Volume 32 — Iowa Reports

il from, Fa/yette District Gowrt. Actioj. m equity for the setting aside of a sheriff’s sale. Petition dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Action upon an account of $141.20, for services rendered and expenses incurred in procuring testimony, witnesses and other matters in aid of the prosecution of Andrew Thompson for the murder of Mrs. Hagerty and family. The board of supervisors allowed $65 in full for the bill. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, where a jury trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $127. The defendant appeals.

Indictment for an assault with intent to inflict a great bodily injury. The indictment was against two persons, E. B. White and Elisha White; and upon a trial to a jury, the defendant, E. B. White, was acquitted, and the defend ant, Elisha White, was found guilty of an assault and battery.

Afgeal from Dvbuque District Oov/rt. The plaintiff, in Ms petition, states that, at the June term, 1862, of the district court of Dubuque county, a decree of divorce was rendered by said court in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant; that said decree provided for payment, by plaintiff, to'defendant, of $150 per annum, as alimony, payable quarterly; that he is now sixty-five years of age, in infirm health, unable to labor or do much by way of attention to business;…

00. Tama City, Jume 27, 1870. “ September 15. — After date we promise to pay to tbe bearer, M. C. Murdough, $84, at Tama City, with ten per cent interest, value received. “John H. Scott, “ It. H. Belknap.” Judgment for plaintiff. Upon appeal to tbe circuit court, tbe cause was tried by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Tbe necessary facts appear in tbe opinion.

On the 17th day of October, 1870, the plaintiff filed his petition in the circuit court of Jones county, averring that, “ on the 25th day of June, 1868, one O. H.' Pierce executed and delivered to plaintiff his certain promissory note for $250, of said date, payable to plaintiff October 1, 1869, with ten per cent interest; also, that said Pierce, at the same time, executed a mortgage on real estate in Monticello, Iowa, to secure said note.

<p> Appeal from Bremer Ci/rcuit Cov/rt. </p> <p>Ordinary action against the defendants as partners to recover damages for careless and unreasonable driving of a pair of horses and buggy, let by plaintiff to defendants, under a special agreement, whereby one horse was killed, the other injured and the buggy badly damaged. The defendants deny the partnership and all the averments of the petition. Trial to a jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the defendanté appeal.</p>

This action was originally commenced, in August, 1867, in a justice’s court, where, after two juries had disagreed, the third found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed to the district court, where one trial was had resulting in a disagreement of the jury.

.Appeal from Cerro Gordo District Cowrt. The defendant, William Collins, was indicted at the October term, 1870, of the district court of Cerro Gordo county, for “ an assault with intent to commit murder,” .to which he pleaded “not guilty,” was tried at a special term of the court in December, 1870, found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary of the State for the term of six years; from which sentence he appeals to this court.

Petition in equity to compel defendants to place upon record a deed from Icliabod R. Philpot and wife, to Thomas Steele for the S. W. \ of section 27, in town 100 north, range 14 west. Decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Action by tbe city of Dubuque, to recover $1,000, tbe amount .claimed to be due from tbe defendant for wharf-age, on account of lumber landed and placed upon tbe bank of a channel of tbe Mississippi river, within tbe limits of said city. Tbe circuit court gave judgment for defendant for costs. Tbe plaintiff appeals. Tbe further facts are stated in tbe opinion.

Indictment for murder. Tbe defendant was first tried in March, 1867, found guilty of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. He appealed to this court, and the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. The case is reported in 25th Iowa, 67, which see for a statement of the facts in full. Upon the second trial, in March, 1869, he was again found guilty of murder in the second degree and received a like sentence.

Action to recover money paid by plaintiff as surety for defendants. The plaintiff had judgment for the full amount claimed. The defendant, Catharine Howard, alone appeals.

Action on a promissory note and an account. The petition asked for an attachment, alleging as grounds therefor, “that the defendant is about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors.” An attachment bond was executed and the writ issued.

The plaintiffs filed tbeir petition in tbe district court of Benton county'on tbe 20tb of September, 1869, seeking tbe specific performance of a parol contract for tbe conveyance of certain real property in tbe village of Blairstown, in said county.

Action to recover certain real estate and damages for the alleged wrongful holding possession by defendants. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The further material facts are stated in the opinion.

This was an appeal to the circuit court from an assessment of damages by commissioners, appointed by the sheriff, under the right of way act, for taking a railroad right of way over the land of the plaintiff. On the trial in the circuit court there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $660, from which defendant appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

This action was brought to foreclose a title bond made November 27, 1866, by which A. C. Stickle bound himself to convey to Linus Pitcher the undivided half of the S. E. quarter of the S. E. quarter of section 15, township 85 north, of range 4 west, upon the payment to him by said Pitcher of $200, with ten per cent interest thereon, payable on the 27th November, 1869.

The defendant was prosecuted before a justice of tbe peace for tbe violation of a city ordinance.

Action originally brought before a justice of the peace to recover damages for the detention of the baggage of plaintiff by the defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed to the circuit.court, where, upon a trial, a verdict and judgment was again rendered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals to this court.

<p>1. Criminal law ¡ seduction : evidence. 'Where, in a prosecution for adultery, certain witnesses for defendant testified to acts of lewdness and immodesty on the part of the prosecutrix, it was held proper for the State to rebut this evidence by testimony showing that she was a young woman of good character for chastity, of correct and modest deportment, and that, until the occurrence with defendant, she was considered a virtuous girl. Day, J., dissenting.</p> <p>2.-ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AFTER CLOSE OF TRIAL. While it seems that section 3070 of the Bevision, authorizing the admission of evidence at any time before the final submission for the purpose of correcting an evident oversight or mistake, applies alone to civil causes, yet, under some circumstances and for some purposes, in criminal trials, a witness may properly be recalled after the evidence is closed, as where, for instance, a difference of opinion and misunderstanding as to what the witness testified to exists.</p> <p>3.-And where it does not affirmatively appear that such circumstances, favorable to the admission of the testimony, did not exist, ' it will be presumed that it was properly admitted.</p> <p>4.-error without prejudice. The admission of evidence that could have worked no prejudice to the defendant will not operate to reverse the case.</p> <p>5.-instructions: must be considered together. If, when considered together, the instructions in a criminal case are correct, the judgment therein will not be reversed because, when abstractly considered, a single instruction might be erroneous.</p>

Action to recover $251.25 for the work and labor of a boy and two teams on tbe Central Railroad of Iowa. Tbe petition alleges that tbe contract was made by defendant with plaintiff. Tbe answer sets np that defendant employed plaintiff’s son by a contract with him to do tbe work, to whom be bas made full payment. It is also alleged that plaintiff’s son held himself out as an adult, and that defendant bad good reason to believe, and did believe, him to be such.

Action at law to recover damages sustained by plaintiff, as is alleged in tbe petition, on account of the breach of a contract by defendant entered into between plaintiff and an agent of defendant, whereby defendant was bound to furnish cars on a certain day for the transportation of cattle of plaintiff to be, on that day, taken upon defendant’s railroad, at a station thereon in Benton county, and to be carried to the city of Chicago.

Action to recover for damage to crops and land of plaintiff by overflow of same on last day of August and 9th day of September, 1869, caused by the embankment of defendant’s road.

The plaintiff appealed to the Dubuque circuit court from an assessment by commissioners of damages, at $150, for the taking right of way for railroad purposes by defendant over certain described property.

Action to recover of defendants the value of 170 cords of fire wood, levied upon by defendant, Ansel E. Martin, sheriff of Delaware county, as the property of George Maxwell, by virtue of a writ of attachment in an action by plaintiff against said 'Maxwell, and which wood, it is alleged, was not forthcoming to answer the judgment recovered.

The petition alleges the payment to defendant, on account, of $500 ; and that, upon final settlement, the said payment was by mistake counted as $50, whereby there is due to plaintiff $450. The answer denies the allegations of the petition, and alleges that, on the final settlement between the parties, divers errors occurred, which are specifically set forth. The answer asks that the accounts may be re-stated, and that defendants may have judgment for the amount found due.

The plaintiff filed, in the Oerro Gordo district court, a petition, as follows: “Plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of $64. * * * And for cause thereof states that, on the 15th day of October, 1867, defendant set fire to prairie land near his residence in said county, and allowed said fire to escape from his control, whereby said fire spread to and consumed sixteen tons of hay, the property of plaintiff, of the value of $4 per ton, to plaintiff’s damage $64.” - The…

<p> AgypeoH from, ¡Black Ha/wk Circuit Gov/rt. </p> <p>On the 19th day of September, 1871, a complaint was filed in the circuit court of Black Hawk county, stating that one “Catherine A. Trexel, an unmarried female, was, on the 2d day of May, 1870, in said county, delivered of a male child; that said child was illegitimate and a bastard, and that M. L. Cotter was the father of said child.” Summons was issued and served, and at the October term the defendant appeared and filed his answer: 1. Denying that he was the father of said child; and 2. That on the 15th day of April, 1870, he settled with the said Catherine A. Trexel, the'mother of said illegitimate child, and paid her the sum of $100 in full for all claims for the support and maintenance of said child; that the same was paid and received as full and absolute payment for all claims which she or Black Hawk, or any other county in said State, had or might have on said defendant for the support or maintenance of the said illegitimate child.</p> <p>The plaintiff moved to strike out of the answer the second paragraph, because it was irrelevant and no legal defense; and because the said Catherine A. Trexel had no authority to make any such settlement, and if she did make it, the same is void as against plaintiff. The court sustained the motion and struck out the second paragraph, and the defendant duly excepted. At the next term of court the cause was tried, the defendant found guilty and ordered to pay $120 per year, payable quarterly, for the support of the child, and to execute a bond in the sum of $1,000, with approved surety, to save the county and all others from all charges on account thereof. The defendant excepted and appeals.</p>

Suit in equity to enforce a specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of land — the south-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section 36, township 72, range 8, west. The district court granted the prayer of the petitioner. The defendants appeal.

<p> Appeal from Hamilton District Court. </p> <p>Certiorari to review tbe proceedings of the board of supervisors of Hamilton county, resulting in the establishment of a road.</p> <p>Plaintiff, claiming to be affected by and interested in the action of the board, brought this proceeding in the district court, where judgment was rendered sustaining the final order establishing the road; he now appeals to this court.</p>

Action to recover upon the. following order, made by the county judge of Jasper county: — “Jesse Bickman, administrator of the estate of Patrick Malley, deceased, v. Thomas Stanton. This matter now coming on to be tried, tiiis day set for hearing the same, plaintiff appearing by S. G-. Smith, his attorney, and defendant not appearing, and the cause being tried, Samuel Allen and S. G-.

<p>1. Assignment! right of action. All instruments are under our statute (Rev., § 1796) assignable, and the assignee may maintain an action in his own name thereon.</p> <p>2. Bond! action. Where a bond is given to an officer for the security of a particular individual, suit may be brought thereon in the name of the person intended to be secured. Rev., § 2787.</p> <p>3. Oontraot; construction : bond : mistake of law. A mistake on the part of a person executing an instrument as to its legal effect, or that it has an effect different from that intended, cannot avail to avoid that construction of the instrument which the language used and the rules of law as applied thereto require.</p> <p>'4. -So held, in respect to a bond given to an officer for the release of attached property, and which was intended as a delivery bond, but which bound the obligor to pay the judgment rendered against the attachment defendant.</p>

Ordinary action upon two promissory notes for $100 each, made by defendants (Howe as principal and Chase as surety) to one Bishop, and by him indorsed to plaintiff, who is' cashier of a bank.

On the 8th day of April, 1856, the defendant executed to the plaintiff, in Portsmouth, Ohio, both being then citizens of that State, where the plaintiff has still continued to reside, and still resides, his promissory note for $101.50, payable three months after date; no part has been paid.

Appeal-from Ma/rion Oweuit Qowrt. The plaintiff avers in his petition, in substance, that the defendants were, in the month of November, 1869, the owners of, and were operating, a threshing machine in Marion county; that the tumbling rod, knuckles and joints of the same were not boxed; that the plaintiff was an employee with said machine, and, while engaged there•with in threshing grain, he was caught by the tumbling rod and knuckles of the machine and thereby bruised and…

The plaintiff sued on a promissory note. The defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note, and pleaded a set-off for taxes paid to the treasurer of Wapello county for the use of plaintiff, under the township railroad tax law of 1868, alleging that he paid said taxes under protest, and that the act aforesaid was unconstitutional and void. A tender of the balance due to the plaintiff was pleaded, and the money brought into court.

. The plaintiff claims of defendant damages for tbe alleged killing of a colt by defendant, at a point on its road where defendant had a right to fence, and occasioned, it is alleged, by reason of the neglect of defendants to maintain and keep in repair said fence.

Ayypeal from, Lee District Court. The plaintiffs filed their petition, stating: “That on the 12th day of January, 1870, ¥m. Tackaberry, B. S. Yan Keuren and J. E. Foreman, at Keokuk, Iowa, entered into copartnership, under the firm name of Wm. Tackaberry & Co., to carry on the wholesale grocery business in the city of Keokuk.

The plaintiff instituted an action in a justice’s court against defendant, serving upon him a notice as follows: “You are hereby notified that James Shea claims of you the sum of $78, on account for labor done on behalf of James McMerchy, and unless you appear,” etc. The substance of this claim was entered upon the justice’s docket.

The petition claims $200, as the value of a mare loaned by petitioner to defendant, without hire, and killed by negligence of defendant. The defendant denies negligence, and alleges that he received the mare at the special instance and request of plaintiff, under an agreement that he should keep, use and work her in the same manner as he would one of his own horses. Yerdiet and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Action for the recovery of $173.53, alleged balance due upon a promissory note. Defendants deny tbeir liability upon the note, and claim, by way of cross-demand, the sum of $4,111.20, for wheat, rye and seeds shipped plaintiffs. The replication alleges payment for the articles set up in cross-demand, the alleged payment consisting in part in the payment of a draft drawn by defendants upon plaintiffs for $1,000. Trial by jury; verdict for defendants for $879.68.

Plaintiffs brought an action in attachment, before a justice of the peace, against defendant, W. II. Adams, and thereupon attached J. M. Brunt, clerk of the district court, as garnishee, who answered that he held $138.30, paid to him as clerk on a judgment in favor of W. H. and D. H. Adams. Judgment was rendered in the action against W. H. Adams.

Action upon a draft drawn in Fairfield, July 9, 1870, by George Armstrong, upon defendants, for $1,000, payable to Mayers & Rich on the 15tb day of August following. The instrument, which is not negotiable, was accepted by defendants and assigned to plaintiff. Defense that plaintiff is not the owner of the draft, that an acceptance of the draft was procured through fraud, and without any consideration.

In this case plaintiff filed a claim against the estate of William Pollock, deceased, based upon an account for board and lodging, office rent and care of horse from 1855 to November 27, 1869, and for special care of decedent for ten years previous to bis decease. Each different cause of claim is charged in one item and not in separate items charged at different dates. Included in the claim are two items for money advanced for the payment of two notes given by decedent.

In the mouth of September, 1868, one Edward Laughlin was in the employment of the defendant as baggage-master and brakeman, on the Dubnque and Sioux City railroad, which was operated by the defendant as lessee.

Petition in fifteen counts claiming the various sums alleged to be due upon warrants and treasurer’s certificates of indebtedness. ' ‘ The defendant, for answer, “ admits the claims set forth in counts 1, 9,12,13, 14, 15, but alleges that the warrants and certificates declared upon in counts'2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, were made and delivered under a contract between S. B. McCall, county judge of said county of Boone, and the plaintiff, for grading and improving a…

Action upon two promissory notes, each in the following form: “ $100. Knoxville, Iowa, Sept. 8, 1869. “ One year after date, for value received, I promise to pay A. S. Jones & Co., or bearer, the sum of $100, with ten per cent interest until paid. 'If not paid when due, and suit is brought thereon, I hereby agree to pay collection and attorney fees therefor. “ Joseph Horr.” Plaintiff is the holder of these instruments.

Suit iu equity by the debtor, under a deed of trust, to restrain the trustee from selling the trust property; the plaintiff averring that a much less sum, which he had tendered, was due than that claimed by* the trustee, and for which he was proceeding to sell. The cause was sent to a referee to take the evidence and report the same with his conclusions.

The defendant was indicted for obstructing a highway. Upon trial to a jury, he was' found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $1 and costs. He appeals. The further necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Action by a mortgagee against tbe grantor of tbe mortgagor to recover upon the covenants in tbe deed under which tbe mortgagor held bis title. Tbe defense was that tbe defendant, grantor, bad paid and satisfied bis grantee, tbe mortgagor, for tbe breach of bis covenants, before this action was brought.

Action, by tbe husband, for divorce, on the ground of the adultery of the wife; answer in denial; also, a cross petition by the wife, for divorce and alimony, on the ground of inhuman treatment, such as to endanger her life. Trial to the court, who found that the allegations of the cross-petition were untrue; that the defendant, the wife, had been guilty of adultery subsequent to her marriage with plaintiff, and granted to him a divorce on that ground.

Suit in equity to enjoin the board of supervisors from further proceeding in the purchase of certain real estate and the erection thereon of a jail building, for the reason that the cost of the same together was exceeding $5,000, and no vote of the people had been taken therefor. A temporary injunction was allowed.

Action upon two judgments obtained by plaintiff against the defendant in a justice’s court in Marion county, Illinois. Answer in denial. Tbe following is a copy of tbe judgments and authentication, annexed as an exhibit to plaintiff’s petition, to wit: “ State of Illinois, Marion county, ss.: Justices’ court, S. J. Johnson, J. P. Railroad Bank v. Thomas J. Evans and Warren W. Smalley; accepted draft, $99.05.

Ordinary action by plaintiffs against' Shubael L. Taylor, upon an acceptance for $561.95. A writ of attachment was asked for and issued;'it was placed in the sheriff’s hands on the 26th day of October, 1869, and on the same day was levied by him upon the east half of the north-east quarter, and the north-west quarter of the north-east quarter of section 4, township 77, range 38 west, as the property of the defendant.

Suit in equity to correct an erroneous description of property in a mortgage, and to foreclose the same. The district court granted the relief asked by plaintiff, and the defendant, Lucinda Stout, appeals.

Appeal-from Lucas District Qowrt. Action in equity to quiet title to about thirty acres of land in Lucas county.

Action of replevin for certain quarried stone. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Tbe defendant appeals.

This action was commenced on the 3d day of March, 1810, to foreclose a mortgage upon the south-east quarter and the east half of the north-east quarter of section 19, township 85, range 13 west, in Tama county, Iowa.

Action at law upon a bill of lading. Tbe petition alleges that, on tbe 2d day of October, 1868, one W. N. Sturges delivered to defendant, a common carrier, a large amount of grain and other produce, to be transported from Keokuk to St. Louis, and delivered to certain consignees; that the produce was shipped upon a barge called the Frank Lewis, towed by a steamboat cabed the George D. Palmer; that, through want of care and dihgenee on the part of defendant and its servants,…

Defendants were convicted and fined in tbe sum of $50 upon an indictment charging tbe offense in tbe following words: u Tbe said William C. Allen and James Allen on tbe 1st day of January, A. D. 1870, and on each day from that time until tbe finding of this indictment in tbe county of Madison aforesaid, did establish, continue and use a building and place for tbe purpose, and with tbe intent of owning, 'keeping and selling intoxicating liquors therein within tbe State of…

<p> Ajppeal from Page Oircmt Oov/rt. </p> <p>Thomas H. Euth applied to the circuit court of Page county for permission to sell intoxicating liquors for medicinal, mechanical, sacramental and culinary purposes. Permission was refused, and thereupon he appeals to this court.</p>

Plaintive filed, in the office of the auditor of Mahaska county, an application claiming $500 damages, caused by the location of a road upon his land. The board of supervisors appointed appraisers, who reported plaintiff’s damages at $150. The report was confirmed, and the damages as reported allowed, and paid to the auditor. Upon an appeal to the circuit court, ¿here was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in a like amount.

. Action of replevin to recover the possession of certain cattle. Defense that the cattle were taken by defendant while trespassing upon his land, and within his inclosure protected by a lawful fence, and were in his possession as trespassing animals. The answer claims judgment for a return of the property, and also for a judgment for the amount of defendant’s damages and expenses sustained on account of the trespass of the cattle. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff.

The complainant was fined in the Polk district court for contempt. The only record in the cause is as foEows: “ And now, on this day, this cause came up for hearing, the defendant appearing in person, and the court fined said defendant in the sum of $25 and the costs of the four several cases herein, for contempt.

The defendant was indicted for the seduction of Sarah C. Jones, found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for twelve months and to pay a fine of $200. He appeals. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Plaintiff avers that he sold to defendant, Bringolf, a judgment which he owned, against John W. Berry and A. J. Berry, amounting to about the sum of $337, with six per cent interest from about April 5, 1868, the consideration being the one-half of the amount of said judgment, with the interest due thereon at the time of said sale, and asks judgment for $180, with interest at six per cent from February 2, 1870.

<p>1. Corporation muncipal: streets: collection op special taxes. By chapter 14, acts 13th General Assembly, muncipal corporations organized under chapter 51 of the Revision are authorized to certify special assessments or taxes levied upon lots for the purpose of improving the streets in front thereof, to the county auditor, to be collected and paid over by the treasurer the same as other taxes are; and to this end the treasurer is empowered in case of non-payment to sell the lots on which such assessments are made the same as other property is sold for the non-payment of taxes.</p> <p>2.-act op 1870. Chapter 65, acts of the 13th General Assembly, was not intended as a limitation upon the power conferred by said chapter 51 of the Revision as to the manner of levying such special taxes. It is according held, that the assessment and levy might be made under the authority of a resolution of the city council as well as by an ordinance thereof.</p> <p>3.-improvement op streets. The city may, in the exercise of a proper discretion, authorize the grading and macadamizing of less than the whole width of a street, and assess the cost thereof on the abutting lots.</p> <p>4.-lots having double prontage. A corner lot, having a double frontage, may be properly assessed for the cost of improving the streets the entire extent thereof.</p> <p>5.-But even if such assessment were, as to one of the fronts, unauthorized, a court of equity would not restrain the collection of the amount assessed, nor grant any relief, unless the party complaining pay or tender the portion legally due.</p>

Action to recover possession of certain real property described in plaintiff’s petition.

Plaintiffs allege that the Dubuque and Pacific Railway Company, in consideration of having taken the soil, sand and gravel from nine' acres of land belonging to plaintiffs, in the village of Manchester, agreed that they would cause a switch to be put in the side track of their road, at or near the crossing of the line of Wayne street, in said village, 250 feet of side track to be laid on tbe north side of the main track, and that they would allow the plaintiffs to build upon…

Action in chancery to subject certain lands, the legal title of which is in defendant, Clarissa A. Brainard, to a judgment recovered by defendant George E. Pratt, against defendant S. E. Brainard. A decree was rendered in favor of plaintiff. S. E. and Clarissa Brainard appeal. Tbe facts of the case will be found in- tbe opinion.

On the 5th day of March,'1868, the plaintiff filed a substituted petition in equity averring that one Anderson M. Newman was seized in fee of the west half of south-east quarter, and south-east quarter of north-west quarter, and north-east quarter of south-west quarter, section 24, township 89, north of range 2 west.

Action of right for a slip of ground alleged to constitute a part of lot 3, block 27, in the city of Davenport, being upon the east side thereof, and eighteen inches wide at the south end, and two feet wide at the north end. Answer in denial, and a plea of the statute of limitations. Trial by jury. Yerdict for plaintiff, of which he remitted part, so as to claim a strip seventeen inches wide at the south end and nineteen inches wide at the north end.

Action upon tbe covenants of a deed for lands. Trial to tbe court without a jury, and judgment for plaintiff Defendant appeals.

Plaintiff filed his petition, claiming for labor, hauling and board, annexing bill of particulars with sixty-five items, aggregating $1,975.85. Defendants filed their answer, denying thirty-five items and admitting the balance; and set up a cross action, for groceries, feed, and orders paid to others, annexing bill of particulars, with four hundred and eighty-five items, aggregating $1,830.20, and claiming balance of $50.

Action to recover damages sustained by Lerretta Collins, tbe wife of tbe other plaintiff, from an injury resulting from a fall caused by tbe accumulation of ice and snow in tbe street of defendant. There was a verdict and judgment in tbe sum of $15,000 for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Tbe facts of tbe case, necessary for an understanding of tbe points ruled, are stated in tbe opinion.

Appeal from Polk District Court. Action in chancery. Decree for plaintiff; defendants appeal. The facts are set out in the opinion.

This action was commenced on the 6th. day of January, 1869, for the purpose of enjoining the defendant from laying off into lots, selling the same for building purposes, and erecting buildings thereon, a certain block or square in the city of Pella, known, and platted on the recorded plat of said city, as “ Garden square,” and from diverting said square from its alleged original purpose and use, as intended by the proprietor of the city when the same was laid off, platted,…

Claus Rroy was ia the employ of defendant as a brakeman, and, as is claimed, while in the discharge of his duty, and in the exercise of ordinary care, was killed by the carelessness and negligence of defendant. Plaintiff, the administratrix, sues for the injury to the estate. Jury trial. Yerdiet and judgment for plaintiff for $3,000. Motion for new trial overruled. Defendant appeals. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

<p> Appeal from, Henry District Cowrt. </p> <p>This action is brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, the college, on twenty acres of land, in- ' eluding the college building, made to secure a promissory note, which reads as follows:</p> <p>“ Henry County, Iowa, Sept. 1,1857.</p> <p>“ Four months after date the Iowa Wesleyan University promise to pay Alexander Lee, or order, the sum of $2,000 and interest from date, at the rate of ten per cent, per ' annum, for value received, for which a mortgage is given.</p> <p>“(Signed) D. Worthington,</p> <p> “President of Boa/rd of Corporators. </p> <p>“Thos. E. Corkhill,</p> <p>“ Secretary of Corporators.”</p> <p>The plaintiff became the owner and holder of the note and mortgage on the 9th of December, 1857, and several payments were made to him thereon, between that time and the commencement of this suit.</p> <p>The defense set up and relied upon, in the court below, was, that the claim of plaintiff had been fully settled and paid off in property, which the plaintiff received in full satisfaction and discharge of his claim. .The plaintiff. amended his pleading by averring, in substance, that while urging payment of his claim from the corporation, its agents proposed to deed to him certain real property which had been donated to the college, to assist in paying its debts, to the amount of sixty per centum of plaintiff’s claim, if plaintiff would remit or donate the balance to defendant; that the lands proposed to be deeded to the plaintiff were the following, viz.: Certain lands in Allegheny city, Pennsylvania, donated to the college by one John M. Gregg, represented by defendant’s agent to be worth, in cash, $750; a lot in Bellfontaine, Ohio, donated by Joshua Martin, represented to be worth, in cash, $250; and eighty acres of land in Fremont county, Iowa, donated by Nelson Lathrop, and represented to be worth $350. That the defendant, by its agent, represented said lands to be worth said several sums in cash; and that deeds therefor should be immediately made and papers exchanged within a reasonable time.</p> <p>That having no knowledge of the situation or value of said lands, and relying upon the truthfulness of the representations made to him by the agent of the college, and reposing special trust and confidence therein and in the character of said agent, he being a minister of the gospel of the same church with plaintiff, and being appealed to by said agent as such member for assistance to the college, which was under the patronage of said church, plaintiff consented to the proposed arrangement, and authorized his attorney at that time, in 1861, to have the same carried out; that said arrangement has never -been carried out; that the land represented to be in Allegheny City, Pa., is in fact not worth over $50, being a small lot of ground, 24 feet by 100 feet, situated out of said city and in no respect as represented.</p> <p>That the same is true of the land in Bellfontaine, Ohio, it not being worth over 40 %er centiom of what it was represented.</p> <p>That no deed was ever executed to plaintiff or any one for him for the land in Iowa.</p> <p>The plaintiff also pleads that he was at the time of the above arrangement residing, and still resides, in the State of Missouri, and that the war of the rebellion and the necessity of protecting his property there so occupied his time and attention that'he was for a long time prevented from looking after and ascertaining the true situation and value of said property, and that, by reason of the false rep-' resentations of the defendant as to the situation and value thereof, and the defendant’s failure to fulfill its part of the agreement, plaintiff is not bound thereby.</p> <p>The material issues arise upon these averments in plain-tiff’s amended petition, the defendant confessing and avoiding some and denying all other allegations therein.,</p> <p>The pleadings are very voluminous, and it would occupy too much space to set them out in full. The above statement of them is sufficient to give a proper understanding of the material issues.</p> <p>The cause was tried by the court and a decree rendered for the defendant canceling the note and mortgage, and releasing and discharging the defendant from all liability thereon.</p> <p>The plaintiff appeals.</p>

Action to recover for stock injured and killed by the engine and train on tbe defendant’s railroad. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict for $410, and judgment for the plaintiff for $390. The defendant appeals. The further necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

<p>1. Mortgage: foreclosure: parties. A purchaser of mortgaged premises, whose deed is recorded at the time of the institution of foreclosure proceedings by the mortgagee, will not be bound by the decree unless made a party to the proceeding.</p> <p>2.-But his right in such case is simply to redeem by payment of the mortgage debt, and not to have judgment for possession of the premises.</p>

The plaintiff sued James Galliglier and his wife, on three causes of action stated in separate divisions of the petition.

<p>New trial: improper, action op attorney. The action of the court below, in granting a new trial on the ground of the misconduct or improper action of the attorney of the opposite party in presenting his case to the jury, will not be disturbed unless an abuse of the discretion confided to the trial court in such matters is clearly shown.</p>

The plaintiff claims of defendant damages for the alleged publication of a libel. The defendant for answer alleges that, “ at and before the commencement of said action, said plaintiff was and now is married to one William M. Pancoast, a resident, as he is informed and believes, of the city of- San Francisco, of the State of California, who was then and is now her lawful husband and still living.

Ajrpeal from Henry District Gov/rt. Action in ordinary, upon a negotiable promissory note made by defendant to Cory & Stone, and by -them indorsed to plaintiff. The defendant, by his answer, denies the execution of the note, and avers that it was obtained by fraud, and that plaintiff took the same with knowledge of its fraudulent existence. There was a trial to a jury; verdict for defendant, and judgment accordingly. The plaintiff- appeals.

The plaintiffs filed their petition for partition of certain lands of which Lyman Richardson died seized, to wit: The west ■§■, south-east section 36, township 66, range 12; north-east J, south-east \, section 36; south-west J, north-east £, section 36, township 69, range 12, and southwest £, north-west £, section 6, township 68, range 11.

<p>Criminal law: perjury. In order to convict for perjury it must be shown that the defendant willfully and corruptly swore respecting a material matter. The materiality must be established by evidence, and cannot be left to presumption or inference.</p>

Defendant was indicted, under the act for the suppression of intemperance (Rev., chap. 61) for beeping a nuisance “'in establishing, continuing and using a building and place for the purpose and with the intent of owning, keeping and selling intoxicating liquors,” and in selling such, liquors therein. Upon a verdict of guilty, he was fined in the sum of $1,000, and now appeals to this court.

<p>1. Marriage: breach of contract: pleading and evidence. Where, in an action to recover damages for the renunciation of a marriage contract, the pleading laid the breach as on the 11th of November, it was held, that evidence that it occurred on the 15th of said month was sufficient to support the verdict.</p> <p>2. - EFFECT OF RENUNCIATION BEFORE TIME FIXED.. A Contract to marry at a certain time may be treated, as broken by the declaration or renunciation of the opposite party before the time fixed upon has elapsed, and the plaintiff entitled to maintain an action as for a breach of the contract forthwith.</p> <p>3.- PECUNIARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT. While in Such an action the question whether the defendant will, in view of his pecuniary circumstances, be able to pay the damages awarded, should have no influence with the jury in estimating their verdict, they may, nevertheless, properly consider the pecuniary as well as the social standing of the defendant, as tending to show the condition in life which the plaintiff would have secured by a consummation of the marriage contract.</p> <p>4.-subsequent offer to perform. An offer on the part of the defendant to fulfill the marriage contract after a refusal, or a continuance of the offer in open court upon the trial, on condition that plaintiff would dismiss the suit, should not be regarded by the jury either as a defense or in mitigation of damages.</p> <p>5. Evidence:,interest. The feeling or interest manifested by a witness should be considered by the jury as affecting his credibility, and for no other purpose.</p>

Action to foreclose a mortgage, default and judgment against the mortgagor. Hurlbutt & Edsall claim to be judgment creditors, and answer that the defendant, Bod-fish is insolvent, and that the contract between him and plaintiff was usurious. To the second count of the answer, alleging usury, etc., plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and Hurlbutt & Edsall appeal, and assign this ruling as error.

Action upon a policy of insurance issued to Thompson & Co., and assigned to plaintiff. The policy is upon a two-story frame building, situated upon the north side of the public square in Fort Dodge, Iowa, and occupied as a paint shop. So far as the facts of the case can be gathered from the abstract submitted, they are that one Gr. W. Henry owned the real estate upon which the building in question was subsequently erected, and leased the same to J. E. Dain by written lease.

Action to declare illegal and void a certain tax levied upon the property of plaintiff by the municipal authorities of defendant, and to enjoin its collection. By the judgment of the district court, the portion of the tax levied upon certain lots in the city was declared illegal and its collection restrained. The petition, as to the tax upon the bridge, was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Action upon a bond made April 23, 1870, by T. C. Snow, as principal, and B. N. Kinyon as surety, to the Howe Machine Company.

The plaintiff alleges that, ou the 8th day of June, 1855, he sold to B. F. Lindley and J. A. Lindley six hundred and forty acres of land for the consideration of $3,200, of which the defendants paid in all the sum of $1,420.43 and agreed to pay the balance in three equal annual installments, when the land would sell for $10 per acre, and also to pay, on the 25th day of December, 1855, the value of the improvements on the land, and annually to pay interest at the rate of six…

The plaintiffs petition claims of the defendants the snm of $600 principal and interest alleged to be due on a promissory note, and prays for the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure the note. It also claims the further sum of $50 as attorney fee for collecting the same.

Action of replevin to recover the possession of certain growing corn, and two stacks of oats and five of wheat. The property had been seized upon execution against one S. D. Cone by the sheriff, and the action was originally brought against that officer; the creditor, Tibbals, was substituted as defendant. Plaintiff claims the title of the property under a sale by Cone to him. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

<p>1. Administrator filing of claims: statute of limitation. A claim against an estate is not barred by the statute requiring claims of that class to be filed and proved within one year and a half from the giving of notice of the administrator’s appointment, if it be filed within the time prescribed though not sworn to until after. The provisions of the statute respecting the oath being directory, it may be administered after the filing. Following Goodrich v. Oort-rad, 24 Iowa, 254.</p> <p>2. - Where a claim was filed but not proved within the statutory period, because of the case being continued for the purpose of perfecting service and because of a re-trial being ordered at a subsequent term, it was held, that the claim was not barred.</p> <p>8. Practice: error without prejudice. An erroneous ruling which under the facts of the case, could have worked no prejudice to the party complaining, constitutes no sufficient ground for reversal.</p> <p>4. Action; surety: sale of personal property. Where F. was induced, through fraudulent representations of the vendor, to purchase a patent right, and W. was also induced thereby to deposit with the vendor a government bond as security that F. would pay the amount agreed to be given in accordance with the terms of the contract, it was held, the vendor having converted the bond to his own use, and the patent right proving worthless, that W. might recover the amount of his bond in an action against the vendor therefor.</p> <p>5.-Held, also, under the facts of the case, that the failure on the part of F. to tender back to the vendor a deed for the patent right, immediately upon the discovery of the fraud, did not affect W.’s right of recovery.</p> <p>6. Administrator: judgment: practice. The rendition of a personal judgment against the administrator, in the enforcement of a claim against the estate, is erroneous; but he cannot avail himself of the error on appeal to the supreme court unless a motion was made to correct it in the court below and there overruled.</p>

Appealfrom Greene District Court. Action in. equity to set aside a tax deed held by tbe defendant for three quarter sections of land, of which the plaintiff claims to be the owner in fee simple. Trial and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Tbe further facts are stated in tbe opinion.

Appeal fom Polk District Qowrt. Action by an administratrix to recover damages for tbe death of her husband, Dennis O’Keefe, alleged to have been hilled by being run over'on the defendant’s road, through the negligence of the defendant’s agents and employees. Defense in denial, and also that the death was caused by the drunkenness and negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,000.

. Action in chancery to set aside a judgment of the district court of Story county, to avoid a certain sale of lands thereon and the sheriff’s deed made under such sale, and to quiet the title to lands involved in the action. Plaintiff’s petition was dismissed and he appeals to this court. The facts appear in the opinion.

Action in chancery. The petition alleges that plaintiff, with a brother, inherited from their father certain real estate in Jefferson county; that at the death of their father they were minors, and one William L. Hamilton was appointed and duly qualified as the guardian of their property; that in 1835 the county court made an order directing the sale of the real estate in question, and that under this order the guardian, in 1861, sold the interest of plaintiff and her…

Action upon a negotiable promissory note for $144.78 made by defendant to John Walker or order, of date March 4, 1870, and payable October 1, 1870. Upon the note were the following indorsements : “ By order of court I hereby transfer this note to John Morford or order. S. P. McOaddon,' sheriff. By A. M. Harris, deputy.” Also, “ waiving demand, protest and notice, I hereby assign the within note to Henry Earhart for value received, and guarantee the payment of the same.

Action on a promissory note made by the defendants jointly. The defendant, Margaret N. Smith, answered that at time of making the note she was the wife of O. H. Smith who was then and still is living. The cause was tried by the court, without a jury, who made the following finding of facts: “ 1. Tbe defendants are, and were at the execution of the note, husband and wife, living and cohabiting together.” “ 2.

Action in replevin for fifty cords of wood. Trial to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for defendants for the value of the wood taken under the writ of replevin. The plaintiffs appeal. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

On the 8th day of July, 1870, an information was filed before the mayor of Earlham, accusing the defendant with the offense of selling intoxicating liquors, as follows: “Eor that the defendant, on the 11th day of June, 1870, at the town of Earlham, in the county aforesaid, did sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws of the State of Iowa.” .

On the 4th day of November, 1869, a special execution issued to the sheriff of Boone county, for the sale of certain lands of the defendant, Thomas A. Maddox, under a judgment of foreclosure of mortgage.

The plaintiff claims to be the owner of an unsatisfied judgment which he obtained against O’Brien county, in the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Iowa. A tax was levied by the proper authorities of the county to pay the judgment, and a 'certain amount of money has been collected thereon, by the defendant, as treasurer of the county, which, it is alleged, he refuses to pay upon said judgment.

Action to recover $1,000 and interest, from July 1, 1865, for money paid by plaintiff to tbe defendant for ten shares of tbe stock of a pretended “Tionesta Land & Oil Company of Yenango county, Pennsylvania,” which money was paid upon tbe false and fraudulent representations of tbe defendant, that said company was duly incorporated and owned property of tbe value of $100,000, consisting of tbe best and most productive oil lands of that district; whereas, there was no such…

The city of Ottumwa instituted proceeding under Revision, sections 1065-1067, in the circuit court of the proper county, to condemn certain lands owned by defendant for the purpose of a street. A jury, appointed by the circuit court, assessed the compensation to be paid defendant and returned their report and verdict, which were approved by the court.

The defendants, Wolf, Carpenter & Co., a partnership by that name and style, were sued in tbe firm name. Tbe original notice was served on tbe wife of Wolf, one of tbe partners, but not on any of tbe members of tbe firm personally, nor upon any agent of tbe firm. A default' was entered against tbe partnership upon this service, and upon their motion, at the same term, it was set aside, from which ruling plaintiff appeals.

Petition in equity to set aside a tax sale of the undivided J of the south-east ¿ of section 32, township 8é range 45. In addition to many alleged defects and irregularities in the sale, of wbicb there is no proof, it is averred that tbe advertisement and sale of tbe said quarter section of land were in gross.

This action was brought to recover damages caused by the killing of the plaintiff’s intestate, an employee of the defendant, by the wrongful and negligent act of defendant. The defendant answered.

On tbe 4th day of January, 1871, tbe plaintiff filed in tbe district court of Iowa county, a petition, claiming of said county the sum of $2,735 upon forty coupons of railroad bonds. On the day of the filing of the petition, N. B. Holbrook, Orson Harrington and J. W. Westbrook, supervisors of Iowa county, together with the attorney of plaintiff, signed and filed an agreement for judgment for the sum claimed, with stipulations as to the mode of enforcing the same.

. Action to recover the possession of certain lands. The original petition alleges that the title of the lands is in plaintiff, and that defendants unlawfully keep him out of possession thereof, and have committed waste thereon. Judgment is asked for the possession of the lands, and for the damage sustained by plaintiff. The answer sets up that Rebecca Kynett, one of the defendants, is the owner in fee of the lands in controversy.

On the 21st day of December, 1863, the board of supervisors of Page county, at a special meeting adopted a resolution that the county would pay a bounty of $50 to each volunteer who should enlist in the United States military service, to the credit of the quota of that county “ under the (then) present call, or to fill a/ny call that might thereafter le made? One-half of this sum was payable on the 1st day of July, 1864, the other half at a subsequent time.

Action in ordinary to recover damages for being pnt off a train by one of tbe defendant’s conductors. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for $500. The defendant appeals. The facts are set forth in the opinion.

Action in chancery. The cause was sent to a referee, and, upon his report, on the issues of law and fact, a decree for plaintiff was rendered. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion. Defendant appeals.

<p> Appeal from Mills District Gowrt. </p> <p>The petition states that in 1854 the plaintiff and the banking firm of Green, Thomas & Go., of Burlington, Iowa, jointly employed W. L. Hamilton to select and enter, for them and on their account, western lands of the United States, furnishing him with the necessary funds and. land warrants; that on the 20th day of October, 1854, said Hamilton, with the funds thus furnished to him, entered at the Council Bluffs’ land office, three of the forty acre tracts of the land in controversy in his own name; and some time thereafter entered the other forty in the same manner,’ paying fór the - same with the funds thus furnished; that the certificates of such entries were assigned by Hamilton before patents weie issued thereon to Edward H. Thomas, one of the partners in the firm of Green, Thomas & Co., which assignments Were ■ duly acknowledged’before the register of the land office; that on August 23, 1858, •'upon’íá settlement' and division between the plaintiff and Green, Thomas & Co., said E. H. Thomas conveyed'' to’ the- plaintiff/ among- other lands, these four forty acre tracts by quitclaim deed, which was duly acknowledged and recorded; that the plaintiff has ever since paid the taxes and exercised complete ownership over the same; that by some accident the patents for three of'the forties''wére not issued'-iñdhe'haine of Thomas as they should have been/ bfit in the name-of said Hamilton, that for the other forty being correctly issued in the name of E; Hr Thomas,-assignee. ■* •••''-</p> <p>The petition further states that in September, 1867,’Ham-ilton and Bickabaugh conspiring together to defraud the plaintiff, the said Hamilton pretending to be the owner of said lands, conveyed the same by deed of general warranty to Bickabaugh, and that- the latter had actual- knowledge of plaintiff’s ownership.' ■ ■■■ - " -</p> <p>Issue being joined, the--cause was referred Upon the pleadings, exhibits and depositions, and the report of the referee is- to the effect that all the averments» of the > petition are true, except that Bickabaugh had not sufficient actual notice of plaintiff’s title to be put upon inquiry.</p> <p>His conclusions of law are:</p> <p>1. That plaintiff is entitled to a 'decree quieting the title in him to the forty, the patent for which was issued in the name of E. H. Thomas.</p> <p>2. To a judgment for the amount of the unpaid purchase-money due from Rickabaugb on bis purchase from Hamilton.</p> <p>3. That Rickabaugb is entitled to a decree for tbe other three forties, patented in tbe name of Hamilton.</p> <p>4. That tbe costs should be apportioned among tbe parties.</p> <p>Exceptions were filed by both parties, which were overruled by tbe court, and a decree entered in accordance with tbe referee’s report. Plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from Pottcmattomie Pist/riet Gowrt. </p> <p>The petition states that in July, 1869, plaintiffs leased to defendants a hotel known as the “ Ogden House ” then being erected in Council Bluffs, to be completed and delivered to the lessees and accepted by them on or before the 25th day of December, 1869, for the term of five years, at a rental of $10,000 per annum, which was to be paid monthly, in sums of $833.33, in advance. The lessees to pay $2,000, at the time of signing the lease as earnest money, which, with the exception of the first month’s rent, was to be refunded to them on their taking possession under the lease. The lessees agreed to furnish said hotel in good, first-class style, and introduce therein all modern improvements and appliances in furniture necessary to the keeping a first-class house, and were particularly required to carpet the rooms in the second and third stories with Brussels carpet.</p> <p>The petition sets forth that the house was completed and that the lessees accepted the same and took possession by the time stipulated in the lease, and that, on or before the 12th day of January, 1870, the house was furnished with hotel furniture to be used therein for hotel purposes, and a memorandum thereof is attached to the petition; that on or about the 12th day of January, 1870, which was before one month of the term of the lease had expired, the defendants — the lessees — being largely indebted to divers persons, and a month’s rent about to become due, they, defendants, with the design to hinder and delay creditors and prevent plaintiffs from collecting the rents about to become due on the leased premises, made a pretended bill of sale of all the furniture on the premises to one William Porter-field for the pretended consideration of $19,400; that said Porterfield had full knowledge of the object and purpose of such pretended sale; that there was no consideration whatever paid by or intended to be paid by him; that said bill of sale also apparently transferred the lease made by plaintiffs with a like fraudulent intent; that there was a confidential understanding that the hotel should be carried on the same as before the pretended transfer was made, and that the same was in fact so carried on.</p> <p>It is also averred that when this suit was commenced there was $2,500 of rent then due; that the defendants refused to pay any rents then due and declared they would not pay any to become due in the future; that the defendants have no visible property except the furniture before mentioned, which is of the value of about $13,000, and that each of defendants is insolvent; that said defendants have and are still offering to sell the said hotel furniture to divers persons, to be^ removed from the premises and out of the State, and have threatened to remove the same out of the State and beyond the reach of the plaintiffs, and where the same would be rendered difficult, if not impossible, of identification. The petition prays an injunction to restrain the defendants from removing or disposing of the personal property in the hotel until the end of the term of the lease and until the rents shall all be paid, etc.</p> <p>An order for an injunction was granted in vacation and, a,t the next term of the court thereafter, defendants filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on substantially the following grounds:</p> <p>1. There is no equity in the petition. 2. The plaintiffs have no lien upon the property used upon the demised premises for rents not yet due. 3. The plaintiffs have a complete and adequate remedy at law. This motion was sustained and plaintiffs appeal.</p>

Action upon a promissory note for $66.57, dated January 1, 1860. Defense that tbe note was made and delivered on the 1st day of January, 1860, which was Sunday The cause was submitted to the court on the following agreed statement of facts, to wit: That said note was made and delivered in the State of Missouri, on the 1st day of January, 1860, which was the first day of the week, Sunday. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

Appal from Jefferson District Oowrt. Action for the recovery of the value of a bull, upon an agreed statement of facts as follows, to wit: “ That on August 21, 1868, plaintiff owned a bull of the value of $50; that said bull was running at large by the permission of the owner, the plaintiff, and was run over at said Jefferson county by one of defendant’s railroad trains, while thus running at large, and at a place on said road where defendant had a right and authority to…

Action in ordinary upon an account, brought on the 29th day of September, 1869, for sawing lumber, etc., done for and furnished to the defendant, for the repair and maintenance of a certain bridge over the south fork of the Maquoketa liver, within the corporate limits of said city, defendant. Answer in denial, and plead the statute of limitations. Trial to the court, with finding of facts, and judgment for plaintiff for $66.67 and costs.

Action at law. The original petition declares upon an account for goods and merchandise sold to defendant. The amended petitions, without waiving the original petition as a cause of action, set out a promissory note executed by defendant and another, which, it is averred, was given in the settlement and compromise of plaintiffs’ claim upon defendant, as set out in the original petition.

Indictment for larceny of a horse. Trial and verdict of guilty. The defendant appeals. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Action in equity for a divorce and alimony, on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The parties were married in March, 1868, had two male children born to them, and finally separated in August, 1870, having about a year before been temporarily separated for a month or two.

Ft.atntter brought suit in the district court against one J. L. Stoddard, by attachment, and garnisheed the Union Fire Insurance Company of Des Moines, Iowa, as the supposed debtor of Stoddard, in which action E. O. Webb & Son came in as intervenors. The cause was tried by the court. Judgment for intervenors,,and plaintiff appeals.

Indictment and conviction for murder. Defendant appeals. The facts necessary to an understanding of the case appear in the opinion.

Ayypealfrom Scott District Oourt. Action upon an account stated for goods, wares and merchandise furnished by plaintiffs to defendant. The petition further avers, that defendant made and delivered to plaintiffs a written order for the amount of such indebtedness, upon the Rockford, Rock Island and St. Louis Railroad Company, payable at sight, which was duly presented and payment thereof refused.

Petition in equity to enforce an alleged trust, stating in substance that the plaintiff, during the years 1851 and 1852, became the owner of about five hundred acres of land in Jackson county; that defendant, who held a claim of about $1600, secured by trust deed on said land, by an oral agreement with plaintiff, sold and became the purchaser of said lands under said trust deed to satisfy first the said claim of defendant, and then, by said agreement, was to hold said lands…

Action by plaintiff as indorsee of a promissory note for $250, made in Erie, Pa., on the 19th day of May, 1889, by L. Dobbins to the order of Phillip O’Reilly, payable in Davenport,fourteen months after date; indorsed by O’Reilly to plaintiff on 17th June, 1870.

May 12, 1869, the order of annexation as prayed for was made.

Suit upon a promissory note of Green & Stone for the sum of $2,500, dated October 4,1861, due one day after date.

Action in ordinary upon an alleged warranty in the sale of a stallion. Trial by jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff, for $150. Motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. This motion was overruled, and the defendant appeals.

Action upon fourteen notes, from $5 to $50 each, made by the defendant to the plaintiff, in the State of New York. The defendant in his answer admits the execution of the notes; avers they were given, for a usurious consideration, and that hy the laws of New York all usurious contracts are wholly void. Trial to a jury; verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Action upon a note; judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The further necessary facts are stated in the opinion.