Volume 35 — Illinois Reports

This was an action of assumpsit commenced in the court below, on the 23d day of March, 1860, by John B. King against Strong & Wiley Brothers, to recover upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendants, at Chicago, upon the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, Hew York, for one thousand dollars, in favor of Williams & Brother, and which, by successive indorsements, came to the hands of the plaintiff.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. Charles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding.

Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was a suit in chancery, instituted in the court below by Charles B. Farwell against Max A. Meyer, Levi Bosenfeld, Jacob Bosenberg and H. W. Zimmerman.

Writ of Error to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; Hon. Benjamin F. Parks, Judge, presiding. The defendants in error, on the 17th day of June, 1861, sued out from the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora, a writ of attachment against the plaintiffs.

Wbits of Ebbob to the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. Chables E. Stabe, Judge, presiding. Precisely the same question is presented in both these cases, not at all involving the merits of either. In one of the cases the suit was originally commenced by Hart against Oliver, before a justice of the peace in Livingston county, where Hart recovered a judgment, from which Oliver appealed to the Circuit Court of that county.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Du Page county; the Hon. Isaac G-. Wilson, Judge, presiding. This was an action on the case instituted by Amelia H. Verley against the city of Joliet, in the Circuit Court of Will county, and afterwards removed on change of venue into the Circuit Court of Du Page county.

John M. Scott, Judge, presiding. On the second day of May, 1854, William Anderson and George Anderson executed their promissory note for the sum •of $556, payable to one Genin, one year thereafter, with ten per cent, interest; they also executed a power of attorney to confess a judgment on the note.

Weit of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Bock Island county; the Hon. J. W. Deuey, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit originally commenced in the Circuit Court of Mercer county, by Wells Willitts against Washington Wolf. The cause was removed on change of venue into the Circuit Court of Bock Island county, where it was tried before a jury.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. Charles It. Starr, Judge, presiding. This was a suit originally commenced before a justice of the peace in Iroquois county, by D. M. Osborn & Co., against Mieajah Stanley, upon the following promissory note: “ $67.00.

Charles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment instituted in the court below by Elijah Barr against Valentine H. Marshall and James Dickson, for the recovery of the northeast quarter of section twenty-one, in township eight, north of range one west of the fourth principal meridian, situate in Warren county. By agreement, the cause was submitted to the court for trial.

Ira O. Wilkinson, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted on the 12th day of November, 1861, in the Circuit Court of Leo county, by Mary Armstrong against her husband, Jacob Armstrong, for a divorce. It is charged in the bill, that for two years prior to the commencement of the suit, the defendant had been habitually drunk; and for several years had treated the complainant with unkindness and cruelty, and had committed adultery.

Wbit of Ebbob to the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. Isaac G. Wilson, Judge, presiding.

This was an application made to this court at Springfield, at the January Term, 1864, in the name of The People of the State of Illinois, on the relation of William Barnes, for a writ of mandamus against Alexander Starne, as treasurer of the State of Illinois, commanding him to countersign, register and pay a certain warrant issued upon the treasurer in favor of the relator, by the auditor of public accounts.

Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago. Held: that the matters stated in the notice would not constitute a defense, and excluded the evidence offered under it. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, which on appeal to this court was reversed, and the cause removed.

Writ of Error to the McHenry County Circuit Court; Hon. Isaac Gr. Wilson, Judge, presiding. The defendants in error, on the 1st day of March, 1860, sued out a writ of attachment in Circuit Court of McHenry county, against the plaintiff in error, and Edward Hichins and Nicholas H. Hichins. The affidavit for the writ alleged that said Cornelia It.

Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago. On the 28th day of March, 1861, William Wayman executed his bond to Isabella Cochrane, in the penalty of $12,000, conditioned to pay to the obligee the sum of $6,000, in five years from its date, with interest at ten per cent, per annum, payable half yearly.

Wbtt of Eebob to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below by John P. Crozier against William Wayman, Jane Wayman, his wife, and Isabella Cochrane, to foreclose a mortgage.

Pierce & Barber instituted their action of assumpsit in the court below against Webster & Baxter. The declaration contained the common counts for money lent, money had and received, goods sold and delivered, and work and labor. The defendants pleaded the general issue. Upon the trial the plaintiffs, to sustain the issue on their part, offered the following account current, to wit: Chicago, April 30th, 1861. Messrs. Pierce & Barber, In account with Webster & Baxter, Mar. 5.

Writ of Error to the. Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. Madisoh E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. On the second day of July, 1853, Russell Grimes commenced his action of assumpsit in the court below, against James Pratt, by the issuing of a writ of capias ad respondendum, which was duly executed on the day following.

E. S. Williams, Judge, presiding. This was a suit originally brought before a justice of the peace in Cook county, by William R. Hoodless against Rosell M. Hough, to recover damages resulting from the destruction of a building in the possession of the plaintiff, and owned by him, by a body of soldiers acting under the orders of the defendant as their commanding officer.

Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was a proceeding to enforce a mechanic’s lien brought by defendants in error against plaintiff in error in the Superior Court of Chicago.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. JoHsr Thompson, Judge, presiding. On the 25th day of February, 1858, Hansom Babcock commenced a suit against H. T. Avery and Gr. D. Ensign, before a police magistrate in Gralesburgh, in Knox county, to recover a certain debt alleged to be owing by the defendants to the plaintiff. A summons was served on the 1st of March following.

Madison E. Hollisteb, Judge, presiding. On the 22d day of March, 1862, Kohert Hopkins sued out of the Circuit Court- a writ of replevin against Josiah Ward, for the recovery of certain personal property. A replevin bond was duly executed, whereupon the writ was served, and the property placed in the possession of the plaintiff.

Madison E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below by Charles H. Sutphen against William H. W. Cushman, by which the complainant seeks to redeem from an alleged mortgage, executed by him to the defendant in the form of a deed, purporting to convey an absolute estate. The court below decreed the conveyance to be a mortgage, and that the complainant be allowed to redeem upon paying to the defendant the sum of $4,179.18.

Writ of Error to the Recorder’s Court of the city of Chicago : the Hon Evert Van Burén, Judge, presiding. At the December Term, 1863, William G. Conkwright was indicted in the court below for the crime of larceny. Upon the trial it was proven on the part of the prosecution, that the stolen property was found in the store of the defendant, and the circumstances connected with the finding. The defendant introduced proof of previous good character.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Lee County; the Hon. William W. Heaton, Judge, presiding. On the 29th day of November, 1855, James M. Mooers executed to Charlotte C. Dixon his promissory note for the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, payable five years thereafter, with interest at ten per cent, per annum, for borrowed money.

This was an action of trespass de bonis asporiatis brought in the court below by Samuel S. St. John against John Gray.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Jo Daviess county; the Hon. Benjamin B. Sheldon, Judge, presiding. Henry P. Bonhotel exhibited his bill in chancery in the court below, against Oliver Marble.

John M. Scorr, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit brought in the court below by Pierre B. Bethold, Julius H. Smith and Macklatt Thompson, against McMillan & Tator. The declaration contained a special count upon the following promissory note: “ $212 84-100.

Writ or Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George jVIamierre, Judge, presiding. On the 15th day of March, 1859, William L. Church appeared in the court below and filed his declaration against Nicholas P. Iglehart, in assumpsit, for the recovery of certain indebtedness. At the same time there was filed, the note as described in the declaration, warrant of attorney and cognovit, on which a judgment was entered in his favor for $597.35, damages and costs.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. John Y. Eustace, Judge, presiding. On the 29th day of July, 1856, Elton C. Cropper executed his promissory note to Preston Wing for the sum of $575; and on the same day Cropper and his wife executed and delivered to Wing a mortgage upon a portion of lot nine, in block three, in Spencer and Case’s addition to the city of Rock Island, to secure the payment of said note.

Appeal'from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Sidney W. Habéis, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment commenced in the court, below by Christopher Adleman against Andrew Johnson, for the recovery of the southeast quarter of lot number three, in block number seventy-one, in the town of Lockport, in Will county, to which the plaintiff claimed title in fee simple.

Writ oe Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. Williams, Judge, presiding.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. John Y. Eustace, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below by Henry Brill and Agesilaus RockafeHer against Elias B. Stiles and Frederick A. Soule. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Writ of Ereob to the Peoria Ooimty Circuit Court; Hon. Elihu H. Powell, Judge, presiding. This was a bill filed by the defendant in error to foreclose a mortgage executed by the plaintiff in error to the defendant in error, and dated August 14, 1858. A copy of the mortgage was annexed to and made a part of the bill. Answers and a replication were filed, and the cause was set down for hearing upon bill and answer.

Charles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. This was an action in ejectment, brought to recover the possession of a tract of land in Knox county, to which the plaintiff claimed title by virtue of a tax sale of the premises in question for the non-payment of the State and county taxes due thereon, and by virtue of a deed executed in pursuance thereof.

Wbit óf Ebeob to the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. Iba O. Wilkinson, Judge, presiding. The Bishop Hill Colony executed the following promissory note: “ $720. “ For value received, six months after date, I promise to pay Mary Jane Jennings or order seven hundred and twenty dollars ; and if the same is not paid when due, to pay her twenty-five per cent, interest thereon from the time the same is due until paid. BISHOP HILL COLONY, “ September 29th, 1858.

Wett of Ebeoe to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. 8. Williams, Judge, presiding. This was an action of ejectment commenced in the court below' by Cornelius Swartwout against J. Young Scammon, Thomas Kehoe and Mary Daily, for the - recovery of lot 6, block 129, in the school section addition to Chicago. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Madison E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. This was an action on thg case, commenced in the Circuit Court of La Salle county hy James Graham against The Ottawa Gas-Light and Coke Company, and removed on change of venue into the Circuit Court of Bureau county.

This was an action of covenant instituted in the court below by James Jackson against Augustus P. Otto and Herman Baer, upon their sealed guaranty that certain lessees should execute and perform the covenants of the lease.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. Jambs Harriott, Judge, presiding. This was a hill in chancery, exhibited in the court below by William Pettes and ¡Nathaniel W. Ingalls against Abraham Shay and David Shay, to correct an alleged mistake in a mortgage from Abraham Shay to one John A. Jones. Bill sustained in the court below. All the facts necessary to an understanding of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. Deed—certificate of acknowledgment—its requisites to dar a right of dower, prior to act of 1853. A conveyance of land executed by a husband and wife prior to the passage of the act of February 11th, 1853, amendatory of the chapter in the Revised Statutes, entitled “ Conveyances,” where the certificate of acknowledgment fails to state that the wife relinquished her right of dower in the premises, is not sufficient to operate as a bar of dower, under the statute. The omission of those words was matter of substance, and not of mere form.</p> <p>2. Same—equity cannot supply the omission. It is no answer to the claim for dower made by the widow in such a case, that she acts in bad faith; or that she knew when she executed the deed that the purchaser expected to obtain a release of her dower, and that she must have designed to bar it by her act. The same might be said, with equal truth, if she had only signed the deed and acknowledged it in the presence of a subscribing witness, yet her dower would not thereby have been released, nor could witnesses be called to prove the fact. The wife cannot bar her right of dower except by conforming to the requirements of the statute. Nor has equity jurisdiction to specifically execute the contract of a feme covert, whether for the relinquishment of her dower or the conveyance of her real estate. If there has been a mistake by the officer, or the feme covert has acted in bad faith, it is the misfortune of the grantee to have received a deed inoperative to pass the dower.</p> <p>3, Same—act of 1853 — its design—and its constitutionality in vim of its effect upon conveyances previously made. It seems to have been the obvious design of the act of February 11, 1853 (Sess. Laws, 89), to dispense with the requirement in reference to the statement in the certificate, that the wife had relinquished her dower, in conveyances subsequently made, as well as to bar all claim of dower where the statement had been omitted in certificates already made before the passage of the act. The former it was competent to do. But the latter it was not within the legislative power to declare. The right of dower is a vested right, although contingent, and the wife cannot be divested of it by legislative enactment, but only by her own voluntary act, and in the mode prescribed by the statute.</p>

Writ op Error to the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. Madisox E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. The defendant in error brought an action of covenant against the plaintiff in error. To several of the special pleas filed by the defendant below, a demurrer was interposed, and on the 20th of June, 1863, the following order was entered: “ This day Messrs.

Ebastus S. Williams, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery, instituted in the Circuit Court by Adam Phy against Demarcus Clark and Bowen Brothers. The principal matters, so far as they are necessary to an understanding of the case, are alleged in the bill, as follows: That at the November Term, 1861, of the Superior Court of Chicago,.

E. Gr. Montont, Judge, presiding. In 1859, Lawrence M. Baker instituted his action of trespass in the Circuit Court of Kane county, against Henry Warne and David Bowne, alleging that on certain- days in the month of February of that year, the defendants broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, &c. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and two special pleas: First, that defendants were highway commissioners of the town of Oampton, in Kane county; that before and at the time,…

<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. James Harriott, Judge, presiding.</p> <p>This was an action of ejectment instituted in the court below by James M. Shackleford against Samuel P. Bailey, for the recovery of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section two, in township four, north of range five west of the third principal meridian, situate in the county of Tazewell.</p> <p>The issue was formed, and the cause came on for trial at the April Term, 1858.</p> <p>The plaintiff introduced in evidence a patent from the United States to himself, bearing date the 1st November, 1839, whereby there was granted to the plaintiff certain premises, by. the following description: “ The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter, north of range five west of the third principal meridian, in the district of lands subject to sale at Springfield, containing forty acres, according to the official plat of the survey of the said lands, returned to the general land office by the surveyor-general.”</p> <p>It was admitted by the defendant that he was in possession of the land in controversy at the time of the commencement of this suit. This was all the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, . The defendant then offered in evidence a deed, without date, from the sheriff of Tazewell county to himself, based upon an alleged judgment and sale for taxes, purporting to convey “ thirty-four acres of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section two in township twenty-four, north range five west, third principal meridian.” To the introduction of which the plaintiff objected, for the reason, among others, that it contained no sufficient description of the land in question. But the court overruled the objection, and allowed the deed to be read in evidence, and the plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>The defendant then gave in evidence tax receipts for the years 1843 and 1848 to 1857, inclusive, and offered in evidence another tax deed, bearing date March 17th, 1848, from the sheriff of Tazewell county to himself, purporting to convey land by the following description: Seven acres off the east side of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section two, in township twenty-four, north range five east third principal meridian.</p> <p>To the introduction of this deed the plaintiff also objected, upon the ground, among others, that it did not sufficiently describe the land in question. The court overruled the objection, and the deed was read in evidence, the plaintiff excepting.</p> <p>There was proof in regard to alleged irregularities in the tax sales upon which the deeds given in evidence were based, which it is not important to notice. The only instruction given to which exception was taken, was the first given on behalf of the defendant, as follows:</p> <p>“ 1st. That if they are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant had color of title, made in good faith to, and paid all the taxes assessed on the land in controversy, the same being vacant and unoccupied for seven successive years, before the commencement of this suit, he shall be adjudged the legal owner thereof to the extent and according to the purport of his paper title.”</p> <p>There was no proof in the record that the premises were vacant and unoccupied for seven successive years before the commencement of the suit.</p> <p>On the 13th of April, 1858, the jury returned a verdict as follows: “We, the jury, find for the defendant,” and following the entry of this verdict was the following: “It is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court that the defendant recover of the said plaintiff the costs and charges about his suit expended, and that execution issue therefor.”</p> <p>At the February Term, 1860, the plaintiff entered his motion that final judgment be rendered upon the verdict of the jury returned in this cause at the April Term, 1858, said verdict being first put in proper form.</p> <p>The court overruled the motion to enter final judgment, but entered upon his docket the following: 11 Ordered by the court, that the clerk so amend the record of the court in said cause, and put the verdict of the jury in proper form, and write up the record accordingly.”</p> <p>Whereupon the plaintiff, having paid all the costs in said cause, moved that the said verdict, as amended, be set aside, and the plaintiff be allowed a new trial under the statute.</p> <p>This motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted, and thereupon sued out this writ of error.</p> <p>The questions arising upon the assignment of errors, are, whether the description of the land in the two tax deeds, given in evidence by the defendant, was not so uncertain and variant from the description of the land sued for, that the deeds were inadmissible for any purpose. Second, whether the plaintiff’s application for a new trial under the statute was in apt time; and, Third, whether the instruction given for the defendant did not improperly leave to the jury to decide what is color of title made in good faith.</p>

Chaeles B. Lawbence, Judge, presiding: This was an action of ejectment brought by Thompson Brooks against Zachariah Bruyn, in the court below, for the recovery of the northwest quarter of section nine, in township nine, north of range two west, situate in Warren county.

Austin against Allen Howes, as drawer of a check in favor of Lyman S. Knox, which was indorsed to the plaintiff. The declaration contained two special counts upon the check, and the common counts. The defendant pleaded the general issue to the whole declaration, and a special plea in bar to the two special counts.

<p>1. Landlord and tenant — eviction. Where a landlord demised certain premises to be used as sleeping rooms, owning at the time of the demise but three of the walls, and having no easement in the fourth; the roof of the premises demised being built upon and against the fourth wall, and the owner of the fourth wall in raising his building, having necessarily broken in the roof of the demised premises and rendered the demised premises unfit for the purposes for which they were leased : Held, that the tenant when he rented the building, had a right to suppose his lessor was the owner of the four walls inclosing it, or if not that he had an easement in the wall; that it was the lessor’s duty when the owner of the fourth wall raised his building to meet the exigency and protect his tenant; that this disturbance of the premises was equivalent to an eviction and suspended to that extent the payment of the rent.</p>

Samuel L. Richmond, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the court below by Ephraim Smith against Walter Cowan. A trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant, thereupon, moved for a new trial, upon the ground of the absence of a material witness, whose attendance he was endeavoring to procure at the time the trial came on. In support of his motion the defendant presented his own affidavit alone.

Weit of Eeeob to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. S. L. Biohmokd, Judge, presiding. This was an action of replevin originally commenced before a justice of the peace in Woodford county, by Samuel Lewis against Ichabod W. Clark, for the recovery of a horse alleged to belong- to- the plaintiff.

Grant Goodrich, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit brought in the court below by William Dousay against Eichard Mason, as acceptor of the following bill of exchange: §128.65. Masonville, 14th May, 1861. E. Mason, Esq.: Please pay to William Dousay, one hundred and twenty-eight y5-- dollars, and charge to account of Chicago, Ih. NATHAN D. INMAN.

Wbit of Ebeob to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the court below by Eliphalet W. Blatchford against Isaac L. Milliken, on an alleged guaranty of a note. Blatchford held chattel mortgage securities for a debt due him from one Hughes.

Evebt Van Buben, Judge, presiding. This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace in Cook county, and removed into the Recorder’s Court by appeal. The suit was instituted by Joachim Lawrence, for the use of Calvin De Wolf, against John Schmidt, as the drawer of a check upon E. I. Tinkham & Co., payable to the plaintiff or bearer.

P. K. Lelaed, Judge, presiding. This was an action of deht, originally commenced before a justice of the peace in La Salle county, by the town of Eagle against Thomas Clifford, for an alleged obstruction of a public highway. The cause was removed into the County Court by appeal. At the December Term of that court, 1863, the defendant appeared in the cause and moved for a continuance, which was allowed.

Wbit of Ebbob to the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. Madisoh E. Hollister, Judge, presiding. This was a suit in chancery instituted by Josephine Barnard against William H. W. Cushman, to redeem from an equitable mortgage.

Writ of Eeeob to the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. Ohables B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit brought in the court below, by James V. Evans against Francis Staat.

This was a suit in chancery, instituted in the court below by the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company against the county of Cook and its treasurer, to restrain the collection of a tax assessed by the hoard of supervisors of said county upon the rolling stock of the company, for the year 1862.

Weit oe Ebbob to the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Chables B. Stabb, Judge, presiding. This was a prosecution in the name of The People of the State of Illinois against Frederick W. Mann, for bastardy.

Charles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. This was an application for a mandamus, made at the September Term, 1863, of the Knox county Circuit Court, by the appellant, to require John C. Cover, sheriff of Knox county, to show cause why he should not be compelled to make and execute certain tax deeds to appellant. The petition sets out that appellee was, and had been for -months, the acting sheriff, legally elected and qualified, of Knox county.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. W. W. Heaton, Judge, presiding. This was an action of replevin brought in the Circuit Court by John Dement against Aaron L. Porter. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case to this court upon writ of error. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the court below. by Orange Fargo against John F. Stafford, to recover as assignee upon the following promissory note: “ $533tVo Chicago, Sept. 22, I860. Due Henrietta A. Lyon or order, five hundred and thirty-three TW dollars, on demand, for value received.

This was an action on the case instituted in the court below by Adam G-. Innis against William M. Ross and John H. Ross, who composed the firm of Wm. M. Ross & Co., trading and doing business in the city of Chicago. The ground of the action was the alleged malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendants, upon a charge of embezzlement, upon which he was examined and acquitted.

This was a suit in chancery, instituted in the court below, by James T. Raleigh and Abram Heartt against Thomas Raleigh, to enjoin a suit at law brought by the defendant against the complainants, and to enforce an alleged equitable set-off. The question presented is, whether the facts as alleged in the bill, are sufficient to establish a set-off in equity. Those facts are presented in the opinion of the court.

Writ oe Error to the Circuit Court of Cook comity, the Hon. George Manierre, Judge, presiding. The defendant in error, on the 4th day of May, 1860, filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, in open court, its declaration, with two notes and two warrants of attorney annexed thereto, and thereon procured the entry of judgment, as by confession, against the plaintiff in error for $2,100.10 damages, besides costs.

Charles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the Circuit Court on the 29th day of August, 1863, by the Ewing Female University against John Johnston, to recover the amount of a subscription made by the defendant for the erection of the university building.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Tazewell County. This was an action of replevin in the Tazewell Circuit Court, before Hon. James Harriott, circuit judge. The cause was tried by a jury, and verdict and judgment for the defendants. The’record is brought here by a writ or error, where several errors were assigned, the most important of which are upon the instructions given for the defendants.

Charles B. Lawrence, Judge, presiding. In a suit brought by appeal into the Circuit Court, wherein Alfred Couse was plaintiff, and John Eads and another were defendants, the latter obtained a judgment against Couse for costs. Thereupon the clerk issued a fee-bill against Couse for the costs of both parties, which came to the hands of the sheriff, and was by him levied upon a lot of corn belonging to Couse.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced in the Superior Court of Chicago, to the October Term thereof, 1863, by Peter Curry against John S. Reed, for damages, laid at six hundred dollars. The declaration contains a special count upon a note dated October 10, 1860, for $289.51, payable on demand after date, at the office of Reed in Chicago, with interest, value received. It also contains the common counts, and is in the usual form.

<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. Charles E. Starr, Judge, presiding.</p> <p>This was an action of ejectment, commenced in the court below, at the April Term, 1857, by Asbury F. Johnson against Andrew J. Bletch.</p> <p>The return of service was as follows:</p> <p>“ State of Illinois, ) Iroquois County. )</p> <p>“ Josiah T. Baker being duly sworn, deposes that he did, on the 9th day of , A. n., 1857, that I did deliver to the wife of Andrew Bletch, being a white person over the age of ten years, Andrew Bletch, the defendant in this cause, a true copy of the foregoing declaration and notice, in this county and State aforesaid.”</p> <p>A rule was entered requiring the defendant to plead within twenty days. The rule not being complied with, at the October Term, 1857, a default was taken against the defendant, and a final judgment entered, awarding the possession of the premises to the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case to this court upon writ of error, and presents the question whether the return of service is sufficient to support the default and final judgment against him.</p>

John M. Wilson, Judge, presiding. For a number of years, and up to some time in 1857, Strong Wadsworth and James Wadsworth carried on business as bankers, under the name of “Wadsworth & Co.,” their place of business being at the corner of Clark and Randolph streets, Chicago. They failed in business, owing the plaintiff, Williams, about §8,000. In February, 1861, Strong Wadsworth renewed his former business at Ho. 34 Clark street.

I. G-. Wilson, Circuit Judge. This was a bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of Du Page county, by Michael Moritz against Francis A. Hoffman and wife and Alexander Siller and wife, to subject certain real estate to the payment of a judgment obtained by Moritz against Francis A. Hoffman. The court decided against the complainant, Moritz, and he has brought the case here by appeal. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Weft of Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. Madison E. Hollistee, Judge, presiding. Held: and resulted, as declared by the moderator after canvass, as follows: For the Act, Mo. of votes,.................... 52 Against the Act, Mo. of votes,................. 54 Affiant further says, that on or about the-day of March, A. d. 1862, Lucius Farnham, Isaac Lott, Joseph S. Bibbins, William Williams, and Henry H. Lewis, were…

Wbit of Ebbob to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora, Kane county; Hon. B. F. Parks, Judge, presiding. The. case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Wbit of Ebbob to the Superior Court of Chicago; Hon. John H. Wilson, Judge, presiding.