellee, by which said note appellants “ promise to pay on the ninth day of March, A. D. 1860, to the order of Samuel F. Clark, the sum of fourteen hundred and four dollars and four cents, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, payable in currency, for value received.” Pogue…

The record shows the consolidation of seven different petitions for the enforcement of mechanics’ liens, as follows: The petition filed, sets forth that the petitioners, on the 1st day of May, 1858, contracted with one Jacob Besore, to furnish the said Besore building materials, by and before the 17th of November, 1858, and by the terms of the contract the petitioners were to furnish and deliver said Besore building materials as aforesaid, at the usual market price, at…

This is an action on the case, brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error, for malicious prosecution. The declaration contains three counts. The first count alleges, that plaintiff in error, on the 12th day of September, 1859, before E. G. Falconer, justice of the peace, charged defendant in error with having knowingly and designedly, by false pretense,obtained from the plaintiff in error, §650.

This suit was commenced in the names of the defendants in error, against the plaintiff in error, in the Fulton Circuit Court, upon a promissory note, executed by plaintiff in error, to the Mississippi and Wabash Railroad Company, which contained several indorsements on the back, as follows: “ Jan’y 14, ’58. Pay to the order of Coopers & Clark. W. N. CLINE, Gen'l Agent M. & W. B. B. Co.” “ Central Division.” “Pay Boston Belting Co. or order.

This is an action of trespass, originally brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, before a justice of the peace in Fulton county. The parties appeared, and trial was bad by a jury, which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $55* upon which judgment was rendered by the court. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of said county.

The plaintiff in error filed his bill in chancery, in the Circuit Court of Adams county, against defendant, alleging: That on or about the first day of December, 1855, a verbal agreement of partnership was entered into between them, by which they were, as equal partners, to buy and sell goods, under the name and style of Moore & Bailey, as long as they should agree.

<p>ERROR TO DE WITT.</p> <p>A mechanics’ lien does not exist, for lumber furnished, upon an open account, without reference to its being placed in any particular building.</p>

This was a bill filed by appellees, Clark and Whitaker, against the appellants, in the Circuit Court of Bond county, for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by the appellants to the appellee, Samuel E. Clark, on certain described lands supposed to contain two hundred and eighty-eight acres, more or less, to secure the payment of two notes given by the said appellants, (except Emily J. Pogue,) to the appellee, Samuel P. Clark, for the sum of fourteen hundred and four dollars…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants, in the Piatt Circuit Court, to recover damages for a breach of contract, in failing to carry two thousand hogs from Bement station to Chicago. There was a plea of the- general issue, and a trial by the court, Emerson, Judge, presiding, who found for the defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly. The plaintiffs below brought this writ of error.

This is an action of assumpsit, brought by Lindsey against Edmiston and Kramer to recover some eight hundred dollars for hogs, sold and delivered to the defendants, by the plaintiff. The declaration contains the common counts in assumpsit. The defendant plead the general issue sworn to by Edmiston.

This was an action of debt on award. The second count of the declaration was as follows: And also for that whereas, the said plaintiff and the said defendant, heretofore, to wit, on the twenty-third day of August, A. D. 1859, to wit, at the county of Adams and State of Illinois, executed their certain other writing obligatory, the said plaintiff by the signature of John Thomas, and the said defendant by the signature of Abijah Whetstone, sealed with their seals respectively,…

Appellees filed their bill in the Morgan Circuit Court, on the equity side thereof, against appellants, alleging that, on the 20th day of February, 1857, Frederick Truog and John Selby, who were partners under the firm of John Selby & Co., for the uses of said firm, borrowed of Murray McConnel $1,000, to secure which, with twelve per cent, interest at one year’s date, they gave a note to said McConnel, signed with their individual names, and said appellees signed said note…

The declaration in this case is in debt for eight thousand dollars, on a penal bond of two thousand dollars.

This was an action of ejectment. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court, and judgment for defendant. Motion for new trial, and motion overruled. The declaration counts for a leasehold estate and also for the fee.

<p>ERROR TO MACON.</p> <p>A writ of error will be dismissed if the plaintiffs in the writ were not parties to the controversy to be reviewed.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by John A. Metcalf against Edmiston and Kramer, to recover about $2,500 for hogs, sold and delivered to the defendants. The declaration contains the common counts, to which the general issue is pleaded under oath. A jury was waived, and the case tried by the court. The court rendered judgment for defendants for costs. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and an appeal taken to this court.

This was an action of assumpsit- in the Circuit Court of Pike county, by the Pike County Railroad Company, appellee, against Charles Thrasher, the appellant, upon the following agreement : We, the… Held: at which George W. Shields, J. B. Helm, A. S. Roberts, George Wike, Richard Hays, Wm. F. Hooper, Josiah Lombard, James McWilliams, Alexander Starne, and O. M. Hatch, were elected directors of the company.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace, in May, 1860, and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court of Cook county. There was a judgment for defendant for costs. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. Summons from Circuit Court, May 26th, 1860. The cause was submitted to the court for trial, a jury being waived by agreement. Manierre, Judge, presided. The Circuit Court found the issues for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was overruled.

This was an action on the case, brought by the city against the plaintiffs in error, to recover from them an amount of damages, covered by a judgment against the city in favor of one Ormsby. The declaration contained four counts. First count alleged in substance, that plaintiff (defendant in error) under its charter had exclusive power over the streets of the city, and was, by law, bound to prevent the obstruction of them.

This was a bill in chancery, filed in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, by Jeremy Hixon, Jr., against Horace Norton, Joel C. Walter, Edward K. Rogers, Wm.

Philemon B. Pratt and Mary L. Pratt, complainants below, in the Kane Circuit Court, filed their bill against James Schoonhoven, Smith Herford and Edward Scofield. On same day the clerk of said court issued a writ of injunction, and also issued a summons in the cause. No service was ever had on Scofield, nor was he ever brought into court, and the complainants dismissed their bill as to him. Schoonhoven by his counsel moved to dissolve the injunction.

This was an action of debt brought in the McLean Circuit Court. The declaration contains one count on a sealed policy of fire insurance, the common money counts and account stated. The cause was heard before Davis, Judge, and a jury. The jury found for the plaintiff below. Debt, ,$1,056. Damages, one cent. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a bill filed in the Circuit Court of Stephenson county, by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, and one Joseph A. McConnell, to compel a specific performance of a certain alleged contract for the sale of lands.

These were actions in assumpsit. The declarations set out the various steps taken, or alleged to have been taken, in pursuance of the charter, for the purpose of condemning the lots of the appellees for the opening of LaSalle street; and among other things, that the “ common council, in pursuance of the requirements of the charter, chose three disinterested freeholders, to wit, F. A. Bragg, Thomas Church, and W. W. Salstonstall, residing in said city, as commissioners to…

The petitioner, Franklin V. Chamberlain, represents by his petition, that on the 15th day of February; A. D. 1854, he was seized in fee of the west one-fourth of lot eight, in block one hundred and seventeen, in the School Section Addition to Chicago, in the county of Cook and State of Illinois, and continued to be the owner, and was in the undisputed possession of said premises until the institution and completion of the proceedings thereafter mentioned', and which were had…

This was a declaration in assumpsit. Two counts on note and indorsements, and common counts. Note does not show where made or where payable. Note signed by, and declaration filed against, E—— D. Davison. A summons issued January 22, 1859, to Woodford county, returnable to March term, served February 12th by sheriff of Woodford county, who returns the full name of defendant, Ezra D. Davison.

The bill in this case charges that James Bloomer died November 27,1850; that his widow Semele was appointed administratrix, November 30, 1850; that she so acted till December 23,1851, when she resigned, and the County Court accepted her resignation; that on the 23rd of February, 1852, the complainant, James L. Johnson, was appointed administrator de bonis non, and so remained until filing of the bill.

This action was assumpsit, brought by Lucius Newberry and others, against McCreary. The plaintiff’s declaration contained a special count upon a promissory note made by defendant, bearing date the 15th day of April, 1858, for four hundred and ninety-six and fifteen-hundredths dollars, payable nine months after date, at the Marine Bank, Chicago, with interest after six months, and the common counts.

This was a scire facias upon a recognizance entered into by the appellant, as security with William Vincent and William Kelly as principals, running to the People, and dated September 29th, 1859, returnable to the October term of the said Recorder’s Court.

This was an appeal from a justice of the peace to the Circuit Court of Ogle county, brought for goods furnished to the wife of Rea, the appellant. Jury found for plaintiff, $74.61. Motion in arrest of judgment by defendant, and a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and exception by defendant. Judgment rendered for $74.61 and costs. Appeal by defendant below.

Jesse McLain filed his bill in chancery in the Stephenson Circuit Court; January 18,1859, against George Lohr, John C. Kean, T. M. Kean, and John A. Clark.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by appellee against appellant, in the' Kane Circuit Court. The appellee counted for rent due, goods sold, money lent, etc. The appellant filed the general issue and several special pleas, upon which there was an issue.

This was a replevin suit. The affidavit claims that plaintiff is entitled to the possession of sixteen beer tubs, now in the possession of the defendant, and unjustly detained by him. The declaration contains two counts — one in the detenuit, and the other in the detinit. The first plea denies the taking. The second denies the detaining. The thirds pleads property in defendant. The fourth that the defendant claims the property as the administrator of Henry Ewalt.

William Taylor, on the 7th day of September, 1855, filed in Kendall Oircnit Court a declaration in trespass quare clausum fregit. Pleas — First, not guilty; second, a public highway; third, quit claim to public for highway from owners of land ; fourth, setting forth the -proceedings for a highway. Replication to the county de injuria. Trial had, and verdict for defendant, Hollister, Judge, presiding. Motion for a new trial overruled ; appeal taken.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by appellee, against appellant, to the special April term, A.D. 1860, of the Henry Circuit Court, upon an award of arbitrators. The case was tried before Howe, Judge, and a jury, at October term, 1860.

This was an action on the case, brought by the appellee against the appellant, under the act of 1855, entitled “ An act to regulate the duties and liabilities of railroad companies,” for killing a mare, which the appellee claims got upon the railroad track over an insufficient cattle guard. The mare was depastured on the public highway by Crawford, and, as is claimed by Mm, she strayed from the public highway on to the railroad track, over an insufficient cattle guard.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHICAGO.</p> <p>An action on the case for negligence will lie against a municipal corporation, for damages arising from a breach of duty, imposed by law.</p>

This was an action in ejectment, brought by appellee against appellants, to recover Lot 23, in Block 30, School Section Addition to Chicago. There was a plea of the general issue by all of defendants, October 11, 1858. The declaration avers that plaintiff was, on the 1st day of January, 1857, possessed of and had a fee simple right in and to the premises. Avers entry June 1st, 1857. Another count, claiming west 25/26 of the premises.

This was an action of ejectment by plaintiff to recover portions of Campbell, Durley & Newhall’s addition to the town of Pekin, tried at the February term of the Circuit Court, before Harriott, Judge, without a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants.

This declaration was in trover for a house. Plea not guilty. Judgment for plaintiff below. Appeal prayed. Bill of exceptions shows two judgments before a justice of the peace, both in favor of plaintiff below; one against Phillips, the other against Whitelock; and that executions were issued on the judgments. Execution against Phillips has a return, showing a levy and sale on the house in controversy.

The inhabitants and tax payers of the city of LaSalle, defendants in error, filed their bill against O’Kane, the collector in the town of LaSalle, March 29th, 1861, alleging : That by the charter of said city, the inhabitants of said city are exempt from working and from paying any tax to procure laborers to work on any road outside the city limits.

This declaration was in assumpsit for goods and chattels sold and delivered, and for money lent; damages laid at $500.

This was a proceeding by attachment, which was returned served on garnishees, and property taken.

This was a suit in chancery, commenced by Theodore Betts, John D. Mellen, Alfred A. K. Sawyer and John O. Mellen, composing the firm of Sawyer, Mellen & Co., filed in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, on the chancery side thereof, against Cooley, Farwell & Co., and the said P. D. Jones & Sons and George W. Ashard, for leave to pay into court a sum of money due upon two drafts, made by A. N. Littig, payable to the order of George W. Ashard, and accepted by complainants,…

This is an action of assumpsit brought to the August term, A. D. 1859, of the County Court of Peoria county, by appellee against appellants, as indorsers of a note. The declaration contains one special count in-the common form, with, averment that at the maturity of said note, and at all times since, said Mulford was, and yet is, a non-resident of Illinois, and without said State, so that process could not be served on him. There is also a count for money had and received.

The petition in this case is as follows: “John Chipp, the defendant in the above entitled cause, and petitioner herein, being first duly sworn, deposes and says, that on or about the 28th day of April, A. D. 1860, he was served by summons to appear before Charles H. Barmm, Esq., a justice of the peace of the county of Cook, on the 5th day of May, A.D. 1860, at 10 o’clock a. m. of said day, to answer to a suit wherein Nathan B. Harrison was plaintiff, and this deponent was…

This was a certiorari from the Circuit Court of Bureau county to the board of superviors of said county. Held: at which said board again took up said schedule and passed the following order : “ And Mr. Simmons’ motion was carried, and the resolution was adopted, as follows: “ The committee on railroad assessments would beg leave to make the following report: That they have examined the several lists of property belonging to the several…

This suit was commenced by summons, January 27,1859, in Cook County Court of Common Pleas, in assumpsit, returnable to February term, 1859. The declaration contained a single count for use and occupation.

This action was brought by Noyes against Matteson, in the Superior Court of Chicago, to recover the value of certain railroad ties, delivered under a contract. The defense was that the ties were for the use of the St. Louis, Alton and Chicago Railroad, and contracted for by that corporation. The plaintiff below recovered a judgment for $51,453. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion. The cause was tried before Goodrich, Judge, and a jury.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff below, appellee here, to recover the consideration of a farm sold by him to appellant. The venue was changed to Kankakee county. The plaintiff below recovered a judgment. The facts of the case will sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error recovered a judgment in an action of assumpsit, against the city of Chicago for the sum of one thousand dollars. On this judgment a writ of fieri facias against the city was issued on the eighth of August, A. D. 1859. A motion to set aside this execution was made in and overruled by the Superior Court of the city of Chicago, in the month of June of the same year. Upon the overruling of this motion, error was assigned.

This was an action of debt on a bond, commenced by an attachment, the affidavit for which recites that Julius Rosenthal is administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of the estate of George Frederick Heym, deceased.

Amasa E. Higbee, who was complainant below, filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Warren, alleging that he is the legal owner in fee simple of the north-east quarter of section fifteen, township eight north, range three west of the fourth principal meridian, situate in Warren county, by chain of conveyances from the United States, as follows: 1st, a patent to Resin Newell; 2nd, a deed from Resin Newell to Stephen Wheeler and S. E. Hunt; 3rd, a deed from S. P. Hunt to…

On January 21st, 1861, the plaintiff in error filed in the Rock Island Circuit Court his declaration in ejectment against the. defendant in error, for lot 12, block 1, Atkinson’s addition to the village of Moline, claiming therein an estate for the life of the defendant, and alleging himself to have been in possession December 1, A. D. 1860, and that defendant entered, etc., on the day following.

This suit was commenced by Cooley, Wadsworth & Co., appellants, against A. B. Sears & Co., appellees, in assumpsit, in the Circuit Court of Lee county, to collect three promissory notes made by Sears and Howlett, which it is alleged were then the property of Wadsworth & Co. The declaration declared upon the said three promissory-notes, with the ordinary common counts; to which defendant, Howlett, replied: 1st. The general issue. 2nd.

The declaration in this cause avers, that the appellant ma.de his two certain promissory notes in writing, etc., by the name arid style of Dunlap, Wright & Co. One of these was a judgment note, the power of attorney to which was signed by Robert L. Dunlap and Josiah E. Colburn. The pleas are, general issue] and denial of the execution as partner, or otherwise. Trial before Van H. Higgins, Judge, and jury.