Volume 31 — Illinois Reports

Wuit of Error to the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. D. M. WoodsoN, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below, by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error.

Wbit of Error to tbe Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. AaroN Tyler, Judge, presiding. Elijah C. Babcock and John Babcock, partners, under the name of E. C. Babcock & Son, commenced an action of trespass in the Circuit Court against Seth Smith, Alexander G. Kirkpatrick, George D. Crandall, and James McCoy, to recover damages for taking and carrying away certain goods, wares and merchandise.

Wkit OK Error to the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. GraNt Goodrich, Judge, presiding. Held: he had no power. 14 Serg. & R. 307. An attorney may receive money upon execution, but is not bound to do so. 4 McCord, 259.

Weit of Error to the Circuit Court of Whiteside county ; the Hon. JohN V. Eustace, Judge, presiding. This was a bill in chancery exhibited in the Circuit Court, on the second day of May, 1860, by Robert C. Bnrchell, State’s attorney of the twenty-second judicial circuit, and Peter Bressler, against the Board of Supervisors of Whiteside county.

Weit of Eeeob to the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. David Davis, Judge, presiding. This was a bill in chancery to foreclose a mortgage upon the south half of the south-west quarter of Section twenty-eight, Township 26 north, of Range 4 west of the third principal meridian. A decree was entered, directing the sale of the south half of the south-east quarter of the same section.

<p>Whit of Error to the Circuit Court of Marshall county; the Hon. Saaiuel L. EiohhoND, Judge, presiding.</p> <p>This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit -Court by Cook, the defendant in error, against Matthias, Hatton and Martin, upon a promissory note, for the sum of $300, bearing date on the 25th of November, 1856, and payable one year thereafter.</p> <p>The defendants below filed two special pleas of usury, neither of the pleas answering, or purporting to answer, the whole declaration.</p> <p>The plaintiff filed his replications to these pleas; issues were formed; and he went to trial without taking judgment as to that part of the declaration which remained unanswered.</p> <p>The defendants only claimed, by their pleas, that the plaintiff had, by reason of the usurious character of the contract, forfeited the amount of interest which was thereby reserved; but conceded that the principal of the debt could be recovered.</p> <p>From the evidence given upon the trial it appeared that the note sued upon, was for borrowed money; that only $200 was actually received by the ^makers, the other $100 being reserved as interest upon the amount received, for one year.</p> <p>During the trial, and when Cook offered the note in evidence, the defendants below moved for a discontinuance of the action, as to that part of the declaration not answered by plea; which motion was not decided until after the jury had returned their verdict into court, when it was overruled; the defendants then entered their motion to discontinue the whole action, which motion was also overruled.</p> <p>Among other instructions for the plaintiff, the Circuit Court gave the following:</p> <p>6th. The court instructs the jury that there is no law under which the defendants are entitled to deduct the usurious interest claimed by them, by virtue of the contract set out in their pleas.</p> <p>To all of which rulings exception was taken.</p> <p>The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the whole amount of the note, and interest which had accrued thereon. A motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, being interposed, was overruled by the court, and judgment entered in pursuance of the verdict of the jury; and to this ruling of the court the defendants excepted; and thereupon sued out this writ of error. And now it is alleged that the Circuit Court erred in giving the sixth instruction asked by the plaintiff below; and in refusing the defendants’ motion for a discontinuance.</p> <p>contended, that the statute attaches no penalty for an usurious transaction; but merely modifies the contract; citing Nichols v. Stewa/rt et al., 21 Ill. 106, and Nickerson et al. v. Babcock, 23 Ill. 561. The court below misconstrued the statutes in relation to usury.</p> <p>2. The motion for discontinuance should have been sustained, upon the authority of Women v. Nexsen, 3 Scam. R. 38.</p> <p>1. As the law was at the time the note was given, November, 1856, the plaintiff below would have forfeited three-fold the amount of the whole interest reserved. Rev. Stat. 1845, 295, sec. 4.</p> <p>By the fourth section of the act of January 31, 1857, all laws providing penalties for taking or contracting for more than the legal rate of interest, were repealed.</p> <p>The note in question, having been executed prior to the passage of the act of 1857, is not governed by its provisions, which declare a forfeiture of the entire interest reserved; nor is it governed by the law of 1845, the penalties of which had been repealed.</p> <p>2. The point made by plaintiff’s counsel, that the suit should have been discontinued, is disposed of by the case of Van Duzen v. Pomeroy, 24 111. 289.</p>

This was am application to this court by Peter Bollig, for a writ of habeas corpus. It was represented in the petition, that Bollig was then imprisoned and detained in the county jail of Bureau county, by one Silas Battey, (who was, at the time, sheriff of said county and keeper of the jail), without any legal authority, under color of a certain pretended commitment, issued by one George O. Ide, a justice of the peace of said county.

Weit oe Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of the county of Warren ; the Hon. Chaelbs B. Laweeitce, Judge, presiding.

This was a suit in chancery, instituted in the court below, on the 30th of April, 1862, by John A. J. Neafie against William Lili, Orrin J. Nose and Otho Klemm. It is alleged in the bill that Nose, to secure the payment of a promissory note which he had given the complainant, for the sum of five thousand dollars, convej'ed by deed of trust to Otho Klemm, on the 17th day of July, 1857, certain lots of land lying in Cook county.

<p>1. Consideration — what is good, etc. — want of consideration. A sale and delivery of personal property is a good consideration for a note given therefor, although the seller had no title ; and the purchaser cannot, while he retains the possession of the property, defeat a recovery upon the note upon a plea of want of consideration.</p> <p>■ 2. Implied warranty op title — sales of personalty. Upon the sale of personal property there is an implied warranty of title, and if, in such case, the rightful owner shall take the property out of the possession of such purchaser, he may recover its value upon that warranty.</p>

Weit of Error to the Circuit Court of the county of CooK; the Hon. George Maoterre, Judge, presiding. Parthenia Hall filed her bill for a divorce in the Cook Circuit Court, against her husband, Jacob B. Hall, and in the course of the proceedings therein, on the 21st February, 1861, the court entered an interlocutory decree that the defendant pay $100 alimony, jpendente lite, to enable her to prosecute the suit.

P. K. LelAND, Judge, presiding. On the 9th day of June, 1857, Nathan Cudderback, and Catharine, his wife, executed and delivered to Alson Ward, a mortgage upon certain lands, situated in the county of La Salle, to secure the payment of a certain promissory note therein described.

WRIT OK Error to the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. MadisoN E. Hollister, J udge, presiding. Held: that without an agreement for delay, or instructions to that effect, the execution will not, by reason of the delay, be rendered dormant. That there were no agreements, instructions or directions for delay in this case, is affirmatively shown.

Weit of Eeeoe to tbe Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. M. E. Hollistee, J udge, presiding. On the 30th day of August, 1859, the plaintiff in error, William Hoskins, exhibited his bill in chancery in the Circuit Court, against Hervey Litchfield and Elizabeth Litchfield, his wife, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendants, to Hoskins, on the 10th of December, 1857.

Writ OK Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county ; the Hon. George Maoterre, Judge, presiding. In November, 1856, the defendant in error, Philip H. Keohane, recovered a judgment in the court below, in an action of assumpsit against Joseph W. Leighton, for the sum of one hundred and eight dollars and twenty-six cents.

John M. WilsoN, Chief Justice, presiding. This was an action of ejectment instituted in the court below, by Israel T. Nichols against Thomas Connor, to recover the possession of certain premises in the city of Chicago. The defendant interposed the plea of not guilty, and the issue was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury.

WRIT or Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county, the Hon. George MaNIErre, Judge, presiding. This was an action on the case, commenced to the September term, 1860, of the Circuit Court, by Quimby and Low against Herring.

Weit of Error to tbe Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Manierre, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment instituted in the court below, by Ezekiel S. Smith against Youngs W. Miller, and Polly Ann Miller, to recover lot number one, and the north half of lot number two, in block twenty-nine, in the village of Dunton, Cook county.

Writ of Eeeoe to the Recorder’s Court of the city of Peru; the Hon. William Chumasero, Judge, presiding. This was a bill in chancery exhibited in the court below by Louisa L. Banks, the defendant in error, against George O. Banks, the plaintiff in error.

MadisoN E. Hollistee, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit commenced by John W. Tail against Henry K. Conkling, in the Circuit Court of Grundy county, and removed upon change of venue to the Circuit Court of the county of La Salle.

MadisoN E. Hollistee, Judge, presiding. This was a proceeding in the court below, in the name of The People, etc., against Andrew Richardson, under the statute in relation to bastardy. At the November term, 1862, of that court, the defendant, Richardson, entered his motion for a continuance, and in support thereof, presented the following affidavit: “The People, etc., ) v. !• LaSalle Cowniy Circuit Court, Nov. Term, A. D. 1862.

Writ of ERROR to the Circuit Court of the county of McLean ; the Hon. Charles EmersoN, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment instituted in the Circuit Court, by Theron Pardee against Wilson Lindley, to recover the possession of certain premises situate in the county of McLean. The plea of the general issue being interposed, the cause proceeded to trial.

’Weit of Ereoe ' to the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. M. E. ITollistee, J udge, presiding. ; This was a bill in chancery exhibited in the Circuit Court, by Justin H. Olds against Preston Cummings, Cynthia Cummings, his wife, and others, asking the foreclosure of a mortgage. It appears that on the 21st of November, 1857, Preston Cummings executed, to the order of Charles L. Kelsey, his two certain promissory notes, both payable some months thereafter.

Weit of Error to the Court of Common Pleas of the City of Aurora; the Hon. BENJAMIN E. Parrs, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the court below by Delos W. Young and Abner Hard, against the Board of Supervisors of Kane county, in which the city of Aurora is situated. The summons was executed on the 29th day of November, 1859, by reading and delivering a copy to John Green, clerk of the board of supervisors.

AalíON Tylek, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment, instituted in the Circuit Court by Wyatt Boyden against Hiram W. Thornton, to recover the possession of the east half of the south-east quarter of Section three, in Township fourteen north, of range four west, situate in said county of Mercer, containing eighty acres, in which the plaintiff claimed a fee simple title.

<p>1. Assignment — legal title. Where the owner of a note, and a mortgage given to secure the same, assigns them upon a separate paper, for the purpose of enabling the assignee to make collection, such assignment will not pass the legal title.</p> <p>2. Assignee as equitable title — holds subject to equities. The assignee of an equitable title, to enforce which, he must resort to a court of chancery, takes such title with all the equities and infirmities existing against it, and can claim nothing under it which his assignor could not have claimed.</p>

Weit op Eeeoe to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was an action of ejectment instituted by Shortall against Hinckley, on the twenty-second day of February, A. D. 1861. The declaration contained three counts. First count. For an undivided .three-sixths, in fee simple, of a certain part of lot number fifteen, in block number one hundred and thirty-eight, in the School Section Addition to the city of Chicago. Second count.

<p>1. Evidence — wider plea of properly in defendant, in replevin. Under an issue upon a general plea of property in the defendant, in an action of replevin, the defendant may show any legal title to the property, no matter how derived.</p> <p>2. If the defendant show, under such issue, that the property in controversy was sold hy a proper officer, under a valid execution, issued on a valid judgment, before the commencement of the action of replevin, and he had become the purchaser, it will be sufficient to sustain the plea of property in himself.</p> <p>3. Nor will the defendant be precluded from relying upon the particular title under his general plea of property in himself, merely because he may have set up the same title, specially, in another plea, upon which there is also an issue.</p>

Writ op Error to the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Charles E. Starr, Judge, presiding.

Whit of Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Maoterre, Judge, presiding.

Wext op Error to the Cook Circuit Court. The plaintiff in error exhibited his bill in chancery, in the court below, and set forth therein that an election was held on the 4th day of November, 1862, in pursuance of law, for town officers for the town of South Chicago, Cook county; that said town is divided into nine election precincts, in - each of which the polls were opened, boards of election qualified, and votes received for the different town officers ; that said…

Writs of Error to the Circuit Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. Benjamin R. Sheldon, Judge, presiding. The records in these three causes all present precisely the same state of facts.

JohN S. ThompsoN, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the court below, by William Drury against Harrison Drew and William Garrett, upon the following promissory note : “ On or before the first day of January next, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Thomas Green, one hundred and twenty dollars, with ten per cent, interest from date, value received. william: gaerett. “March 8, 1851.

Hadis ok E. Hollistee, Judge, presiding. This was an action of debt instituted in the Circuit Court, by Chai-Ies T. P. Puck, who sued for the use of Caroline Gates, against Lorenzo Eggleston and Sarah A. Mills, admin-istratrix of the estate of James M. Mills, deceased, upon an appeal bond which was executed by Eggleston, and the said James M. Mills, in his lifetime, in the penalty of twelve hundred dollars.

Weit or Error to the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. JohN W. Drurt, Judge, presiding. • William McHard sued out his writ of summons in assump-sit, in the court below, against Jacob W. Yanmeter and Caleb M. Clark.

Weit op Eeeoe to the Superior Court of Chicago. John Evans exhibited his bill in chancery in the court below, on the 9th day of February, 1860, against George M. Kennedy, Alfred A. Hallett, and Willard H. Downer, executors of the last will and testament of John D. Norton, deceased, and Edmund Aiken, John W. Waughop, George W. Lay, and John Gray.

<p>1. Siieriff and collector — offices merged. From the passage of the act of 1839, entitled “An act concerning the public revenue,” up to 1845, the offices of sheriff and collector of taxes were distinct and independent, neither one having any relation to, or connection with, the other.</p> <p>2. But by the revenue act of 1845, the office and duties of collector are merged into that of the sheriff; so the office of “collector ” no longer exists.</p> <p>3. Deputy sheriff — bond to Ivis principal. The statute authorizing a sheriff to appoint a deputy, declares that any bond or security taken by a sheriff from his deputy to indemnify such sheriff, shall be good and available at law.</p> <p>4. Collection OP taxes — by sheriff and deputy. It is the duty of the sheriff, as such, to collect the taxes, so soon as lie, executes the required bond; when he qualifies, his deputies are at the same moment qualified to collect.</p> <p>5. SURETIES OP deputy shbrifp — their liability. As it is one of the duties of the sheriff to collect the taxes, and as his deputies are authorized to perform any and all of his duties, the duty of collecting taxes is included, and if the deputy is delinquent, his sureties are responsible.</p> <p>6. Bond of sheriff — its effect. A bond executed to secure the performance of “all the duties of the office of sheriff,” can have no wider meaning than the same words as used in the statute.</p> <p>I. Bond of deputy sheriff — its effect. So where a deputy sheriff executes a bond to his principal, for the performance of 1' all the duties required of him as deputy sheriff,” those words embrace all the duties which are by law devolved upon the sheriff.</p>

Writ of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of the county of La Salle; the Hon. MadisoN E. Hollistee, Judge, presiding.

Writ of Eerob to the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Charles EmeesoN, Judge, presiding. This case arises upon a motion made in the court below, to set aside a sale of certain real estate in the city of Blooming-ton, in the county of McLean, made under an execution which issued from that court.

’ Writ of Ebeob to the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. JbnN Y. Eustace, Judge, presiding. This cause was originally brought before a justice of tbe peace in Lee county, by Nocher against Boyd. A trial being bad, the justice rendered a judgment against Boyd, the defendant below, from which he took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Lee county. The appeal bond given by Boyd, was filed in the office of the justice who rendered the judgment.

Writ of ERROR to the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. George MaNIerre, Judge, presiding. This was a proceeding commenced in the Circuit Court, on the 9th day of October, 1856, by George James against E. G. Phelps and Curtis M. Eowley, to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The petition set forth that in the month df May, 1856, the petitioner, James, was engaged in the business of painting, at the town of Waukegan, in Lake county.

W. W. HeatoN, Judge, presiding. This was an action, originally commenced before a justice of the peace in the county of Whiteside, by Thomas Griffin, against the Galena and Chicago Union [Railroad Company, to recover damages for running a train upon, and hilling, a colt belonging to the plaintiff. The justice rendered a judgment against the company, who took an appeal therefrom to the Circuit Court.

Weit of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Henderson county; tlie Hon. Jorra S. Thompson, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the Circuit Court by the defendants in error against George B. Archer and Marcellus Archer, the plaintiffs in error. The suit was commenced by summons against George B. Archer, and by writ of attachment against Marcellus Archer.

Weit of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Henderson county; the Hon. JohN S„ ThompsoN, Judge, presiding. Claflin, Allen and Emmerson, the defendants in error, instituted an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the plaintiffs in error, declaring specially upon a promissory note. The principal features of the case, and the questions of law involved, are the same as in the preceding case; it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them here.

Weit of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Warren county. Billings instituted bis action of trespass on the case in the court below, against Lafferty, setting forth in his declaration that the plaintiff had previously thereto obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace, against one Thorn, in an action of forcible detainer, for the possession of certain described premises; and that a writ of restitution was therein awarded.

Weit of'Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Cook county ; the Hon. Geoege Maoteeee, Judge, presiding.

Writ OK Eeeok to the Superior Court of Chicago. The facts of this case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. There are no equities in the bill; and herein 1. It affirmatively appears from the bill, that the conveyance sought to be avoided was made by Joseph Smith to Edgar T. Bay, the son of Henry B. Bay, and that the consideration was paid by the latter. The presumption therefore is, that it was an advancement.

Isaac G. WilsoN, Judge, presiding. This was. an action of assumpsit instituted in the Circuit Court, by Montgomery, against the appellants, upon a promissory note executed by Miller and others, as principals, and by Donnelly, as security. Upon the trial of the issues, it appeared that several payments were indorsed; besides which, Miller had paid to Montgomery a certain sum of money, which he directed also to be applied as a credit on that note.

Writ oe EbboR to the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. A. L. MerriMAN, Judge, presiding.

Weit of Error to the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. MadisoN E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment instituted in the court below by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, in September, 1857, to recover the possession of an undivided portion of certain premises in La Salle county. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Weit of Error to tbe Circuit Court of McHenry county; the Hon. Isaac Gr. WilsoN, Judge, presiding. Asia Pease and Miranda Pease exhibited.their bill in chancery in the court below, against Dustan Millett, H. D. Jame-son and Harriet P. Jameson, for the foreclosure of a mortgage. A summons was issued, and returned served upon H. D. Jameson; but no return was made as to the other defendants.

pi Weit of Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe county of La Salle; tbe Hon. MadisoN E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. In tbe year 1834, Edward Keys was the owner in fee simple of lot number eight, in block number fifteen, in tbe town of Peru, in La Salle county. Soon after, Keys died intestate, seized of the premises, leaving a widow and children.

Wext of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the' Hon. Geobge Maoteeee, Judge, presiding. William Hopps was indicted in the court below for the murder of his wife.

B. P. Parks, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the court below by John Ingham, the appellee, upon the following promissory note: Aurora, September 19, 1854. “We jointly promise to pay John Ingham or order, three hundred dollars, on the first day of May next, at ten per cent, interest for money loaned. (Signed) O. C. HINDS. J. A. HINDS. A. H. HiNds, Swrely. On the back of said note were the following indorsements : 1. “ Sept. 4th, 1856.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer county; the Hon. Chaeles B. LawbeNce, Judge, presiding.</p> <p>In July, 1856, TTri David, being desirous of purchasing lands in Mercer county, inquired of Merryinan about lands in his neighborhood. Merryman showed him a certain tract of land which was then owned by one Gregg, who resided in Ohio, Merryman representing to David either that he had purchased the land or was a kind of agent for the owner, and proposed to sell it to him at eight dollars per acre, amounting to $1,920. David thereupon contracted to purchase the land from Merryman at the price mentioned. In the August following, Merryman executed a deed to David for the land, with the understanding that another deed should be given in lieu of that, when Merryman should get a deed from Gregg. David at that time paid Merryman $590 in cash, gave his note for $40-, payable in a few days, and two notes for $140, • each, with interest at ten per cent., one due September 1, 1856, and the other, September 1,1857; and assumed to pay the sum of $1,000, to Gregg, to secure which Merryman told David he would have to give a mortgage to Gregg when he obtained a conveyance from him.</p> <p>It seems that Merryman was not, in fact, the agent of Gregg in the sale of the land, but, previously to his sale to David, had been negotiating with Gregg for the purchase of it. Gregg had offered to sell the land to Merryman at $1,500, provided he accepted the proposition within a specified time. That time had elapsed before Merryman bargained the premises to David, but on the 15th of August, and soon after the conveyance mentioned to David, Merryman procured a deed from Gregg, and executed a mortgage on the premises to him, to secure the sum of $1,000, the balance of $1,500 for which he had purchased.</p> <p>On the 29th of August, Merryman informed David that he had obtained a deed from Gregg, and desired then to take up the deed he had given him, and execute another, so that the conveyance to David might bear date subsequent to that from Gregg to Merryman. Merryman also requested David.to give two other notes for $140 each, in lieu of the two of that amount he had previously given. David accordingly gave up the deed he had received from Merryman, and executed two notes for $140 each, bearing date on the 29th of August, 1856, in lieu of those of the same amount he had formerly given him, and received a new deed from Merryman for the land, bearing the same date of the last notes.</p> <p>Subsequently to this transaction, David paid the mortgage debt of $1,000, to Gregg, and the note of $40, and also the sum of $135, upon the $140 notes. In the meantime, David had expressed his entire satisfaction with his purchase, saying that the land was worth thirteen dollars per acre, and he would have given ten dollars instead of the price at which he purchased, if he could not have obtained the land for less ; and also expressed the belief that Merryman had made something by the transaction, and he hoped he had.</p> <p>Finally, however, David refused to pay the balance of the purchase-money, and thereupon Merryman instituted suit to recover the balance due on the two $140 notes.</p> <p>Upon this state of facts, David exhibited his bill in chancery in the court below, against Merryman, asking that Merryman be enjoined from prosecuting-his suit upon the notes, and insisting that by reason of the misrepresentations of Merry-man in regard to his relations towards Gregg respecting the land, a fraud had been perpetrated upon him, and that, therefore, Merryman ought to refund to him the excess that he had paid him over the price which had been paid to Gregg for the land.</p> <p>An injunction was granted, which on the final hearing was made perpetual, and the Circuit Court decreed that Merry-man stand charged as trustee for David, in the sum of $363.45. From that decree Merryman prosecuted this appeal, and assigns for error, that the court found the equities in the case in favor of the complainant.</p>

ChaRles B. LawííeNoe, Judge, presiding. On the 16th day of February, 1859, by collusion and contrivance between Isaac Bulson, Phineas Cragan and James Soles, the said Bulson was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by Soles, as a justice of the peace of Knox county, upon the complaint of Oragan, under oath, charging Bulson with having feloniously stolen a cow in said county.

WRIT of Error to the Circuit Court of the county of Lake; the Hon. George MaNierre, Judge, presiding. This was an action of debt instituted in the court below, by John M. Brown against James B. Gorton and JohnH.

Weit of Error to the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Charles R. Starr, Judge, presiding.

On the 11th of April, 1857, Martin O. Walker, the appellee, executed a lease, under seal, for certain premises in the city of Chicago, for a term of two years, to William “J. Napier, at a certain rent stipulated in the lease. Alexander White indorsed upon the lease his guaranty for the payment of the rent at the time it should become due. Walker instituted an action of assumpsit in the court below, against White, the guarantor, alleging the non-payment of the rent.

Weit oe Eeeoe to the Superior Court of Chicago. Held: that the conveyances made and acts done must be strictly within the scope of the authority, or they are void. iStainbach v. Meed, 11 Grat. 281; Osborne v. Homer, 11 Ind. 359; Pursley v. Morrison et al., 7 Ind. 356; Bloom v. Rensselaer et al., 15 Ill. 502; Mathews v. Hamilton et al., 23 Ill. 470; Blinn v. Evans, 24 Ill. 317; Fowler v.…

WRIT op Error to the Circuit Court of tbe county of Cook; the Hon. George Manierre, Judge, presiding. Patrick Mullen was indicted in the court below, for manslaughter.

Wrax OB' Error to the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. James Harriott, Judge, presiding. This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit instituted in the court below by Thomas Welch against John Louis, Margaretta Louis and Mary L. Hammond. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and liberum tenementum. The principal facts in the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee county.</p> <p>Tbis was an action of debt instituted in the court below by Elias B. Stiles, against Hiram Bender, Harvey Wilson and John Deeds, upon a bond executed to the plaintiif by the defendants, in the penalty of one thousand dollars, containing the following condition:</p> <p>“ The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas the said Hiram Fender, and one Edward Atkins, have, on the day of the date hereof, placed in the hands of said Stiles the sum of $436 each, the whole amount of which was to he delivered by the said Stiles to the said Fender, in case liis sorrel horse should outrun the brown mare of said Atkins, in' a certain race run between them (the said horse and mare) this day, or to be delivered to said Atkins in case his mare should outrumin such race; and whereas, there is a dispute between said Fender and said Atkins as to which of them is entitled to said moneyj and whereas, said Stiles hath delivered the whole amount thereof to said Fender: Now, therefore, if the said Fender shall at all times indemnify and save and beep the said Stiles free and clear and harmless against all suitsf actions, damages, judgments, costs and expenses which may be brought or recovered, or in any manner incurred by reason of any manner of claim or demand which said Atkins may have or pretend to have against said Stiles, by reason of said Stiles refusing to pay said money, or any portion thereof, to said Atkins, then this obligation to be void; otherwise of full force and virtue.”</p> <p>The following is the breach as alleged:</p> <p>“And although at the November term of the said Lee county Circuit Court, for the year eighteen hundredand sixty-one, Edward Atkins, by reason of a certain claim or demand, which the said Atkins then and theretofore had against the said plaintiff, by'reason of the said plaintiff’s refusing to pay to said Atkins a portion of the money referred to in the condition of said writing obligatory, to wit, the sum of money so placed in the hands of said plaintiff by said Atkins, recovered against the said plaintiff in a certain suit theretofore brought and then pending in said court, wherein the said Atkins was plaintiff, and the said Stiles was defendant, a judgment in the sum of four hundred and twenty-nine dollars, his (said At-kin’s) damages in this behalf sustained, together with his costs and charges by him (said Atkins) in and about said suit expended, whereof the said plaintiff) Stiles, was convicted, as appears of record.</p> <p>“Yet the said Hiram Fender, although often requested so to do, hath not, from the time of the making of said writing obligatory, indemnified, and saved, and kept the said plaintiff free, clear and harmless, against said suit, judgment, damages, costs, and the expenses by the said plaintiff incurred in and about said suit, according to the condition of the said writing obligatory, but has hitherto wholly neglected and refused, and still neglects and refuses so to do. And by means thereof, the said plaintiff) Stiles, after the making of the said writing obligatory, to wit, on the twenty-fourth day of June, A. D. 1860, and on divers other days and times afterwards, was forced and obliged to, and did, necessarily lay out and expend divers sums of money, in the whole amounting to a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of one thousand dollars, in and about the defense of said suit, so brought and incurred about the payment and canceling the said judgment and costs, recovered as aforesaid to be satisfíed in full, to wit, at said county of Lee, by means of which said premises the said plaintiff has sustained damages to a large amount, to wit, to the amount of one thousand dollars, whereby an action accrued to the said plaintiff to demand and have of and from the said defendants in this suit the sum of one thousand dollars.</p> <p>“Yet the said defendants have not, nor has either of them (although often requested so to do) as yet paid the said sum of one thousand dollars above demanded, or any part thereof, to the said plaintiff, but have hitherto wholly neglected and refused, and still neglect and refuse so to do.”</p> <p>The declaration is against all the defendants, as joint obligors. Fender and Wilson were served with process, and appeared and filed a general demurrer to the declaration. The defendant, Needs, was not served with process, nor was any alias issued for the purpose of bringing him before the court.</p> <p>He did not appear. The demurrer was overruled by the court, and judgment entered by the court against Fender and Wilson, on the 10th of May, 1862.</p> <p>The form of the judgment is as follows: “And thereupon the said defendants say, that they will stand by their demurrer. Whereupon it is considered by the court, that the said plaintiff ought to have judgment in the premises. It is thereupon considered and adjudged by the court, that the plaintiff have and receive of the said defendant his debt in the sum of one thousand dollars, that being the penalty of the bond upon which the suit is brought, but that the said sum of one thousand dollars be liquidated on the payment of $411.67 — four hundred and eleven, sixty-seven one hundredths dollars— damages by the plaintiff herein in this behalf sustained, as agreed upon by the respective parties to this suit, in open court. And it is further considered, that the said plaintiff recover and have from the said defendants his costs and charges by him in and about this suit expended, and that execution issue for the said debt and costs herein to be taxed.”</p> <p>From that judgment, the defendants, Fender and Wilson, took this appeal, and assign for error:</p> <p>1. That the court below overruled their demurrer to the declaration; and</p> <p>2. That judgment.was entered against two only, of three defendants.</p>

Johh Y. Eustace, Judge, presiding. Yirgil A. Bogue instituted an action of ejectment in tbe Circuit Court, against Horatio Wales and Chester K. Williams, for tbe recovery of certain premises situated in Ogle county. Tbe plaintiff below, in establishing bis chain of title, introduced in evidence a judgment against one Kellogg and some other persons. Tbe question of the sufficiency of that judgment being presented, tbe form of it is given.

WRIT oe Error to the Circuit Court of the county of Jo Daviess; tbe Hon. BeitjamiN R. SheldoN, Judge, presiding. Charles McClellan having been arrested on a charge of larceny, was, on the oth day of June, 1861, brought before Henry C. Park, Esq., a justice of the peace in the county of Jo Daviess, for examination, and was required by the justice to enter into a recognizance for his appearance at the next term of the Circuit Court.

<p>1. Jury to assess dajia&es — form of {he oath — when to object. It cannot Re objected for the first time on appeal, that a jury empanneled to assess damages, were sworn “ to try the issues, ” when the party objecting was present and contested the assessment, and took a bill of exceptions. He should have objected then to the form of the oath, so that the proper'oath could have been administered.</p> <p>2. Measure oe damages — in action on injunction bond. Where a party is restrained by injunction from taking possession of a farm, from March to September, he is not restricted, in an action on the injunction bond, to proof of the value of the use of the land up to the time of the dissolution of the injunction, but he may show that by reason of being kept out of the land, he lost the crops for the season.</p> <p>3. The question in such case is not, what the land was worth to the complainant in the injunction suit, but what was the damage to the defendant, by reason of being kept out of possession during that period?</p>

Wbit of Error to the Recorder’s Court of the City of Chicago; the Hon. Robert S. WilsoN, Judge, presiding. At the October term, 1862, an indictment was returned by the grand jury into the court below, against the plaintiff in error, William Clark, charging him with having stolen two bay mares, the property of one Archibald Scott! At the same term, the prisoner was put upon his trial, and a verdict of guilty being returned by the jury, a judgment was entered accordingly.

<p>. "Weit op Error to the Recorder’s Court of the City of Chicago.</p>

Wkit of Error to the Circuit Court of the county of La Salle; the Hon. MadisoN E. Hollister, Judge, presiding.

. George MaNierre, Judge, presiding. George Adams instituted suit before a justice of the peace in Cook county, against Silas Briggs and Joel Briggs, for an alleged breach of warranty, upon an exchange of horses. The suit, while pending before the justice, was dismissed by the plaintiff as to the defendant, Joel Briggs, who had been Served with process, and proceeded to judgment against Silas Briggs, alone, who thereupon appealed to the Circuit Court.

Weit or Error to the Circuit Court of the county of La Salle; the Hon. MadisoN E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. John Harris presented his claim in the County Court of La Salle county, against the plaintiff in error, as administrator of the estate of Isaac H. Lamb, deceased. The claim was allowed to the amount of $25.

Ira O. Wilkinson-, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the court below by Reynolds, Wilder & Co. against Calvin Goodrich.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Lee county ; the Hon. William W. HeatoN, Judge, presiding. This was an action of debt originally instituted by the City of Amboy, in Lee county, against True P. Sleeper, before the police magistrate of that city.

WRIT of Error to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. S. L. KiohMONd, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment brought by Edmund S. Holbrook, the plaintiff in error, against Andrew Brenner, the tenant in possession; Benjamin S. Prettyman was permitted to appear and defend, as his landlord.

Weit of Error to the Circuit-Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. BENJAMIN R. SheldoN, Judge, presiding. Henry Settley and Amos Heming instituted an action of debt, in the court-below, against Hiram Schofield, upon an agreement under seal, by which the plaintiffs below agreed to build a house for the defendant, according to certain plans and specifications referred to in the contract, for which the defendant was to pay the plaintiffs a certain specified sum of money.

E. I. Tinkham & Co. were bankers in the city of Chicago, and in the usual course of their business as such, collected notes, bills, drafts, etc., for their customers. Heyworth, the appellee, who was doing business in the same city as a merchant, under the name of J. O. Heyworth & Co., was a customer of these bankers, and kept a deposit account with them, drawing his money out as occasion required.

ChaRles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. Oakley Johnson instituted an action of assumpsit in the court below, against Frederick Davidson, to recover for the non-delivery of a certain number of hogs, according to contract.

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago.</p> <p>The pleadings and proofs in this ease are set forth in the opinion of the court.</p>

Writ op Error to the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. A. L. MerrimaN, Judge, presiding. The city of Pekin, having subscribed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars to the capital stock of the “Illinois Pi ver Bailroad Company,” on the 1st day of January, 1857, made certain bonds for the sum of one thousand dollars each, payable to said company or bearer for a portion of such subscription.

BeNjamin R. Sheldon, Judge, presiding. In the yéar 1850, Putnam Perley purchased from Catlin, the appellee, a certain parcel of ground in the city of Rockford. Catlin refusing, afterwards, to make a conveyance, Perley instituted a suit in chancery in the Circuit Court of Winnebago county, to compel the specific performance by Catlin of his agreement to convey.

JohN Y. Eustace, Judge, presiding. George Eoy, the appellant, having subscribed ten shares of one hundred dollars each, to the capital stock of the Camancke, Albany and Mendota Railroad Company, executed his bond to the company therefor, on the 10th of February, 1857, payable ten years after its date; and on the same day the said Eoy executed and delivered to the company his coupon note for one year’s interest on said bond, as follows : “ Pkophetstowit, Feb. 10, 1851. “ On…

Appeals from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. Ira O. WilxiNSON, Judge, presiding. These were actions of debt instituted by the appellees, respectively, against the appellant, by the name and style of “The county of Rock Island,” that county having previously adopted township organization.