Volume 29 — Kansas Reports

Error from Osborne District Court. At the December Term, 1881, of the district court, plaintiff HaJmilton recovered a judgment against the defendant, the City of Osborne, which brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action brought by E. H. Skaggs against E. J. Myers and others, to recover the sum of $16,000 with interest, alleged to be due on eight promissory notes given by J. J. Myers to the plaintiff, and to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate given by the said Myers and wife to secure the payment of the notes.

On May 29, 1874, in the district court of Leavenworth county, Kothman recovered a judgment against J. J. Myers for $10,751.95, and an order that certain attached property be sold to pay the judgment, interest, and costs of suit. October 1, 1874, Kothman caused a special execution and'an order of sale to be issued to enforce this judgment. The land was duly appraised, advertised, and offered for sale, but not sold, for want of bidders.

At the June Term, 1878, of the district court, Archie O’Laughlin and Wm. Ferguson were convicted on a charge of obstructing a public highway in Johnson county, and from such conviction they appeal. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion, infra, and in The State v. O’Laughlin, 19 Kas. 504.

Action brought by E. W. King against Frazier, on a promissory note. Linton was afterward made plaintiff, instead of King. Trial at the May Term, 1882, of the district court of Smith county, and judgment for defendant. Linton brings the case here.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action by Davis and others against Sullivan and others, to recover treble damages for cutting and carrying away timber from certain real .estate belonging to plaintiffs. .Trial at the November Term, 1881, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiffs. The defendants bring the ease here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Marion District Court. Action brought by Winkley against the Board of Commissioners of Marion County, for a bounty to which he claimed to be entitled under the provisions of an act entitled “An act to amend section second of an act entitled ‘An act to encourage the growing of hedges/ &c./’ approved March 2, 1871. Trial had at the May Term, 1882, of the district court. The court made and returned the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: “1.

Error from Linn District Court. On the 12th day of September, 1881, Victoria Caraway and Caroline Wall filed their petition against George W. CooJc, in the district court of Linn county. The petition was signed by Blue & Rich, and S. H. Allen, attorneys for plaintiff. Both Blue and Allen are practicing attorneys, residing within tbe limits of the judicial district where the petition was filed.

Action brought by The State against Miller, for maintaining a common nuisance. At the March Term, 1882, of the district court, the defendant was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and the costs of the prosecution, and to stand committed to the county jail until the fine and costs were paid. From this judgment Miller appeals. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

<p> Error from Saline District Court. </p> <p>Action by Thomas G. Hood, James Bonbright and six others, partners as Hood, Bonbright & Co., against M. J. Ludes and wife, to subject certain personal property to the payment of a judgment which had been rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant husband. The facts appear in the opinion. The- defendants bring the case here to obtain a reversal of certain orders and rulings against them at the May Term, 1882, of the district court.</p>

<p>School District defacto, not de jure; Valid Bonds. In 1875, the legislature of the state of Kansas passed an act detaching a portion of the territory of Stafford county, and attaching the same to the county of Barton. (Laws of 1875, ch. 61, p. 88.) Within this detached and attached territory a school district was, in May, 1878, created and organized by the county superintendent of Barton county, acting in conjunction with the inhabitants of such school district, which school district was numbered 58. Shortly afterward, school-district bonds were duly voted and issued, for the purpose of building a school house; and the bonds were sold by the school district to the school fund commissioners of the state of Kansas, who purchased them with money drawn frpm the permanent school fund of the state. Afterward, it was discovered that the detaching of said territory from the county of Stafford reduced the area of Stafford county below the constitutional limits, (Const., art. 9, § 1;) and thereupon a proceeding was instituted in the supreme court to test the constitutionality of the legislative act, and to restore the detached territory. (The State v. St. John; 21 Kas. 591.) The act was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court; and thereupon the boundaries of Stafford and Barton counties, as they had existed before the act, were restored, and all this detached and attached territory, including that within the limits of School District No. 58, became again a part of Stafford county. For some time thereafter, no effort was made to disorganize or change School District No. 58; it retained its number; was composed of the same inhabitants ; was controlled by the same officers, and enjoyed all the’privileges that it had enjoyed during the time that it was included within and subject to the jurisdiction of the county of Barton. The-school house which had been built with the avails of these bonds was still used and occupied by the inhabitants of the district; and the school census was taken in Stafford county as it had been in Barton county; and a requisition, made upon the permanent school fund for its (the school district’s) due proportion of the distributive share of such fund, was duly honored, and it received the money to which it was supposed to be entitled, just the same as all other school districts of the state of Kansas received their money. Up to this time, the county of Stafford had been an unorganized county, and attached to Pawnee county for judicial purposes. (Laws of 1874, ch. 67, §2; Comp. Laws of 1879, p.323.) But soon after the restoration of this territory to Stafford county, such county was duly organized; and thereupon the first county superintendent of Stafford county proceeded to renumber the school districts within the territory which had been detached and restored, but left the boundaries thereof the same as they had been created by the county superintendent of Barton county. In the ensuing fall an election of offibers took place, and the county superintendent who was then elected, proceeded to change the boundaries of all these districts, enlarging some and diminishing others, but in no instance leaving the boundaries of any district the same as they had been made by the county superintendent of Barton county. In the case of School District No. 58, however, the territory was enlarged in all directions, and named School District No. 25, which last-mentioned school district included all the territory which had previously been included within the original boundaries of School District No. 58. Held, That School District No. 58 was irregularly created and organized, and therefore at the time of its creation and organization was not a school district de jure; that, instead of being created and organized by the county superintendent .of Barton county, acting in conjunction with the people of áuch school district, as it was created and organized, it should have been created and organized by a deputy county superintendent of Stafford county, appointed by the county commissioners of Pawnee county, such deputy county superintendent acting in conjunction with the people of such school district. (Laws of 1873, ch.72, §%31 and 32; Comp. Laws of 1879, pp. 270, 271.) But as the people of the district were at the time entitled to have the district created and organized ; and as there were valid and existing laws authorizing the same to be done, and as the district was in fact created and organized in exact conformity to such laws, except as,to such irregularity; and was created and organized by the people of the district, acting in conjunction with the county superintendent of Barton county, who was authorized by law and within his own jurisdiction to so act in the creation and organization of school districts; and as this district was at that time in fact, though not in law, within the territorial jurisdiction of such county superintendent; and as the validity and legal existence of the district were recognized by all persons who had or were authorized to have dealings with the district, the district was undoubtedly, a school district de facto, notwithstanding such irregularity; and all its acts were and are now, binding, not only upon the district itself, and upon third persons, but also upon its successor, said School District No. 25.</p>

<p> Error from Osborne District Court. </p> <p>Action by the Board of Commissioners of Smith County against the Board of Commissioners of Osborne County, for the use of the county jail of Smith county, and for medical care and treatment. At the March Term, 1882, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, which ruling the defendant brings here. The opinion states the facts.</p>

<p>Money in Custodia Legis; Priorities of Rights. A constable, M., who held an order of attachment against W., levied the same upon certain property belonging to W., and took the same into his possession. Afterward, Constable K. attempted to levy an execution against W. upon the same property, and did everything necessary to be done in order to make the levy good and valid, except that he did not obtain the immediate possession of the property. Afterward, Constable M., while still holding the possession of the property, levied another execution against W. upon the property. Constable M. then sold a sufficient amount of the property to satisfy the attachment, and continued to hold the remainder of the property in his possession. The plaintiffs in the executions then agreed that Constable K. should take the property still in the possession of Constable M. into his (K.’s) possession, and should advertise and sell the same, and dispose of the proceeds thereof in satisfying file executions, in the order as should be determined by the district court in an action to be instituted for that purpose in that court between the plaintiffs in the executions. This agreement was fully earriefl out, and the district court decided that the proceeds of the sale, $225, should be paid to the execution plaintiff, whom Constable K. represented. The other execution plaintiff then took the case to the supreme court, where the judgment of the district court was reversed, and it was held by the supreme court that the execution plaintiff represented by Constable M. was entitled to the proceeds of such,sale, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Afterward, the execution debtor assigned his interest in the proceeds of said sale to H., and H. demanded such proceeds from Constable K., and Constable K. then commenced this action, which is an action in the nature of a bill of interpleader, for the purpose of having the question determined by the district court as to whom Constable K. should pay said proceeds. The district court decided in favor of H., and rendered judgment accordingly. Held, Error; that the priorities of rights with reference to these proceeds are as follows: First, the execution plaintiff represented by Constable M.; second, the execution plaintiff represented by Constable K. j third, H.</p>

Error from Bourbon District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the May Term, 1882, of .the district court, plaintiff Burns recovered judgment against defendants, who bring the case here.

Error from Brown Bistriet Court. Action brought by 'Ruehlin against Mills, to enforce the specific performance of a contract. Trial at the January Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Morris District Court. At the April Term, 1882, of the district court, Hinchman, plaintiff, had judgment against the defendant Board of Commissioners of Morris County, and others, who bring the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Doniphan District Court. At the March Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Gough recovered a judgment against the defendant Railroad Company, which brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Roohs District Courjt. At tbe September Term, 1881, of the district court, John 8. Brittain & Co. and others obtained certain rulings and orders, which Aydelotte and others bring here for review. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Ellsworth District Court. At the September Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff ELomberg recovered a judgment for $1 and costs against defendant Masterson, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

<p> Error from Washington District Court. </p> <p>Action brought by Mary Borgman against Charles lookers, under §10, chapter 35, Compiled Laws of 1879. At the November Term, 1881, of the district court, the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $1,000 actual damages, and $400 exemplary damages, against the defendant for having caused the intoxication of her husband. Defendant brings the case to this court. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts.</p>

Error from Morris District Court. Replevin, brought by Mead against 8ims, as sheriff of Morris county, and another, to recover certain wheat. Judgment for plaintiff at the April Term, 1882, of the district court. Defendants bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Johnson District Court. Action in partition, commenced by Scótt F. Parker and Blanche G. Welborne against Ralph Parker and John W. Curtis. Trial at the June Term, 1882, of the district court. The court made and filed the following conclusions of fact and law: “1.

Error from, Osage District Court. Action by Fillmore against Booth, to'recover $50 for damages to plaintiff’s grain, done by defendant’s cattle and horses. At the April Term, 1882, the court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, and rendered judgment against plaintiff for costs. Fillmore brings the case here. Other facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Dickinson District Court. At the May Term,, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Scott had judgment against defendant.Baker, who brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.

At the May Term, 1882, of the district court, C. Ñ. S., judge pro tern., presiding, Edward Bridges was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the state penitentiary for the term of ten years, from which judgment he appeals. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Montgomery District Court. Action by Kelsey and two others, partners as Kelsey, Roberson & Co., against Harrison, to recover upon a certain promissory note. At the beginning of the action, the plaintiffs obtained an order of attachment, which was levied upon the property of the defendant.

At the' September Term, 1882, of the district court of Montgomery county, the court sustained defendant’s (Harrison’s) motion for a dissolution of the attachment herein, and made an order accordingly. This ruling and order the plaintiffs bring here.

At the June Term, 1882, of the district court, Thu/rtell was found guilty of grand larcency, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of four years, from which judgment he appeals.

Error from, Wyandotte Distriet Court. Action brought by Holt against the Railroad, Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. Trial at the July Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff for $4,800. The defendant brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Reno District Court. February 4, 1882, a certain judgment which had theretofore been rendered against defendant Lawrence, was by the district court set aside as being void. Of this proceeding the plaintiff Board of Commissioners of Bice County complains, and brings it here for review. The facts appear in the opinion.

Original Proceedings in Quo Warranto. Action brought by Pinkerton iu this court, to oust Miller from the office of justice of the peace of the city of Clay Center. The defendant demurred to the petition, alleging that’it does not state facts sufficient to-constitute a cause of action. The opinion contains ,a sufficient statement of the facts. ■

Error from Wilson District Court Action brought by Payne against the Railway Company, to recover certain damages to his team, wagon, and harness. Trial at the May Term, 1881, of the district court, and judgment for the plaintiff for $200 and costs. The defendant brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Action to recover for personal injury sustained by Peavey, while in the employment of The Kansas Pacific Railway Company.

The district court of Lyon county, at the March Term, 1882, granted the defendant Railroad Company a new trial, which order the plaintiff Brown, as administrator of the estate of William Haas, deceased, brings here for reversal. The facts appear in A. T. & S. F. Rid. Co. v. Brown, Adm’r, 26 Kas. 443, et seq., and in the opinion, infra.

Error from Chautauqua District Court. May 29, 1882, the district court granted plaintiff Church a new trial. This order the defendant City of Sedan brings here for review. The opinion states the facts.

JError from Wyandotte District Court. At the July Term, 1882, of tbe district court, plaintiff Hays had judgment against the defendant Railroad Company, which brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from, Norton District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.’ At the September Term, 1882, of the district court, the plaintiff Board of Commissioners had judgment against defendant Burroughs, who brings the case to this court.

Error from Clay Distriet Court. The plaintiff in error, Harris, asks for the reversal of certain orders made by the district court, at the May Term, 1882, refusing to set aside a certain execution and sheriff’s sale, and confirming the same. All necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee District Court. The plaintiffs in error, Butler and another, bring to this court for review certain rulings and orders made by the district court, J.une 3,1882. All necessary facts, pleadings and proceedings are stated in the opinion.

Error from Woodson District Court. March 11, 1882, the district court gave judgment for plaintiff Edrington, for $38.34, and against defendant Grey, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Chase District Court. Action by Swayze against School District No. 17, Chase county, to recover upon a certain school-district- order. Trial at the May Term, 1881, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Rice District Court. Action brought by Nancy C. Johnson against the A. T. & & 8. F. Rid. Co., to recover damages for personal injuries. Trial in February, 1880, at the adjourned December Term, 1879, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff for $3,450. March 22, 1880, the plaintiff executed a written assignment to her. attorneys of that portion of the judgment which they were to receive for their services and expenses in the action.

<p> Error fr&m Reno District Court. </p> <p>This was an action, brought by L. C. Janes against Garrison Wilson, a road Overseer in Haven township, Reno county, to perpetually enjoin the defendant from opening a certain supposed public road across the plaintiff’s lands. The petition of the plaintiff reads as follows :</p> <p>“ The plaintiff complains of the defendant, Gf. Wilson, and alleges:</p> <p>“ 1. That he is a resident of Haven township, Reno county, Kansas, and is the owner in fee of the lands hereinafter described, situated and being in Reno county, Kansas, viz.: The southeast quarter of section 15, and the northwest quarter of section 23, in township No. 24, R. 5 west; that said lands are under cultivation.</p> <p>“ 2. That said defendant, G. Wilson, is a resident of said Haven township, and also road overseer of said township in which plaintiff’s lands are situated.</p> <p>“3. That said defendant, as such o-verseer, has given plaintiff notice that he intends, on the first day of January, 1881, to lay out and open a public highway over and through the said tracts or parcels of land belonging to said plaintiff; that he threatens to lay out and open said public highway at the time aforesaid, and of the width of 66 feet, commencing at the plaintiff’s (L. C. Janes’s) southeast quarter of said section 15, running thence diagonally through said southeast quarter to the northwest corner of the northwest quarter of said section 23, running diagonally across and over said northwest quarter to the southeast corner thereof; that the said section 23 has a road all along and upon its four sides. Said section 18 has a public highway on and along its north, east, west, and south sides; that the laying out and opening of said proposed public highway, and the appropriation of said portion of said land for the purposes of a highway, would work great and irreparable injury to plaintiff; that no highway now exists, or ever did exist, in said portion of said described land, and that said acts of said defendant, if permitted to be performed, would be wholly illegal, and would work great and irreparable damage to said plaintiff; that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff says that unless G. Wilson, as overseer as aforesaid, and all persons acting under and by virtue of authority derived from him,, be enjoined, he and they will execute the said threat of defendant, and that the said lands of said plaintiff will be invaded and appropriated as aforesaid for the purposes aforesaid, greatly to the plaintiff’s hurt.”</p> <p>“Wherefore, plaintiff prays that said G. Wilson, as overseer of roads of Haven township, Reno county, Kansas, and all persons acting under and by virtue of authority derived from him, be forever enjoined from entering upon the said lands of plaintiff hereinbefore described, for the purpose of laying out and opening a public highway across and over the lands aforesaid, as threatened by said defendant; and that a temporary injunction issue against said G. Wilson, defendant, as such overseer, as aforesaid, and all persons acting under and by virtue of authority derived from him, until the final hearing of this cause, and that on such final hearing such injunction be made perpetual and for costs, and such other and further relief as justice may require.”</p> <p>The answer of the defendant reads as follows:</p> <p>“Comes now defendant, and for answer to the petition of plaintiff:</p> <p>“1. Denies each and every allegation, in said petition set forth, except as hereinafter specially admitted.</p> <p>“2. Admits that he is a resident of Haven township, and road overseer of territory in which the lands in the plaintiff’s petition described are situated; but denies that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of said premises, or has any title therein.</p> <p>“3. Admits that as such road overseer he gave a notice to the occupant of said premises to open said road, and avers and says that said road is a regular and legally laid out highway in Reno county, Kansas, and has been such for more than se.ven years prior to the filing of plaintiff’s petition in this cause, and has been traveled, used and worked as such highway; and that by the wrongful acts of plaintiff the said road was, prior to the giving of said notice, plowed up and obstructed by the plaintiff, and that therefore the said notice was given to compel plaintiff to remove such obstructions and permit travel thereon as by law he is required to do.</p> <p>“4. And for further answer, defendant says that at the time said road was laid out by the board of commissioners of Eeno county, the said premises were the property of the' Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railroad company; that there was at said time no occupant upon the said tracts of land; that the said railroad company was notified and aware of the laying out of the said road, and consented thereto; that any rights plaintiff has in the premises are by virtue of a contract with the said Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railroad company, and that he made such contract with the full knowledge that said road was laid out on said premises, and was allowed by the said railroad company to purchase said lands at a reduced price on account of the laying out of said road over the said premises; and whatever interest he has in the said premises he holds by virtue of his contract with said railroad company; and that therefore he is estopped from attempting to destroy said road and from the obstruction of travel thereon.</p> <p>“ 5/ The defendant further says, that said road was used, occupied and traveled for a period of more than seven years without objection from the owner of said premises, and that therefore said road has been established by prescription, and plaintiff is barred by the lapse of time from maintaining his said action.</p> <p>“Whereupon, defendant prays judgment for his costs.”</p> <p>The plaintiff moved to strike out the fourth'paragraph of the defendant’s answer, and demurred to the fifth paragraph; which motion and demurrer were sustained by the court. A trial was then had before the court without a jury, and the court found the facts and the law of the case to be as follows :</p> <p>“1. The court finds that there was a petition signed by twelve householders residing in the vicinity of the said road for the establishment of a road in Eeno county from the south end of the Arkansas river bridge to the east line of Eeno county between sections 12 and 13, in township 25, south, of range 4, west, which said petition was duly presented to the board of county commissioners of Eeno county.</p> <p>“2. That a bond for costs was given as required by law.</p> <p>“3. That notice of the presentation of said petition was given by notice published for two consecutive weeks in the Hutchinson News, a newspaper published in said Reno county, and also by posting notices, one upon the door of the county clerk’s office, one on the end of the bridge across the river, and one in another point in the township, for the requisite time prior to the presentation of said petition; but that said written and printed notices misdescribed the direction of the road in this — that they called for a road running to the west line of the county, when in fact the road sought for run to the east line of the county, but further being described as being in township 25, range 4, west, between sections 12 and 13.</p> <p>“4. That the said board of county commissioners appointed viewers in accordance with the said petition, and directed the county surveyor to make a survey of said road.</p> <p>“ 5. That said viewers and surveyor duly reported, and the said road was duly established by said board of county commissioners of Reno county, Kansas, in July, 1873, and that two of said viewers were petitioners, and that these two made a favorable report, but the third reported adversely.</p> <p>“6. That said-report of said surveyor, and the road record of Reno county, show that said road was from the south end of the Arkansas river bridge at the city of Hutchinson, Reno county, Kansas, and runs thence in a southeasterly direction to the east line of Reno county between sections 12 and 13, in township 25, south, range 4, west, and the said road runs in a diagonal direction through the premises described in plaintiff’s petition.</p> <p>“7. That plaintiff purchased said premises of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railroad by contract in the fall of 1877. - '■</p> <p>“ 8. That no order was issued by the county commissioners of Reno county to the trustee of the township through which said road runs, to open the same.</p> <p>“ 9. That Garrison Wilson gave written notice to the plaintiff, about August 1,1880, to open said road on the surveyed line.</p> <p>“10. That from the fall of 1872 there has been general travel across the premises described in plaintiff’s petition, in the general direction of the surveyed route of said road; that-said line was the main line of travel from the southeast to the city of Hutchinson, and has been a well-defined and extensively-traveled road; that the route of said travel is generally the same as the surveyed line, and follows the same general course, and touches said surveyed line at several points, but deviates therefrom most of the distance across said plaintiff’s premises frotn six to fifteen rods; that there is a pond upon the said premises, impassable in wet weather, and here the said line of travel deviates furthest from said surveyed line; that the road overseers of the several districts through which the said road runs have worked the same, and bridges have been erected thereon, and that one-half mile southeast from plaintiff’s premises there is a bridge on the said road that cost $200, and other bridges thereon between said premises and the city of Hutchinson; that the road overseer in the district in which said premises are situated has caused work to be done on said road, and in 1879 he did work on the surveyed line through the premises of plaintiff hereinbefore mentioned, and the team of said plaintiff and the man in his employ worked thereon without the knowledge of plaintiff at the time the work was done, and worked out the taxes of the said plaintiff; that prior to the fall of 1877 the said premises were the property of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railroad company, and were up to said time unimproved and unbroken prairie land, and all plowing and .improvements thereon have been made since the date of said purchase; that the said road is seventeen miles in length, and, except on premises of plaintiff, the route of travel was in general the same as the surveyed line; that A. H. Beagle was road overseer in 1879, and plowed across said premises, except about forty rods, to designate the line of said road, and failed to go further at the request of plaintiff not to plow through his cultivated land where oats were growing; that more than seven years had elapsed from the time of the making of the order of the board of county commissioners establishing said road to the time that defendant [plaintiff] received notice that said road would be opened through his premises; that none of the papers in the case bear any dates of filing in the county clerk’s office, but that all of the papers, except the notices and proofs of publication and bond for costs, were found among the papers and records of the county clerk’s office.</p> <p>“ That there are regularly established highways on two sides of the premises owned by plaintiff; that the traveled road through the premises of plaintiff, was a part of an old government road used in going from Wichita to Fort Zarah, and was so used prior to and at the time of the settlement of the county through which it now passes.</p> <p>“That no attempt to open the surveyed road through the premises of plaintiff was ever made until August of 1880, at which time notice was given by the overseer that the road would be opened on. the first day of January, 1881, unless opened sooner by plaintiff.”</p> <p>As conclusions of law, the court finds:</p> <p>“ 1. That the plaintiff has sufficient title to the land to maintain this action.</p> <p>“ 2. That the proceedings before the board, though irregular, were sufficient to give the board of county commissioners jurisdiction to make an order establishing the road in question.</p> <p>“ 3. That the road not having been opened within seven years, it was by force of statute vacated over and upon the premises of plaintiff.</p> <p>“ 4. That the public acquired no right to the surveyed road over the premises of plaintiff, by its travel over an old road running in the same general direction across the premises of plaintiff, but not touching generally the surveyed road.</p> <p>“ p. That plaintiff 'has not waived his right to recover in this action.</p> <p>“ 6. That he is entitled to an injunction to restrain defendant from opening the road over his premises.”</p> <p>The court then rendered judgment upon its findings and conclusions perpetually enjoining the defendant, and all persons acting under him, and his successors, from- opening the public road, above mentioned, across or over the plaintiff’s lands. The defendant then moved the court for a new trial, upon the grounds that the decision of the court was contrary to law and the evidence, and that upon, the findings of fact made by the court, the judgment should be for the defendant and not for the plaintiff; and that the court erred in its conclusions of law. This motion Was overruled by the court, and the defendant then brought the case to this court, and asks that the judgment of the court below be reversed, and that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff in error, defendant below, and against the defendant in error, plaintiff below. The other facts of the case will be found stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Two actions against Peter Mugler for violating chapter 128, Laws of 1881. In each of these cases the defendant, at the November Term, 1881, of the district court, was found guilty, and fined $100. He appeals. The opinion states the facts. In the case for manufacturing, we think our motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. It is bad for duplicity, in charging the defendant at the same time with manufacturing by himself and abetting others in the manufacture.

Error from, Leavenworth District Court. October 2, 1882, the district court overruled the motion of the defendant Railway Company to retax the costs in a cause in which judgment for $90 and costs had been rendered against it and for plaintiff Harris. This ruling the defendant brings here.

Error from Jefferson District Court. At the October Term, 1881, the district court, in an action wherein Hinlde was plaintiff and Grayson defendant, overruled defendant’s motion to set aside the report of the referee therein, confirmed the same, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. Grayson brings the case here. The opinion states the facts. '’

<p>1. Jtjd&ment; Restraining Collection. As a general rule, before equity will restrain the collection of a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction after legal and personal service, it must affirmatively appear that there is a valid defense to the cause of action.</p> <p>'2. Remedy to Restrain Collection of Judgment. Where a judgment is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, afier a full and fair trial, and a case is made by the defeated party, for the purpose of review in this court, and the successful party wrongfully obtains possession of such ■case-made and withholds it till the time has elapsed in which by statute a judgment can be reviewed in this court, held, that the defeated party cannot maintain injunction to restrain the collection of the judgment. His remedy is by petition in error in this court, and then if it appears that he was prevented from bringing the case here solely by the wrongful conduct of the opposing party, and he has himself been guilty of no laches, this court will entertain jurisdiction and examine the record as though it had been filed in time.</p>

Error from Wilson District Court. At the February Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiffs, P. C. Baughman and Barbara Baughman, recovered a judgment against defendant, Mary Baughman, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Replevin, brought by Lochwood, Englehart & Co. against Crawford, as constable, and five others, to recover the possession of a certain stock of millinery goods and notions. Trial at the April Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendants. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.

Error from, Sedgwick District Court. Action brought before a justice of the peace by Dill against Pope, to recover $250 with interest from April 15, 1880, being a balan ce,claimed to be due upon the sale of certain mining properties, to wit: A one-twelfth interest in. the “ Paywell mine,” and “Paywell No. 2,” in Custer county, Colorado.

Error from Brown District Gov/rt. Injunction, brought by Falloon against Schilling.. The facts are stated in the opinion. Trial at the January Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff brings error.

Error from Greenwood District Court. Action brought by Ransom against the Railroad Company, to recover damages for certain trespasses committed upon his real estate. Trial by the court at the August Term, 1881, and finding .and judgment for the plaintiff for $498. New trial denied. The defendant Company brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

JSrror from Shawnee District Court. Action by Mrs. E. A. Reynolds against J. Thomas and Peter Smith, partners as the Citizens’ bank, to recover the penalty provided for in §16, chapter 68, Compiled Laws of 1879. Trial by the court, at the January Term, 1882, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendants bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Bourbon District Court. Action brought by the First National Bank of Fort Scott against C. F. Drake, to recover certain moneys claimed to have been wrongfully appropriated by him while acting as an officer of the plaintiff bank. At the December Term, 1881, of the district court, W. C. W., judge pro tern., presiding, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a demurrer thereto was sustained, and judgment entered for defendant.

Error from Johnson District Court. Action brought by Martz against Newton, for partition‘of certain real estate. The cause was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, at the June Term, 1881, and judgment rendered for the defendant at the November Term, 1881. The plaintiff brings the ease here for review. The acts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Error from Miami District Court. Action in ejectment, brought by? No we and others against Palmer and another, to recover certain real estate situated in Miami county. Trial at the May Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendants. The • plaintiffs bring the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Information charging that P. F. Shackle and one Rodney Willis did unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the provisions of chapter 128 of the Laws of 1881.

Error from, Saline District Court. Action brought by Coit & Co. against Schwartz, to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant. The cause was submitted to the court at the August Term, 188*2, upon the defendant’s answer and the plaintiffs’ demurrer thereto. The answer contained four defenses,- viz.: 1.

Error from Morris District Cowrt. Ejectment, brought by Bach against Carpenter, to recover the possession of certain real estate, situated in the city of Council Grove, in Morris county. Plaintiff claimed title from the original patentee down’to herself. Defendant relied on certain tax deeds. Trial at the April Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings the case here. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.

Error from Butler District Court. The Florence, El Dorado & Walnut Valley Railroad Company sought to acquire a right of way for its railroad track over the lands of Ward and others, and procured1 the appointment of commissioners for that purpose. Ward, being dissatisfied with the amount of the award of damages allowed to him by the commissioners, appealed to the district court. At the March Term, 1882, the cause was tried before the court and a jury.

Error from Harvey District Court. Action brought by McGrath and sixty-one others against The City of Newton and its officers, to perpetually enjoin them from collecting certain alleged illegal taxes «under “An ordinance to provide for a business license tax.” Upon the filing of the petition a temporary injunction was allowed. Defendants then filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, together with an affidavit denying the truth, of certain allegations in the petition.

Error from, Wyandotte District Court. Action in equity to declare a -trust, and for the recovery of certain real estate situated in Wyandotte county, brought by Mary A. Yeamans against Jennie M. James and others. Trial by the court at the July Term, 1876. At the December Term, 1876, the court made and filed the following find-, ings of fact: “First.

<p>1. Prohibition; Valid Section. Section 3 of chapter 128, Laws 1881, is not rendered invalid by reason' of £ 16, article 2, of the state constitution, which provides that “No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”</p> <p>2. Information for Same Offense; Dismissal of Former Case. A complaint was filed before a justice of the peace, charging the defendant with a violation of said § 3. Upon trial he was convicted, and from such conviction appealed to the district court. In the latter court the county attorney filed an information for the same offense, stating at the time that he did not intend to prosecute further the case appealed from the justice, and thereafter dismissed such case. After the.dismissal of that case the defendant filed a plea in abatement to the information, on the ground of the proceedings in the former case. Such plea was overruled; held, no error.</p>

Error from, Miami District Court. Action brought by David Coonradt against H. 8. Campbell and N. P. Gregg, upon an injunction bond, for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of a temporary injunction theretofore procured by Campbell against Coonradt and another, and for costs and expenses of obtaining a dissolution of the injunction.

Error from Bice District Court. When the county of Ness was organized, in April, 1880, the town of Sidney was designated as the county seat. June 1, 1880, an election was held for the purpose of permanently locating the county seat, at which election four different places were candidates. After the election and the canvass of the votes cast thereat, Ness City was declared duly elected, and the county officers removed their offices to that place.

Error from Sumner District Cóurt. Action on an undertaking given under § 511 of the civil code, brought by H F. Simon & Morse against G. C. Randolph as principal and J. F. Hickman and John G. Woods as sureties, for alleged breaches of the undertaking. Trial by the court without a jury, at the April,Term, 1882, H.G.R., judgepro tern., presiding, and judgment for plaintiffs. The defendants bring the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Jaehson District Court. Ejectment, brought by John C. Douglass, as guardian of the estate of Hattie R. Douglass, a minor, against W. A. Allen and others. To so much of the defendants’ answer as constitutes a counterclaim and cause of action for affirmative relief, the plaintiff demurred. At the March Term, 1882, the court sustained the demurrer, which ruling the defendants bring here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Action in ejectment, brought by John O. Douglass, as guardian, etc., against W. A. Allen and others, in the district court of Jackson county. The .petition and answer were the same as in the preceding case, differing only in the description of the premises. In this case the alleged error arises upon an order of the court at the March Term, 1882, dismissing the action on motion of the plaintiff.

Action brought by Loofborow and another against Shaffer and another, on an injunction bond,- to recover $150, the fee paid their attorney for procuring a dissolution of the injunction, and $50 as other expenses in said action. At the February Term, 1881, of the Wilson district court, a general demurrer to the ’petition was sustained. The plaintiffs brought the case here.

Action for divorce, brought by Emma J. Dent against Warren R. Dent. The defendant appeals from certain orders made therein by the district judge, January 22, 1883. The facts appear in the opinion.

<p> Error from Doniphan District Court. </p> <p>At the March Term, 1882, of the district court, the defendant Railroad Company had judgment against plaintiff Perry, as administrator of the estate of Susan B. Snyder, deceased, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.</p>

• Information, filed December 5, 1881, charging that the defendant Foohs, on the 5th day of October, 1881, in said county of Wabaunsee,… Held: and then and there did feloniously, willfully, deliberately and premeditatedly discharge and shoot off, to, against and upon him, the said George Miller; and that the said Matthew Pooks, with two leaden bullets aforesaid, out of the pistol aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the said Matthew Pooks discharged and shot…

Error from Bourbon District Court. Diedrich Fuhrman died, intestate, September 22, 1871, leaving his widow and children as his heirs at law. George Wier was appointed administrator of Fuhrman’s estate, and continued to act as such until his death, October 27, 1878. Evaline Wier, widow of said decedent, was appointed administratrix of his estate.

Error from, Wyandotte District Court. October 8, 1881, the City of Wyandotte presented to the Board of Commissioners of Wyandotte County a claim for repairing the iron bridge over the Kansas river, amounting to $223.17. On that day the bill was rejected by the county commissioners, and thereafter an appeal was taken to the district court of Wyandotte county.

jError from Leavenworth, District Court. April 30,1881, defendant Sathaway had judgment in the district court against plaintiff Overman, who brings the case heré. The- opinion states the facts.

Error from. Clay Eistriot Court. Action by Rowland against Shaw and two others, to recover $500 and costs. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. Trial at the January Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendants. Rowland brings the case here.

Error from Dickinson District Court. Three actions of ejectment, brought by Shaffer — one against Gross, one against Holland, and one against Chamberlain. Trial at the May Term, 1882, of the district court, and verdict and judgment in each case for the plaintiff. The defendants bring their several eases to this court. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Harvey District Court. Two actions brought by Wilson against Lightbody and McGee — one action to recover $5,371, the other to recover $2,687. The defendants filed motions in both of these cases to vacate the orders of attáchment therein, which had been levied upon a certain stock of goods situated in the city of Newton, Harvey county. Both motions were heard by the court at the same time.

Error from Anderson District Court. Action on a criminal recognizance. Judgment in the district court, September 13,1882, against the defendant Tillson, who brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from, Crawford District Court. Injunction, brought by the Railroad Company against Tontz, as treasurer, and McMwrray, as sheriff, of Crawford county, to restrain the collection of a certain tax. Judgment for defendants, at the April Term, 1882, of the district court. Plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action by Thul against the Railroad Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. Trial at the April Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for $400 and costs. The defendant brings the case to this cpurt. The opinion' contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Cowley District Court. At the November Term, 1881, of the district court, the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against defendants Thompson and wife, who bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. At the April Term, 1882,- of the district court, James E. Williams, as administrator of the estate of Jacob McMurtry, deceased, recovered a judgment against defendant Matthew Ryan, who brings the case to this court. The facts appear in the opinion. The court erred in holding that Ryan was security for the estate of Theodore Jones. That estate, and every estate of a deceased person, is incapable of suing or being sued.

September 14, 1880, the district court of Leavenworth county overruled a motion made by Halsey to set aside a certain sheriff’s sale, and sustained the motion of Van Vliet and others to confirm the same. These rulings Halsey brought to this court, which reversed the orders of the court below, and remanded the case with instructions to sustain the motion to set aside the sale.

Olferman was tried at the April Term, 1882, of the district court of Shawnee county, on an information of twenty-one counts, each charging an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The defendant moved the court to require the plaintiff to elect upon what one count it would proceed to trial. This motion was overruled.

At the August Term, 1882, of the district court of Cloud county, Brooks had judgment against Thompson, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

At the February Term, 1882, of the district court of Atchison county, plaintiff Challiss had judgment for $125 and costs against defendant Wagstaff, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Harper District Court. At the February Term, 1882, of. the district court, defendant Moffett had judgment against plaintiff Litsey, who brings the ease here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Harper District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the February Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Gunn recovered a judgment against defendant Tracy, who brings the case here.

This case is reported .in 28 Kas. 825, et seq., where a sufficient statement of the facts will be found. The court at its session in November, 1882, ordered that— “The case be remanded to the district court with the instructions that if within such reasonable time as the district court or judge shall prescribe, the sheriff’s returns on the attachment orders shall be amended in conformity to the views expressed by this court in this opinion, the judgment shall be affirmed.

Error from Lyon District Court. Action by Henicke against Griffith, to recover damages for slander. Trial at the September Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action brought by Morgan against the Wheeler. & Wilson Manufacturing Companyy to recover $45 as damages for -the alleged wrongful taking and conversion of a sewing machine. June 24, 1882, in the district court the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $32.50 against the defendant company, which brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Fhrror from Brown District Court. At the May Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Furnish had judgment against defendant Johnson, who brings the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Butler District Court. Action brought by Hill against Douglass, as sheriff of Butler county, to recover the value of a certain stock of goods. Trial at the September Term, 1881, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff for $770 and costs. The defendant brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

At the May Term, 1882, of the district court, Bruce Fur-beck was convicted of the crime of petit larceny, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of prosecution, and to be committed to the jail of Ellis county until said fine and costs were paid. From this judgment he appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Dickinson District Court. Action by Baldwin against the Board of Commissioners of Dickinson County, to recover certain taxes. Trial at the May Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant Board brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Wilson District Court. On the 9th day of May, 1881, plaintiff, with leave of the court, filed his amended bill of particulars against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, alleging that— “The latter company is justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $270; that said sum is, and was at the commencement of this action, due and wholly unpaid; that during all of the two years last past said defendant was and now is operating, controlling and managing a…

Error from Butler District Court. Action, begun September 16, 1881, by F. M. Bands, sole surviving partner of the late firm of F. & C. Sands, against Julian Blaker and Wade Blaker, partners as J. & W. Blaker, to recover the possession of 1,100 grade merino wethers and two grade merino bucks, of the alleged value of $4,000.

Error from, Shawnee District Court. Action brought October 6, 1879, before a justice of the peace of Mission township, in Shawnee county, by Fasnacht against Kungle, to recover the possession of two horses.

Error from Neosho District Court. Action upon a forfeited recognizance, brought by The State against Terrell and four others. Judgment for the defendants at the July Term, 1882, of the district court. The plaintiff brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Lyon District Court. Action brought by Curtis against Hoadley upon a promissory note. December 29, 1882, the judge of the district court discharged an attachment therein which plaintiff had obtained against the property of defendant under §§ 230 and 231 of the code. Plaintiff brings this order here for review. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action brought by H. W. Ide, as receiver of the Kansas Insurance Company, against George E. Hines and others, to foreclose a note and a mortgage. Finneran, with other persons, was made a defendant therein. At the December Term, 1882, of the district court, Finneran had judgment against the plaintiff, who brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Allen District Court. Replevin, brought by Armel & Jones against Layton and others, to recover the possession of 119 head of cattle. Trial at the June Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for defendants. The plaintiffs bring the case here. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Johnson District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the November Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Fipps had judgment against defendants Orane and others, who bring the case to this court.

Error from Linn District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the July Term, 1882, of the district court, defendants Latta and another recovered a judgment against plaintiff Carpenter, who brings the case here.

Error from Wabaunsee District Court. At the adjourned September Term, 1881, of the district court, plaintiff Nelson recovered a judgment for $1 and costs against defendants Barrett and three others, who bring the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Harvey District Court. At the.September Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Bates had judgment against defendant Parker, who brings the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Lyon District Court. Action brought by Mrs. E. 8. Manning against George W. Brown, as administrator of the estate of Robert K. Manning, deceased, and others, to recover on a replevin bond. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts. At the March Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff had judgment for $277.13 damages, and $58.35 costs, against defendants, who bring the case here.

Proceeding for contempt, brought against Samuel L. King, as mayor of the city of Atchison, and Owen E. Seip and seven others, as councilmen of that city, for a failure or refusal on their part to obpy a peremptory writ of mandamus, issued by the judge and the clerk of the district court of Atchison county, ordering them to levy a certain tax. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Error from Neosho District Court. At the July Term, 1882, of the district court, Hall obtained an order setting aside a sheriff’s sale of certain real estate made to Baker, and confirming a sheriff’s sale thereof to himself, in an action then pending in that court, wherein Baker was plaintiff and Whitman and two others were defendants. These orders Baker, and Whitman and wife, bring here for review. The opinion contains a full statement of the facts.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Action brought by Moore against the Atchison, Topeha & Santa Fe Railroad Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. Trial at the July Term, 1882, of the district court, and verdict for the plaintiff for $8,000 damages. New trial denied, and judgment accordingly for plaintiff. The defendant Company brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by Willetts against Sanford and two others, to recover damages for a wrongful attachment. At the January Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff recovered a judgment for $240 and costs against defendants, who bring the case here. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action brought by H. W. Ide as receiver of the Kansas insurance company, against D. W. Eaves, Anna Eaves his wife, the Alliance Mutual Life assurance society of the United States, Herman Markson. vs assignee of the Leavenworth savings bank, and divers other defendants, to foreclose a certain note and a mortgage. Judgment for plaintiff, September 29, 1882. The defendant Markson, as receiver, etc., brings the case to this court.

Error from Riley District Court. November 3, 1882, before H. W. Staokpole, a justiee of the peace in and for the city of Manhattan, Pillsbury recovered a judgment for $133.85 and costs against the defendant Railway Company. Thereafter the defendant filed its petition in error in the district court. December 20, 1882, the court affirmed the judgment. The defendant brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Miami District Court. At the October Term,' 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Kincaid had judgment against the defendant Railway Company, which brings the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Harper District Court. At the February Term, 1882, of the district court, defendant Jennings had judgment against the plaintiff Company, which brings the case to this court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.

Error from Brown District Court. At the January Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Shew had judgment for $52 and costs against defendant Morris and another, who bring the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in Blair v. Shew, 24 Kas. 280, et seq., and in the opinion, infra.

Error from, Shawnee District Court. Action brought by Moore against Marshall and wife, to foreclose a mortgage. Fowler, on his own motion, was made a party defendant. Trial by the court, at the April Term, 1881, when the court found generally against Fowler, and entered a decree foreclosing the mortgage in favor of Moore, and barring Fowler of any interest in the premises. Fowler brings the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Shawnee District Oowrt. Two actions brought — one thereof by the Phcenix Insurance Company, the other by the Home Insurance, both of New York — against Orrin T. Welch, as Superintendent of Insurance of Kansas, to recover certain moneys paid to him by them under protest. The defendant demurred to each petition, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Error from Wilson District Court. The history of this action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the May Term, 1881, of the district court, plaintiff Kirkpatrick had judgment for $7,500 and costs against defendant Meixell, who brings the case here.

Information, jointly charging Frank Durein and Conrad Kreipe with unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors.

Information, jointly charging John Hebrank and T. G. Truman with illegal sales of intoxicating liquors. Trial at' the September Term, 1882, of the district court of Montgomery county, when the defendants were found guilty on two counts of the information. Their motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled.

Action brought before a justice of the peace of Sedgwick county, by Mossman against the Railway Company, to recover $120, with interest, claimed as the value of plaintiff’s two milch cows alleged to have been crippled, wounded, and thereby rendered worthless, by the defendant. From a judgment against the defendant Company it appealed to the district court of that county.

Error from Bourbon District Court. Action by Hines against the Railroad Company, to recover the value of plaintiff’s cow, alleged to have been killed by the defendant. Trial at the September Term,. 1882, of the district court, before E.F. W., judge pro tern, presiding, and a jury. Verdict for plaintiff for $39.41 damages. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the special findings made by the jury, and its motion for a new trial, were each overruled.

Error from Greenwood District Court. Action brought by the Board of Commissioners of Greenwood County against Torrence and others, to foreclose a certain mortgage. Trial at the August Term, 1882, of the district court, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant DurJcee brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Leavenworth District Court. The nature of this action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the December Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Ide, as receiver of the Kansas Eire insurance com- ‘ pany, had judgment against divers defendants, among them Markson, as assignee of the Leavenworth savings bank, who brings the case to this court.

Error from Rice District Court. At the January Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiffs Hall, Corning & Doane had judgment for $269.63 against defendant Gray, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Shawnee District Court. At the January Term, 1883, the district court affirmed a judgment in a certain action wherein Kuykendall was plaintiff and Conwell defendant. This order Conwell brings here for review. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Wyandotte District Oou/rt. Action by Galbreath against Drought, begun February 15, 1881. A demurrer was filed to the original' petition, which on April 3, 1881, was sustained.

Error from' Leavenworth District Court. December 16, 1882, in the district court, defendant Kothman recovered a certain judgment against Markson, as administrator, etc., who brings the case here. The facts fully appear in Kothman v. Skaggs, ante, pp. 5-18, and in the opinion, infra.

Error from Lyon District Court. Action brought by L. Fullam & Co. against Abrahams & Epstine — a firm composed of A. E. Abrahams and E. Epstine —to recover upon a promissory note for $315 and interest. Epstine was individually indebted to Peyton, Sanders & Peyton, who interpleaded in the action. Heritage, who had in his hands moneys belonging to Epstine, was garnished by the plaintiffs, and subsequently by the interpleaders.

Error from Osborne District Court. The nature of this action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the December Term, 1882, the district court affirmed certain rulings in regard to an attachment made by a justice of the peace in an action wherein Muthersbaugh was plaintiff and Williams and another were defendants, which rulings defendant Williams brings here for review.

Error from Johnson District Court. At the November Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Lafeyth recovered a judgment against defendant Evans, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Franklin District Court. Action upon a bond executed under § 2 of the prohibition act of 1881. At the May Term, 1882, of the district court, judgment for the defendants Estabrook and two others, and against The State, which brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from, Greenwood District Court. At the May Term, 1881, of the district court, defendant Wickersham, had judgment against plaintiff Sword, who brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from, Greenwood District Court. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. At the August Term, 1882, of the district court, plaintiff Martin had judgment against the defendant Railroad Company, which brings the case here.

Error from Saline Distriot Court. The plaintiff Lindh brings the case to this court, and •assigns as error the order made at the May Term, 1882, of the district court, granting the defendant Qrowley a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in Lindh v. Crowley, 26 Kas. 47, et seq., and in the opinion herein.

Prosecution for violations of ch. 128, Laws of 1881. February 2, 1882, the jury found the defendant Hunt guilty on each of the five counts of the information filed against him. New trial denied, and defendant sentenced to pay a fine of $100 on each count, and the costs of the prosecution, and to be committed to the county jail until the fines and costs were paid. From this judgment he appeals. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Lyon District Cowrt. At the September Term, 1881, of the district court, defendants Parker and two others had judgment against plaintiff Hiatt, who brings the case to this court. The opinion states the nature of the action, and the facts.