Volume 29 — Iowa Reports

Thursday, June 9. This is an action to recover the taxes levied by the city of Dubuque, for the year 1868, upon the income of defendant from premiums on risks received at its agency in that city. It was submitted to the district court upon an agreed statement of facts, which is substantially as follows: The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin, for the purpose of doing the business of life insurance.

Thursday, June 9. Preston Greenleae was in defendant’s employ as a brakeman, and while, as is claimed, in the discharge of his duty was… Held: that “ in such a state of the evidence it was the duty of the court to decide on its legal effect, and to say to the jury that the plaintiff had failed to make out his case.” Lucas v. Railroad Oo., 6 Gray, 64; 2 Kan. 490;’ Gavett v. Railroad Oo., 16 Gray, 74; 36 Mo. 202; 20 Cal. 56; Gahagan v. Railroad Oo., I Allen, 187 ; 37 id. 287,…

Thursday, June 9. Action upon a promissory note and guarantee of its collection; judgment for defendant upon the guarantee. Plaintiff appeals.

<p>Garnishment: or mortgages os personal property. A mortgagee of personal property which has never come into his possession is not hound, after garnishment' hy an attaching creditor of the mortgagor to take possession of the property for the benefit of such creditor, and cannot, in the absence of fraud or collusion, he held liable for the same, though it exceeded in value the amount of his mortgage.</p>

Friday, June 10. Action for slander ; verdict and judgment for defendant. The general term affirmed the judgment of the district court; plaintiff appeals to this court.

Friday, June 10. This action was brought to recover for the injury to plaintiff’s person, and also his mules and wagon, occasioned by the careless act of defendant’s agent, in striking with its locomotive and train said team, etc., while being driven by him across the railroad track near the depot at Waterloo. The testimony tends to show that he was unloading wheat from his wagon at an elevator on the uorth side, and some thirty or forty feet from the main track.

Saturday, June 11. The petition sets out the following facts : The brother of plaintiffs, Thomas Fitzpatrick, died in the year 1853, leaving a widow, Margaret, and an only child, Maria, a minor. On the 13th day of January, 1855, Hezekiah Winchell executed and delivered to Margaret, as the guardian of Maria, a promissory note for $1,000, due-September 1, 1866, without interest.

Saturday, June 11. In equity : to set aside a tax sale and deed.— Defendants’ demurrer to the petition was overruled ; they excepted; declined to answer over ; judgment granting the entire prayer of the petition ; and they appeal.

Saturday, June 11. Action by the plaintiff, a lot owner and tax payer in Iowa city, to set aside an execution sale of “College Green,” one of the public squares of said city, as originally platted and recorded. The sale was made to the defendant and appellant, George J. Boal, under an execution issued upon a judgment recovered on city warrants, issued for general corporation purposes. The corporation of Iowa City was made defendant.

Monday, June 13. Action by ordinary proceedings. An attachment is prayed for and was issued upon the original petition. An amended petition was subsequently filed. Defendant moved to quash the attachment, because, among other reasons, the petition does not aver that something is then due from defendant to plaintiff. The motion was overruled. From this ruling of the court defendant appeals.

Monday, June 13. Plaintiff declares upon a note made by defendant, dated May 7, 1858, due in six months, averring that on the 3d of September, 1859, the makers paid thereon $70.40, etc. The answer is in denial, and also relies upon the statute of limitations. Upon the trial plaintiff offered to read the endorsement of payment on the note, and also by entries made by the payee in his books, to show this payment.

<p> Appeal from, Dubuque Circuit Court. </p> <p>Tuesday, June 14.</p> <p>Action to recover damages on account of injuries to a horse of plaintiff, sustained through a defective bridge upon one of the streets in the city of Dubuque. The petition avers that the city, under its charter, has the supervision of highways within its limits, and that about the year 1857, it caused sixth street to be extended, near its intersection with Jackson street, eastward toward the Mississippi river. That in making such extension the street was filled up to a grade established by the city, and á bridge constructed oyer a slough upon said street $ that the said extension of Sixth street and the said bridge thereon has been, for the last ten years, a public highway, and kept open and partially repaired by the city; and during the whole of that time was used by the public as a highway; that the city neglected to keep the bridge aforesaid in a safe condition, and negligently allowed it to become out of repair and unsafe : suffering the planking thereon to be broken, and a large hole to remain in the traveled track upon the side bridge, etc. ; and that, on accouut of said defective bridge, plaintiff’s horse, in crossing, was injured. The petition particularly states the manner of the occurrence of the accident, which need not be set out here.</p> <p>The defendant in his answer denies generally the alie-, gations of the petition.</p> <p>■■ The cause was tided to a jury, and the evidence is preserved in the bill of exceptions. It is only pertinent to the case, as presented to this court, to state the evidence in relation to the character of the street and bridge where the accident occurred, touching the question whether it was a public highway.</p> <p>The street and bridge called the Sixth street extension was built in 1857, by the Harbor Improvement Company, over their lands, and crossing a slough in the extended line of the street. There is nothing to indicate where the old street terminates or the extension begins, the two making a continuous way. The extension was used for drawing and piling lumber and wood and for hauling the . same, and was traveled by teams for that purpose. The bridge was 75 feet long and 20 feet wide, and was, as one witness states, “about a quarter of a mile” from the commencement of the extension.</p> <p>In 1865, a mill was built on the Harbor Improvement Company's lands, and this extension was the only road to the mill, except in low water, and was traveled b}r all persons having business at the mill. It was used for no other purpose than for hauling lumber and wood, and for access to the mill. It was not completed much further than the mill. After the accident' to the plaintiff’s horse, which occurred in January, 1867, the city, at the request of the owner of the saw mill, repaired the bridge, the mill owner furnishing plank for that purpose. In the summer following, (1867) the city again repaired the bridge by putting braces under it, and they also did some filling upon the extension.</p> <p>The court instructed the jury as follows: v</p> <p>“1. If you find from the evidence that the bridge where the accident is alleged to have happened, was at the time of the accident a part of a public highway of the city of Dubuque, and was out of repair and in a dangerous condition, and that the accident was occasioned by reason of the defect in the bridge, and that such defect was known or might have been known to' the city, authorities by the exercise of ordinary care, and also that the accident happened without the failure of the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care to avoid it, then you should find for the plaintiff.</p> <p>“2. If the place where the accident happened was no part of a public highway or street, but a private way constructed by a private company for its own use and purposes, and never accepted by the city of Dubuque as a public highway, then you should find for the defendant; unless you should further find that the dangerous place was in such near proximity to a public highway as to be dangerous to persons using the public street, then you should find for the plaintiff. Whether the place was in such proximity to the street, and dangerous, is for you to determine.</p> <p>“3. If a street with bridges had been constructed and used as a public highway for more than ten years, it would jprima facie be deemed a public street, with all the rights and responsibilities attaching to such a public use. But this presumption may be rebutted by evidence that it was only intended as a private way.</p> <p>“ 4. Acts of the city, such as repairing the bridge in question after the accident had happened, would not alone be sufficient to establish the fact that it was a part of a public highway; but such acts if proved may be considered as items of evidence tending to show that the city recognized the street as a public highway.”</p> <p>To the second, third and fourth instructions the defendant excepted.</p> <p>After verdict for plaintiff, the defendant moved for k new trial, because the jury were erroneously instructed as to the law by the giving of the foregoing instructions excepted to, and by the refusal to give instructions asked by defendant and because the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was overruled and judgment rendered upon the verdict. Defendant appeals.</p> <p>[This cause has before been in this court. See 25 Iowa, 108.]</p>

Tuesday, June 14. In equity. — These parties were blacksmiths and were partners, under certain written terms, from October, 1862, until the same month, 1863. They then entered into a new agreement, continued thereunder for a few days, when they dissolved, plaintiff taking an assignment of all accounts, for a consideration then and afterward to be paid defendant.

<p>Tuesday, June 14.</p> <p>Motion to set aside stay bond.</p>

Tuesday, June 14. The plaintiff brought this action against defendant to recover for board, use of team, etc., furnished by him to defendant. By way of set-off and cross-action the defendant claimed to recover of plaintiff for work, grain, etc., and also for damages done by plaintiff’s vicious dog to a certain horse of defendants. Upon these the cause was tried to a jury. There was a judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed in the general term. The defendant appeals.

Wednesday, June 15. This action was coinmeneed before a justice of the peace, and plaintiff, according to the -petition, “ claims of the defendant, a company, doing business in the state of Iowa, under the laws thereof, the sum of,” etc. For cause of claim it is stated that on, etc., a “servant of defendant, running and operating an engine for said defendant, * * * killed on said road near the depot, etc., by negligently running over, with said engine, a dark red calf, the…

) Wednesday, June 15. Action upon a bill of exchange drawn by defendants upon Eeed & Boynton, payable to plaintiff at three days’ sight.

Thursday, June 16. Action upon a promissory note made by defendant to' George Snyder, or order, for $300, payable one day after date. The note-bears date April 23, 1867. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

<p>Pleading: vendor and vendee : trespass. In an action by a vendee against his vendor, to recover for timber taken from the land by the latter after a verbal contract of purchase and the payment of a small sum by the vendee thereon, but before the deed was executed, and before the vendee had taken possession of the land, the peitition claimed a certain sum, and, for cause, stated, “ that defendant, on. etc., caused to be cut and earned away a number of valuable trees, standing and growing upon the land of plaintiff (describing it), of the value, etc., wherefore plaintiff claims judgment,” etc. Held,</p> <p>1 That the action was not in form an action of trespass, in which the plaintiff must show title or possession at the time the .timber was taken.</p> <p>2. That under the petition the plaintiff might show a promise, on the part of defendant, to pay for the timber,- that evidence . of this, with the other facts of the case, was proper to go to the jury ; and that it was error to withdraw the same from their consideration. Win-MAir, J., dissenting.</p>

Appeal from Black Hawk District Court. Thursday, June 16. Action in replevin for several head of cattle. Trial to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

<p>Certiorari: cibcuit ooubt. The circuit court has not jurisdiction in certiorari cases</p>

Friday, June 17. The indictment charges the defendant of the crime of murder, and avers that said defendant, on, etc., “in and upon the body of one Daniel Griffith, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, feloneously and of malice aforethought, did make an assault, with a certain gun, which, the defendant then and there held in his hands, which said gun was then and there charged with gunpowder and leaden balls, and the said defendant did then and there willfully,…

) Friday, June 17. Action upon a note, and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of it. Trial to the court who found the facts and rendered judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the general term, where the , judgment was affirmed, and he now appeals to this court.

<p>Wager: action to kecovek. An action will lie and a recovery may be bad against a a stakeholder for the amount of a wager placed in his hands, and which he paid over to the other party, after being notified by plaintiff not to do so.</p>

Monday, June 20. The 19th clause of section 7 of the “act revising and consolidating the laws incorporating the city of Dubuque,” etc., approved January 28, 1857, (Laws of 1857, p. 348), provides that the city council shall have power “to license, tax and regulate hackney carriages, omnibusses, wagons, carts, drays and all other vehicles, and porters, and fix the rate to be charged for the carriage of persons, and for the wagonage, cartage, drayage or porterage of property.”…

) Monday, June 20. Action in equity to enjoin the collection of a judgment at law. On final hearing the petition was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the general term. where the judgment was affirmed, and he now appeals to this court. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

<p> Appeal from, District Court of Warren County. </p> <p>'Tuesday, June 21.</p>

Thursday, July' 21. On tbe 8tb day of May, 1869, plaintiff commenced his action by attachment against C. C. Humphrey upon a promissory note. On the following day the attachment was levied upon certain real estate, and on the 28th day of the same month Gibbs was served with garnishment process, and afterward answered thereto.

Asyjpeal from General Term, Third- District (Decatur County). Thursday, July 21. Dependant was indicted for an assault with intent to commit murder, and, upon trial, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for eight years. The general term affirmed the judgment of the district court. Defendant appeals to this court. The facts of the case, so far as are necessary to an understanding of the points ruled, appear in the opinion.

Thursday, -July 21. Plaintiffs declare for $325, -with interest, which they claim to be due them, as part consideration for a piano sold and delivered by them to defendant. The contract was in writing, dated December 1, 1868, and' by it defendant undertook to pay one Brink for the piano, li bought of him,” $625, the first payment (that here sued for), becoming due June 1, 1869.

Thursday, July 21. Plaintiff’s claim is for care and attendance upon deceased, for his board, for use of room, etc., during bis last sickness. Tbe care, board, etc., are not denied, but it is insisted, in tbe answer, that they were not of tbe value charged. Tbe claim was for $434, and plaintiff' recovered, before a jury in tbe circuit court, $259. This judgment was affirmed in tbe general term, and defendant again appeals.

General Term,, Fifth District {Folic County). Thursday, July 21. Action to recover damages of defendant, resulting to plaintiff in consequence of an embankment made by defendant in front of plaintiff’s property in Market street, in Des Moines, whereon defendant’s road was constructed.

<p>Certiorari: cieouit oouet : The circuit court has not jurisdiction in cer- - tiorari proceedings. Thompson et al. v. Reed et al., ante, 117.</p>

Friday, July 22. Action in chancery. Decree for plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case are fully set out in the opinion. The same case was before this court upon questions other than those now determined. See 27 Iowa, 584.

H. Tannehill, Judge Second Judicial District. Friday, July 22. McArthur recovered a judgment against plaintiff, in the district court of Union county, upon which an execution was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of that county.

<p>Contract: chattel mortgage : replevin. S. contracted to sell and deliver for G. $650 worth of property to be prepared and furnished him by G., and to collect and pay over to the latter the money arising form the sales, which should be made to none but responsible parties. ' S. under this agreement sold $675 worth of property, and collected all of the same except $56. Of this latter sum, S. attempted without success to collect a portion, but as to the remainder of this balance, he made no effort to collect. G., claiming that S. had not complied with his contract, took possession of some chattels mortgaged to him ' by S. as security for his performance of the contract, and thereupon S. instituted an action of detinue to. recover the chattel. Held, that no sufficient excuse appearing for the failure of S. to make an effort to collect , all of the balance remaining unpaid, he was not entitled to recover</p>

Friday, July 22. The facts of this case are, m every essential respect, as when it was before us on the former appeal (26 Iowa, 124). It is brought to recover damages sustained.by the plaintiffs (to the wife) on account of the alleged unsafe condition of the steps leading to and from the platform at defendant’s depot, at Cedar Eapids, whereby she was thrown to the ground, her ankle-bone broken, and she otherwise injured. On the first trial plaintiffs recovered $2,000.

' Friday, July 22. Mortgage foreclosure. — Eeuter made the mortgage May 2, 1867, to plaintiff, Wilson, but it was not properly stamped. In this condition it was filed, for record on the 6th of the same month. On the 25th of April, 1868, upon application to the proper collector, the mortgage was stamped, and the stamp canceled as allowed by law; this fact being entered of record, and the mortgage refiled and again recorded.

•Friday, July 22. Action upon three promissory notes made by defendant, Gilman, to plaintiffs, and to foreclose six separate mortgages given to secure distinct portions of said notes. The mortgages were on distinct parcels of land lying in six different counties, one only being in the county of Dubuque, where this action was brought. The defend, ants moved to strike out so much of the petition as related to the five mortgages, and also moved for change of venue.

<p> Appeal from Tama District Court. </p> <p>Friday, July 22.</p> <p>Action to foreclose a mortgage. The plaintiff appeals. The further facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Friday, July 22. Plaintiffs allege that in March, 1864, one David Poffenbarger died of disease contracted in the military service as a private in Co. D, 19th regiment Iowa volunteers and left surviving him the plaintiff Nancy, his widow, and five children, then aged, respectively, two, four, six, eight and ten years ; that his widow, the plaintiff Nancy, made application for a pension, to which she was entitled and would have obtained but for the fact, that, pending her…

Monday, July 25. Middleton made his note to Dailey & Zeisley, payable to their order; after due, Dailey & Zeisley indorsed it to W. A, Jones & Co., the plaintiffs. In the suit to enforce the payment of this note the petition does not state that demand was made of the maker and notice given to the indorsers of non-payment before suit. A demurrer was filed to the petition for this reason and sustained. The ruling upon the demurrer is the error assigned.

<p>1. Partnership: powers after dissolution. A member of tbe partnership, after dissolution thereof, is authorized to defend, in the name of the partnership, a suit against the firm, to appeal from the judgment, and to procure sureties on the appeal bond necessary to that end.</p> <p>2. -It is accordingly held, that the members of the partnership are liable in such case to a surety on the appeal bond, who is afterward compelled to pay the judgment.</p>

Monday, July 25. Action in chancery to subject certain lands to a judgment against Adaline K. Clapp, one of the defendants, and in favor of plaintiffs. Decree for plaintiffs. The defendants appeal. The facts of the case are found in the opinion.

Monday, July 25. Defendant was garnished in a suit against D. W. Baker. In his answer he admits that he had received, prior to the service of process upon him, a certain note executed by another to the judgment debtor.

Ajypeal from General Term, Eighth District (Johnson County). Monday, July 25. Petition for writ of certiorari. The plaintiff avers that he is the owner in fee of certain real property in Iowa City, Johnson county, which has been listed and assessed for taxation ; that the defendants, Lewis R. Wole and others, constitute the board of supervisors of said county, and the defendant, James Cavanaugh, is auditor of said county and clerk of said board.

Monday, July 25. The defendant Shindley, the owner of a lot in Council Bluffs, employed his co-defendants, Williams and For-stein, to erect a brick building thereon, — they doing all the work, including the excavation of the cellar. Plaintiff, passing along the pavement in front of his excavation, on the night of the third of June, 1869, fell into the same, receiving many and severe injuries.

' Monday, July 25. Replevin for thirteen fatted hogs. Plaintiff claims that he bought the hogs, with twelve others, from the Livingstons, “ with the privilege of taking and shipping them at his option.” The Livingstons, after this alleged purchase, sold the hogs in dispute to McCalmort & Bros., who, bought, on the same day that plaintiff’s writ was served, replevin against plaintiff, and afterward these actions were, on plaintiff’s motion, consolidated.

Monday, July 25. Action to foreclose a mortgage upon a lot in the town of Newton, given to secure the payment of a part of the purchase price. Defence, that there was an incumbrance on the lot at the time plaintiff conveyed the same to defendant by deed containing covenants against incumbrances ; and that there was an incumbrance of ninety-five dollars for a sidewalk tax, which the defendant had paid to the town of Newton.

Monday, July 25. Action for the recovery of real property —the northeast quarter of south-west quarter, and the south-east quarter of north-west quarter, of section 35, township 77, range 16. The petition is in the ususal form, and plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner. Defendant denies plaintiff’s right, asserts that he is the absolute owner, sets out his claim of title, and pleads the statute of limitations. Trial to the court, and facts found as follows : 1.

Tuesday, July 26. The plaintiff claims that the city negligently and unskillfully built the gutter of a street in front of her lots, so that the basement of her house was flooded, and damage done to the house, furniture, etc. The street had been graded above the level of plaintiff’s lots, in accordance with the grade established by the city, and provision was made, to carry off the water that would flow along the street by gutters.

Tuesday, June 26. Action against defendants, who are innkeepers, to recover on account of money stolen from plaintiff while a guest in their inn. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Tuesday, July 26. Action in attachment. Service by publication and judgment for plaintiff, which, upon application of defendants, was set aside and a retrial ordered ; judgment again for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Tuesday, July 26. Action at law to recover the possession of eighty acres of land in Wayne county. Trial to the court without a jury ; judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Davis District Court. Tuesday, July 26. This cause was submitted to the district court upon an agreed statement of facts, which, so far as they are material to the points decided, are as follows, viz. : The railroad of defendant passed through a fenced field where plaintiff’s stock was running with the consent of the owner of the premises.

Tuesday, July 26. Plaintiff brought his action before a justice of the peace, claiming $50 for one month’s services as clerk for defendants, in their business as grocers. On the return day of the notice (June 3, 1869), defendants appeared and filed their answer in denial, averring settlement and payment, and that plaintiff was employed and undertook to work for his board, 'and the cause, by consent, was continued until June 17, 1869.

Tuesday, July 26. In equity. — -The petition (filed in March, 1869), seeks to set aside a tax sale of a large body of lands held and owned by plaintiff, said sale being for the taxes of 18(59, and also to have declared invalid and without authority the taxes levied thereon for the year 1869. Of these lands, 480 acres are held under the act of congress of May 15, 1856. Rev., p. 916.

Dependant Needham and his co-defendant Anderson were, on the 7th of December, 1868, residents of Racine, Wis. On that day he drew his check upon a bank in that city in favor of Anderson, as follows: “Racine, Wis., December 7, 1868. “D. B. Northrup & Co., bankers. — Pay to A. Anderson, or bearer, fifty dollars, ($50). WM. L. NEEDHAM.” The drawer then had funds in the bank sufficient to pay this check.

Tuesday, July 26. The petition contains two counts ; the first claiming $10,000, for that defendant, did, on, etc., by his flattery, etc., seduce and debauch plaintiff, etc.; the second claiming the same amount, for that defendant, on, etc., did assault plaintiff, etc., and did then and there lay rúde and violent hands upon her person, and have sexual intercourse with her, by reason of which, etc. It was also alleged, as cause for attachment, that defendant was in some…

Appeal from Wapello District Court. Tuesday, July 26. Action to recover for a right of way. Trial to court, and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Tuesday, July 26. Action upon several county warrants. Judgment for the plaintiffs; defendant appeals. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Mahasha Circuit Court. Tuesday, July 26. Action upon a negotiable promissory note by the indorsee thereof. Defense, that the note was given for the agency of a patent right, and that it was procured by false representations by the payee thereof, and that the consideration had failed. Trial to a jury; verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Tuesday, July 26. Action on a negotiable promissory note, by the indorsee thereof. Defense, want of stamp, failure of consideration and fraud, and that all these were known to plaintiffs. Demurrer to answer overruled; plaintiff stood thereon. Judgment for defendant; the plaintiff appeals.

<p>1. Mechanics’ lien: subcontractor: notice. The notice which is required to be given by a subcontractor to the proprietor, of his intention to claim a lien, must he in writing.</p> <p>2. Practice : demurrer : supreme court. Where a demurrer, assigning several causes, is sustained as to one and overruled as to the others, the supreme court willy on appeal, affirm the judgment of the court below on ' the demurrer, if the demurrer should have been sustained for any of the causes assigned, though the sustaining of it on the ground ruled by the court below was erroneous.</p>

Wednesday, July 27. This is a proceeding by information to inquire into the legality of the organization of the independent district of Carbondale, in the county of Mahaska.

Wednesday, July 27. In this, case it appeared, from the answer of the garnishee, that he was the mortgagee of personal property of defendants, and that it was in their possession. The garnishee was discharged. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns the discharge of the garnishee as error. The, value of the property did not definitely appear, or was not shown.

Wednesday, July 27., Dependant was convicted upon an indictment for grand larceny, and sentenced to confinement for two years in the penitentiary. He appeals to this court.

Wednesday, July 27. Defendant was indicited for larceny in stealing a horse, buggy and other property in the county of Jefferson. Upon the trial he was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of two years. Upon appeal to the general term the judgment of the district court was affirmed. Defendant brings his appeal to this court. The facts necessary to an understanding of the points ruled are found in the opinion.

Wednesday, July 27. Action commenced before a justice of the peace, by whom judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Upon appeal to the circuit court verdict and judgment were had for plaintiff. Defendant appeals to this court.

Proceedings by plaintiff to recover for right of way through a quarter section of land, over which the defendant had constructed its road. Defendant by answer set up a grant of the right of way to its grantor by a former owner of the land. Demurrer to answer was sustained by the district court; but on appeal to general term it was overruled, and plaintiff now appeals to this court.

Wednesday, July 27. This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace to recover the cost of constructing a sidewalk in front of a lot belonging to the M. E. church. There was a jury trial before the justice, resulting in a verdict and judgment for defendant. On appeal to the circuit court there was another jury trial, resulting there in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $60. The defendant now appeals to this court.

Wednesday, July 27. Action of replevin for a stock of goods. The petition contained the usual averments of description of the property, its value, the facts constituting plaintiff’s right of absolute ownership and present possession, and that it had not been taken under execution, attachment, or order, or judgment against plaintiff or his property.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. Wednesday, July 27. Indictment for forgery. The defendant appeals. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.

<p> Appeal from General Term, Eighth District (Jones County). </p> <p>Thursday, July 28.</p> <p>The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion to an understanding of the points ruled.</p>

Thursday, July 28. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage executed by Benson and another. Appellant and one Johnson were joined as defendants with the grantors in the mortgage. The mortgagors were not served with process, but an appearance was entered for them, which was afterward withdrawn. Johnson disclaimed having any interest in the mortgaged premises, and appellant was thus left as the only one defending the action.

Thursday, July 28. Prosecution for an assault and battery commenced before a justice of the peace of Decatur county, where the defendant was convicted and fined fifty dollars. He appealed to the circuit court, and afterward obtained a change of venue to Clarke county, where he was again tried and convicted, and fined thirty dollars. The defendant now appeals to this court.

Thursday, July 28. Action to recover the value of a tract of land plaintiff claimed to have traded for by parol, with defendant, and which defendant refused to convey, although plaintiff claimed he had conveyed to defendant the real estate he was to give in exchange therefor. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Thursday, July 28. Action upon two promissory notes, one for $217.30, the other for $68.04, both elated December 6, 1852, payable to Fearer & Coffman, administrators, etc., or bearer, nine months after date, and signed by Phineas Helm and Alfred Helm. The plaintiff avei-red that no part of said notes had been paid, and the indebtedness still justly subsists ; and that he would prove the same by defendant’s answer and testimony in the case. Defense, statute of limitations.

Appeal from Des Moines District Court Friday, July 29. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts are fully set out in the opinion.

Appeal .from, Marian District Court. Friday, July 29. Action to recover for taking a stock of goods mortgaged to plaintiff. The defendant was sheriff, and justified the taking under a writ of attachment against the mortgagor. The attachment plaintiffs were made defendants, and in their defence charged that the plaintiff’s mortgage was made to defraud creditors. Pending the action, the defendants purchased a debt and mortgage senior to the plaintiffs.

Friday, July 29. . Plaintiff, in 1865 and 1866, was the owner of fifty-shares of stock in the First National Bank of Burlington, in this state. For these years there was levied upon this stock (assuming the same to be taxable) the taxes provided by-statute. These taxes plaintiff paid to the treasurer, — ■ paying those for 1865, March 31,1866 ; for 1866, February 23, 1867 — protesting that they were illegal, and taking separate receipts for the same.

Friday, July 29. . The indictment charges the crime of entering, on the night of, etc., the house of, etc., with intent to commit the crime of larceny.

Tuesday, August 4. Plaintifp holds a judgment against O’Brien county, rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the state of Iowa. A tax was levied by the county authorities to pay the judgment, and a certain amount of money was collected thereon, which, however, the defendant, treasurer of the county, refuses to pay upon said judg-. ment.

<p>1 Foreign Judgment: certificate of authentication. The attestation of the clerk to a transcript of a foreign judgment, upon which suit is brought, should be in conformity with the form used in the state from whence the judgment comes, and the evidence of this fact should be found in the certificate of the judge of the court of which the attesting officer is clerk ; but, under our law, it is not necessary that such certificate shall be signed by the judge who is the presiding officer. If signed by a judge it is sufficient.</p> <p>2. -absence op seal : evidence. Where the want of a seal appeared in the attestation clause of the certificate, and the judge certified that the clerk’s certificate was in due form of law ; that he was clerk ; that his signature was genuine, and that his official acts were entitled to full faith and credit, — it was h eld, that the certificate and attestation were sufficient, and the record admissible in evidenoe.</p> <p>15. -stamps, The objection that neither of these certificates were stamped was held not well taken. No stamp is required thereto, nor to the transcript under the federal revenue law.</p>

<p>1. Slander: instruction. In an action for slander for words spoken imputing want of chastity to the plaintiff, the defendant introduced evidence of circumstances tending to show the truth of the words spoken, and, thereupon, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to explain such circumstances. In respect to this evidence the court, in substance, charged the jury that if they should find that such circumstances could be explained upon any hypothesis consistent with her innocence of the acts imputed, then it was their duty to give them such explanation and consider such acts unproved. It was urged that the instruction was erroneous, in that it did not leave to the jury to determine whether the suspicious circumstances had been explained, but instructed them that if they found they could be, then they should consider the facts unproved. It was also urged, that it was erroneous in instructing the jury that they should find the matters unproved, if such circumstances, tending to prove the same, could be explained upon any hypothesis, when it should have been upon any reasonable hypothesis. Held, that while the instruction might be open to criticism, it contained no error sufficient to warrant a reversal.</p> <p>2.-excessive damages. In the present action the court refused to disturb a verdict for $3,000 damages for the plaintiffs, on the ground that the same were excesssive.</p>

Thursday, August 4. Habeas corpus. — in November, 1869, one Tucker was unsuccessul in an action then tried in the Monroe district court, in which he was plaintiff, and one Acheson was defendant.

Thursday, August 4. The substance of the petition, filed April 24, 1869, and which asked an attachment, was, that certain creditors had obtained a judgment against the plaintiff and defendant, upon an account which defendant had agreed with plaintiff to pay; that plaintiff, to prevent an execution from issuing, had stayed said judgment, and that there was due plaintiff from defendant thereon the sum of $214, for which he asks judgment.

<p> Appeal from, Marshall District Court. </p> <p>Thursday, August 4.</p> <p>Dependants are president and secretary of a scbool district township. The petition alleges that on, etc., these defendants, as such officers, issued to one Andrews a warrant in writing upon the treasurer of the said school district, for the sum of, etc.; that plaintiff afterward, in the ordinary course of business, for a valuable consideration, to wit: the sum of, etc., purchased from the payee therein, in good faith, and without notice or knowledge of infirmities, etc., the said warrant. It is also alleged, that this warrant is not a just claim against said district, and that the district refuses to pay the same; that by issuing the same defendants represented, etc., that they had good and lawful authority from said district to issue the same, as also that it was based upon a just claim and properly audited and allowed; that these Representations were all false; that they were made willfully, recklessly and fraudulently, and with intent to deceive and defraud plaintiff or any one holding said order; and that plaintiff, relying upon these representations, believing them to be true, purchased the order or warrant, to his damage, etc.</p> <p>It is further set out, that plaintiff has no other avail, able remedy, against any of the parties to said transaction, than said defendants. .The second count in the petition differs from what precedes, in averring that defendants, by said writing, assumed, promised, represented, undertook, contain ted, guaranteed and warranted to plaintiff, and all others to whom the warrant might be sold, that they had good and lawful authority to issue the same, and bind the district; that there was no such lawful authority; that the warrant was not binding, etc., that the claim upon which it was based was not a just debt against the district, which properly repudiates the same.</p> <p>The second count of the answer (which is all that need be here set out) admits the making of the order, under the following circumstances: On the day of its date, one Buck represented to defendants that he was the agent of Andrews, the payee, for the sale of “Andrews’ School Apparatus,” and desired defendants to purchase the same for the use of their district, which they refused to do; that Buck thereupon, at his own instance, went to the different directors of said district and informed them that these defendants were desirous of purchasing such apparatus, and though these representations were false, and known so to be by Buck, upon tbe strength thereof he obtained from the said directors a written request to defendants to make the said purchase and issue said warrant ; and upon this request they issued said warrant for the purchase of said apparatus, which was to be sent to them within a reasonable time, Buck conceding that this was not the legal manner of making said purchase, etc., but that he would assume all risk and responsibility, and that this was his customary method of doing business in .making these sales. No meeting of the board was held, nor did defendants have other authority to issue said warrant than as above stated. The apparatus was never forwarded nor received. Buck procured the warrant, as before stated, for the purpose of defrauding the district, and without consideration; defendants, in making the warrant, as did the other directors, relied upon the representations of said Buck, believing them to be true ; that they were false and known to be so : that the warrant was .made in good faith, and not for the purpose of cheating or defrauding plaintiff, or any other person.</p> <p>To this count plaintiff demurred, because, in effect, the matters therein stated constitute no defense, are immaterial, the deceit of Buck and failure of consideration being no sufficient answer to the contract, and deliberate, unlawful acts of defendants, whatever their intentions. The demurrer was sustained, and, the defendants withdrawing the other counts and refusing to answer further, plaintiff had judgment for the amount of the warrant, with the interest thereon specified (10 per- cent) to judgment. The warrant was payable to A. H. Andrews, or bearer, and was for $153.75, payable out of “the contingent fund, for Mitchell’s outline maps, etc., this day purchased by us for the use of the schools in the district township,” etc., and was signed by the defendant Hayne, “ President,” and countersigned by his co-defendant, Wyatt, “Secretary.” Defendants appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from General Term, Fifth District (Polk County).</p> <p>Thursday, August 4.</p> <p>Jonathan B. Huston, one of the executors of the estáte of W. H. Huston, deceased, filed his application in the circuit court of Polk county, for an order to sell certain real estate which belonged to the decedent in his lifetime and had been devised by him to the appellant, Samuel Huston. The application set out a copy of the will, which showed specific devises of real and personal property, first, to David Huston ; second, to Samuel Huston ; and third, to Jonathan B. Huston ; and it was set forth in the application that certain property devised for the payment of the debts had been thus applied, and that there was still a balance of about $2,700 of debts unpaid ; and it asked that the property devised to each might be made liable in proportion to its value to its payment of said balance.</p> <p>The application was sworn to, and stated that Samuel Huston was a non-resident of the state. An order was made by the court directing service of notice upon Samuel Huston to be made by publication in the Iowa State Kegister for four weeks. Service was made accordingly, and affidavit of publication duly made and filed. A default was then entered against Samuel Huston, and an order for the sale of his real estate, as prayed for, was entered at the April term, 1869. On the 28th of July, 1869, and before any sale was made, Samuel Huston appeared, and filed his motion to have the action retried, for the reason that he was served- with notice by publication only. This motion was sustained, and the cause was set down for hearing, ■ the said Samuel Huston having executed bond for costs, etc., as required by law, and the order of court. At the hearing, a demurrer to the petition was sustained. From this order, allowing a retrial, and from the judgment on the demurrer, Jonathan B. Huston, the executor, appealed to the general term, where the order and judgment were reversed, and Samuel Huston now appeals to this court.</p>

<p> Appeal from Story District Court. </p> <p>Wednesday, August 31.</p> <p>Pro note. — Defense that the note was given for fruit trees at Bloomington, 111., to bé shipped by plaintiff to certain points in this state, in his own name and upon his contract to deliver them to defendant (one of them, who is the principal in the note), in good condition, upon the execution of a note, with sureties to be approved, etc., that the trees arrived, the note was executed, and defendant took them into his possession, but without the opportunity or privilege of examining the same until after the delivery of said note. It is then averred in the answei that the “ trees were frozen and damaged while in plaintiff’s possession, and owing to his neglect, and were entirely worthless ; that the trees were frozen and damaged by the fault of plaintiff.” In another part of the answer, setting up a counterclaim for certain money advanced on the trees, it is alleged “ that in the shipment of said trees they were frozen and damaged so that they were entirely worthless.” Verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals, complaining of the admission of certain evidence, of certain instructions, and overruling motion for new trial.</p>

Wednesday, August 31. Action for the recovery of real property — the southeast quarter of section eight, township seventy-nine, north of range twenty-six, west of the fifth principal meridian. Held: “ The general authority of the taxing officer, and the liability of the land for taxation, being conceded, all other questions are at an end. If- either of them was wanting, another question would be presented.

Wednesday, August 31. Suit in equity to quiet title in plaintiffs to an undivided half of the south half of the north-east quarter of section twenty, and to the whole of the south-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section thirty-six, all in township eighty one, north of range twenty-six west of the fifth principal meridian.

Wednesday, August 31. Action for the recovery of real property, to wit: Lot 172 in the original plat of the city of Council Blufis. The petition is in the usual form; plaintiff avers that he is the absolute owner and entitled to the present possession of the lot.

Apjpeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Wednesday, August 31. The defendant Long, was clerk of the District and circuit courts, duly elected and qualified, the other defendants are the sureties upon the bond, as such clerk. Plaintiffs recovered judgments against certain parties in the circuit court, and afterwards the defendants thereon paid the interest thereof to his clerk and satisfaction in due form was entered by said clerk in the proper records.

<p> Appeal from Marshall District Court. </p> <p>Wednesday, August 31.</p> <p>Replevin for span of mules, before the issues joined, and under the testimony, the court found the following facts:</p> <p>The parties reside in Marshall county, and plaintiff was the owner of the mules, on the 14th day of Nov., 1868, and still is. These mules were work animals. Defendant was a householder on the day named, and then took up these animals as estrays in his field, in said county. This field was not enclosed by a lawful fence. The mules, with other animals, had run upon the adjacent lands, more or less, during the preceding' summer. They had frequently been in this field, and defendant knew when he took them up, that they were plaintiffs. Defendant had the property appraised, &c., as required by law, in case of estrays. Plaintiff made demand upon bringing suit, but did not tender costs and expenses.</p> <p>The court found that the property was lawfully in defendant’s premises, that he had a right to take them up as estrays, and that he was entitled to the same, until paid proper costs and damages. That these costs, &c., were so much, for which he received payment. Plaintiff excepted and appeals.</p>

Wednesday, August 31. Action for the recovery of real property — the southwest quarter of section ten, township seventy-seven, north of range thirty, west of the fifth principal meridian, lying in Adair county, where the suit was originally brought. The plaintiffs are the patentees of the land. The defendant claims under a tax title. The venue was, on motion of defendant, changed to Guthrie county. There was a trial to a jury ; verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

Appealed from Lee District Qourt. Wednesday, August 31. This action was commenced before a justice, the plaintiff claiming $6.20 upon an account. The answer was in denial, .and also claimed a set-off for $7.00, balance due on hogs sold. Before the justice plaintiff had judgment for the whole amount claimed.

Wednesday, August 31. The petition filed August 24, 1869, claims $400 upon contract. The answer, filed November 10, 1869, presents issues general and special in their nature.

<p> Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. </p> <p>Wednesday, August 31.</p>

) , Wednesday, August 31. The defendant (J. H. Bonney) was appointed the administrator of Jacob Lane, and made his bond, with the other defendants as his sureties. He made his final report, showing a balance of several hundred dollars in his hands, and resigned his trust.

Wednesday, August 31. Action in equity by a creditor to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances, and to subject the property, to wit, the south half of the west one-third of lot number eight in block number thirty-one, in the original town of Fort Des Moines, to the payment of his judgment. The district court dismissed the petition, and the plaintiff appeals. The further necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Wednesday, August 31. This action was . commenced before a justice of the peace, and judgment rendered to plaintiff upon appeal to the circuit court. The errors assigned relate to the admission of evidence. The facts appear in the opinion.

Wednesday, August 31. Action commenced before a justice of the peace. The defendant made application for a change of venue which was granted, and the cause was sent to an other justice, who, after waiting one hour from the time the papers were received by him proceeded to hear the cause and rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant made a motion before the justice to set aside the judgment, which was overruled.

Wednesday, August 31. Plaintiffs sue upon a contract, made, as they allege, with all the defendants, by which they undertook, upon certain terms, to feed, water and care for one hundred and seventy-seven head of cattle from October, 1866, until the next spring, claiming $5,500 for amount advanced upon said contract, over what defendants were entitled to, and for loss and injury to said cattle by reason of want of care and attention in feeding, etc.' There was a trial…

<p> Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court. </p> <p>Wednesday, August 31.</p> <p>Action before a justice of the peace and judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed on appeal in the circuit court. Defendant appeals to this court.</p>

' Wednesday, August 31. Action upon a promissory note. Trial to the court without a jury, and judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant filed á motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and from the order overruling his motion appeals to this court.

■Wednesday, August 31. Action to recover possession of certain lands. Defendant’s answer sets up matter as an equitable' defense, and asks certain equitable relief by way of a cross-bill.

Wednesday, August 31. This is a proceeding upon a claim for damages, filed by defendants to recover on account of the change or relocation of a road over his lands. The transcript contains only the histoiy of the proceeding in the district court, where judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, refusing the allowance of defendants’ claim for damages. Defendants appeal to this court.

Wednesday, August 31. The petition claims $500 for breach of covenant in deed from defendant to plaintiff. The deed purported to convey five acres of land, more or less, by metes and bounds, and it is charged that the title failed to about one acre and forty-five one hundreths, describing it.

Wednesday, August 31. Plaintiff claims double damages for the killing of a colt, of the value of $60.00, by defendant’s train and for time given and money expended about the care of said colt, after the injury, at defendant’s request. The answer admits every material allegation of the petition, except as to value, and averring a tender of $55 in full payment, etc., and its refusal.

Wednesday, August 31. This action was commenced May 31, 1867, against the decedent (High) and the issue made up before his death. Plaintiff’s deposition, covering many pages, was taken in his own behalf, in the lifetime of High, he being present, advising with his counsel and assisting generally therein, said testimony being material and important.

Slander, the words charged imputing a want of chastity to the wife. Yerdict for plaintiff) judgment following, and defendant appeals.

Eoweshieh District Court. Wednesday, August 31. Action against the makers and indorsers of a promissory note. Taylor is charged as an indorser, and judgment was rendered against him as such. The cause was tried without a jury, and upon' the facts as found judgment was rendered by the court. Taylor alone appeals

Wednesday, Aucusi 31. Action upon a promissory note; defense that the instrument is a forgery. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury. Held: that the note is a forgery and void, and that plaintiff is not entitled to recover thereon. Plaintiff appeals.

Appeal.from, Jasper Circuit Court. Wednesday, August 31. Action by an indorsee upon a promissory note.

Wednesday, August 31. These actions are based upon three separate certificates of deposit. The one which is the foundation of the second action is in these words: “$1,947.68. No. 61. “ Banking-house oe Parshall & Schauzlau, ) “ Bueealo, February 20, 1869.

Wednesday, August 31. Action against defendants, who are physicians, for malpractice. The term of the court began on Monday, the 18th day of April. On the second day of the term a default was entered for want of an appearance and answer.

Wednesday, August 31. Action in chancery. The defendants filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill, to which plaintiff demurred. Defendants confessed the demurrer. During the vacation, after the adjournment of the term, the defendants having failed to answer further, plaintiff claimed default for want of an answer ; the claim was properly entered by the clerk, under the rules of the court, and, at the next term, was confirmed, and judgment rendered thereon by the court.

Wednesday, August 31. Action commenced before a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered for plaintiff. On appeal to the circuit court there was verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals to this court.

Apppeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Wednesday; August 31. Action upon a note for $7,000, of June 15, 1868, on thirty days, made to plaintiff by Graham as principal, and’ his co-defendants as sureties.

Wednesday, August 31. This action is brought to recover $7,000 against Graham and eight others. The first count in the petition declares upon a note, signed by eight of the defendants, dated June 12, 1869, due in five months, payable to the ninth defendant (Yan Meter), for $7,000, “with interest at the rate of ten per cent,” and indorsed to the plaintiff on the same day.

Wednesday, October 5. Tais action was commenced before a justice of tbe peace. The pleadings are formal, and set out fully the cause of action, and defenses thereto. The petition claims recovery for services of plaintiff, as a physician and surgeon, averring his employment as such, “ to set and adjust a fracture of the arm of said defendant, and to give him other medical attention and treatment,” and that he performed such services, which were of the value of $9.0.

Wednesday, October, 5. The petition alleges that the plaintiffs agreed to deliver to the defendants, at a designated place, 60,000 railroad ties, at the stipulated price of fifty-two cents per tie; that relative monthly estimates were to be made by the chief engineer, which estimates were to be paid, less ten per (cent; that plaintiffs under this contract, delivered 47,787 ties, which were inspected by the chief engineer and received by the defendants ; that defendants have…

Wednesday, October 5. Indictment for keeping a nuisance ; plea, not guilty ; verdict, guilty; judgment on the verdict, and defendant appeals. The facts necessary to an understanding of the case appear in the opinion.

Wednesday, October 5. Action upon a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace of Des Moines county, October 5, 1859. The judgment recites that a notice (summons) was returned, “ served by copy of same,” and that, defendant failing to appear, judgment by default was rendered. Defendant, in his answer, avers that no service of notice, either actual or constructive, was made upon him in the proceeding, and alleges that the judgment is therefore void.

Fbiday, Octoeeb 7. Petitions in equity, by tbe same plaintiffs, against the defendant Clinton T. Mercer in one action, and against H. W. Mercer and Clinton T. Mercer in the other, both founded upon the same transaction, and seeking to set aside conveyances made severally to the defendants by Henry Mercer, Sr. Trial by the first method of equitable proceedings. Decree for plaintiffs, setting aside the conveyances and defendants appeal.

On tbe lOtb day of December, 1866, the defendant issued to Clinton K. Howe a policy of insurance, assuring him “ against loss or damage by fire, to the amount of $2,000, on his stock of hardware, cutlery, tinware, and such other articles as are usually kept in a retail hardware store, contained in his frame store situated on lot No. 4, in Mild square in the village of Waterloo, Iowa.

Thursday, October 6. Action at law. The petition avers that defendants entered into a written contract with one Carroll, employing him to grade a certain section of the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad in Adams county. The railroad was then being -built through that county, and defendants were the principal contractors, and let said portion of the road to Carroll, as a subcontractor.

Friday, October 7. Action to recover the value of a colt killed by a train of defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Friday, August 7. This action was commenced originally in the circuit court of Pottawattamie county, and after several changes of Venue… Held: at which this proposition was read and agreed to, in writing, at the bottom, in these words : “ The undersigned agreed to pay to the Cedar Eapids and Missouri Biver Eailroad Company, in accordance with the terms of the forgoing proposition, the sums set opposite to our respective names.” To this a large number of the persons, among…

Cowntnf) — Tridcuy, April 22. practice: certification of evidence Action in tlie circuit court to recover tlie value of certain personal property of plaintiff taken and converted to liis own use by defendant. Trial to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $82.40. Defendant appealed to general term, where the judgment was affirmed. He appeals to this court.

railroad: new trial: conflicting evidence. This case was tried in the circuit court of Pottawattomie county by jury; the verdict was for plaintiff and judgment was rendered thereon. This judgment was reversed by the general term because it was against the weight of evidence. A horse of plaintiff was killed by defendant.

<p>Appeal from General Term, Ninth District (Blackha/wle County) — Friday, April 22.</p>

<p>Appeal from Decatmr District Gowrt — Friday, July 22.</p>

Appealfrom. Jefferson District Oowrt — Monday, July 25. WARRANTY: INSTRUCTION. Action to recover the value of one hundred and fifty sheep, sold ■and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Trial to a jury; verdict for plaintiff; defendant appeals.

This is a proceeding to set aside a judgment dismissing a case for failure to prosecute the same. The original suit .was in equity, to settle a question involved in a large number of suits at law, by different parties against the plaintiffs herein. It was dismissed for want of prosecution, and judgments rendered in some of the suits at law. This proceeding was then commenced to set aside the dismissal, and enjoin further proceedings in the law cases.

Appeal prom Poweshiek Ovrouit Oowrt— Wednesday, July With. MONET HAD AND RECEIVED. The plaintiffs say in their petition that the defendant was indebted to one Thompson, $65450, and at defendant’s request they gave their note to Thompson for the amount, and it was received by him in full satisfaction of his debt due from defendant. Note payable October 1, 1869, with interest at ten per cent from March 81,1869. Comstock and the plaintiffs then consented: 1.

Action to recover compensation for the value of certain work in grading, macadamizing and paving a certain street in the city of Dubuque, under a verbal contract with the city authorities. Trial to a jury and verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

sheriff’s sale. Action in equity to set aside a sheriff’s sale of real estate. Judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

<p>Appeal from Polk District Cou/rt — Friday, July 29.</p> <p>divorce.</p>

<p>Appeal from Polio District Oou/rt — Friday, July 29.</p> <p>AGREEMENT : RIGHT OE REDEMPTION. ■</p> <p>Action in chancery. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts fully appear in the opinion.</p>

<p>Appeal from Mahaska Ovreuit Oowrt — Thursday, August</p>