Volume 37 — Iowa Reports

Thursday, June 19. It is alleged in plaintiff’s petition that in June, 1869, the defendants sold to the plaintiff one “ Auburn Harvester ” for the sum of $190, and freight thereon, $15, in all the sum of $205 ; that plaintiff paid thereon the freight, $15, and executed his notes to the defendants for the balance, bearing seven per cent interest, which notes the defendants have transferred to third parties.

Thursday, June 19. This action was brought before a justice of the peace by written petition stating that the plaintiff was entitled to the immediate possession of lot 8, in block 27, in the town of Mason City, Iowa, and that the defendant on or about the 16th day of May, 1872, by force and stealth entered upon the prior actual possession of the plaintiff and now holds the same, etc. The defendant answered by written pleading denying that he entered upon the prior actual…

Thursday, June 19. This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace and removed to the circuit court on writ of error, where the judgment of the justice was reversed and the cause remanded for a re-trial. The defendant appeals. The further facts necessary to a proper understanding of the case are stated in the opinion.

Thursday, June 19. The plaintiff, in her petition, states that in June, 1859, she was married to Marshall F. Moore, who died in February, 1870; that said Marshall F. Moore, at the time of said marriage and during the time of their coverture, was seized of a certain parcel of ground in Woodbury county, Iowa, being 22 feet front and 100 feet deep, and being immediately north of the south half of lot nine in block five in Sioux City east addition; that the defendant is in…

Friday, June 20. On the 24th of October, 1871, plaintiff filed a petition stating in substance that, wishing to widen a certain street in said town, and for that purpose to take certain land owned by defendant Wurzbacher, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement to submit certain differences respecting the same to arbitration.

Friday, June 20. Action in equity to recover the title and possession of the south-west quarter of north-west quarter of section 33, township 84, range 8, in Linn county. The defendant answered denying plaintiffs claim, and claiming title in himself, and that he is rightfully in possession. The cause was referred to J. B. Young, referee, for trial.

Friday, June 20. This proceeding was originally commenced before a justice of the peace by Wm. S. Arnold filing an information accusing the defendant, Arthur Roney, of the crime of assault and battery committed by said Roney on the person of said Arnold. Upon the trial the justice rendered the following judgment: “ The court finds the defendant not guilty. It is ordered by the court that the complainant, Wm.

Friday, June 20. Action for a mandamus. The plaintiffs in their petition allege that on the 27th day of May, 1870, they -recovered, in said Carroll circuit court, a judgment against Carroll county for the sum of $3,964.44 debt, besides costs, which (except four small payments that are stated) still remains in full force and unpaid; that on the 17th day of November, 1870, they also recovered in said court another judgment against said Carroll county for the sum of $5,489.08,…

Friday, June 20. This is an action of replevin for seven horses, twenty-one head of cattle, one hundred acres of standing corn, one rick and one stack of hay, one rick of wheat, one rick and one stack of oats, and two wagons, of which the plaintiff, who is a married woman, claims to be the absolute owner in her own right, the same having been purchased with her separate earnings- and money.

Friday, June 20. Action on a promissory note. The defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note, and pleading partial payment. Afterward the jilaintifí amended his petition by verifying the same, which defendant was ruled to answer, and failing to do so judgment was rendered on the note for the amount due, which was referred to the clerk to ascertain, and judgment entered for the amount so found by the clerk and for costs.

Friday, June 20. This action is brought by plaintiffs as assignees of the following instrument: “ $100.

Friday, June 20. On the 9th day of May, 1872, the defendant filed in the Scott district court a motion for an order directing the clerk of said court to recall an execution issued against defendant in the cause of Geo. W. Beid & Co. v. B. S. Dickinson.

Thursday, September 18. The petition alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of Iowa as a city of the second class. That defendant is, and for more than three years has been, a corporation organized and existing in the county of Clinton, and engaged in operating a horse railway through, between, and in the cities of Clinton and Lyons in said county.

Thursday, September 18. Action in equity to set aside tax title to mineral lot 61, in the city of Dubuque. The lot was sold on the 4th of November, 1863, to the defendant Smith, for the delinquent taxes oí 1857-8-9, and a treasurer’s deed was made and filed for record on the 7th day of November, 1866.

Thursday, September 18. The plaintiff, widow of Andrew M. Watrous, deceased, filed her petition for the admeasurement of dower, in the realty of which her husband died seized. Attached to the petition is a copy of the will executed by Andrew M. Watrous.

Thursday, September 18. The appellee and defendant herein was garnished as the supposed debtor to one P. O. Turner. Upon the answer of the garnishee and other evidence, the court found, upon the trial, the following facts: Defendant McNany as part payment for a piece of land, made a note for $137.50 to P. C. Turner dated April 28, 1857, and payable six months after date. On the same day another note was given for said land and a turn made of about $100, with one Greene.

Thursday, September 18. On the 17th day of September, 1872, J. S. Ryan and seventy others, whose names are set out in full, filed their petition stating their cause of action substantially, as follows : Plaintiffs are tax payers of Center township, in said Decatur county; the defendant Varga is the treasurer of said county, and the other defendant is a railroad corporation.

Thursday, September 18. ' The plaintiff in his petition states, in substance, that the des fendants are owners of certain lots in the town of Red Oak; that in pursuance of an ordinance of said town, it became the duty of the defendants to construct sidewalks in front of their said lots respectively, which they each neglected, after due notice, to do, whereupon the plaintiff, under and by virtue of a contract with said town, built and constructed the said sidewalks ; and this…

Thursday, September 18. It is alleged in the petition that the defendant, in October, 1866, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to lease of the defendant a lot of shéep, represented to the plaintiff that the sheep were sound and free from disease; that he warranted them to be so; that the plaintiff, relying upon said representations and warranty, took of defendant 190 sheep; that said representations were false and fraudulent; that the sheep had a disease called the “…

Thursday, September 18. This is a proceeding by cerUorari to remove tbe record and correct tbe proceedings of tbe board of supervisors of Jones county in tbe matter of selecting a newspaper in said county in wbicb tbe laws and proceedings of tbe board should be published for 1873. Tbe circuit court annulled tbe action of tbe board of supervisors in tbe premises, and ordered that they proceed to rehear tbe matter at their next regular meeting. Defendants appeal.

Thursday, September 18. This action is brought by the plaintiff to set aside and annul a certain tax deed of lands, of which he claims to be the owner, and which he states in his petition were illegally sold by the treasurer of Benton county. The cause was tried in equity by the first method, and a decree rendered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Thursday, September 18. Action at law. One Wilson executed his promissory note to defendant, who, after maturity, transferred it to Groat, and executed a guaranty in the following words: “ I guarantee the payment of the within note within thirty days from the 17th day of October, 1870. Elias Marble.” Before the expiration of thirty days Groat verbally assigned the note and guaranty to plaintiff. There was a trial to the court without a jury, and a judgment for plaintiff.

Thursday, September 18. The petition in this action is in two counts; the first, claiming to recover for a malicious prosecution, instituted by defendants upon a preliminary information before a justice of the peace, charging plaintiff with an assault with intent to commit a rape; the second count is for malicious libel and slander in making said information and in the institution of the prosecution thereunder.

Thursday, September 18. These were ad quod damnum proceedings to assess tbe damages accruing to plaintiffs on account of tbe appropriation of land owned by them upon which to locate defendant’s railroad. The record in eaeb case discloses tbe same facts. Upon appeal to tbe district court there was a trial to a jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in each case. The defendant appeals.

Appeals from, Muscatine District Court. Thursday, September 18. These are actions at law to recover the possession of certain different parcels of real estate described in the petitions in the several suits respectively. The petitions allege that the respective defendants set up some illegal claim to the lands in the possession of each, and ask that plaintiff’s title be quieted, and that he may have a writ for the possession of the premises involved in each case.

Apjpeal from Decatwr District Oowrt. Friday, September 19. Action in equity to set aside a conveyance by plaintiffs to the defendants Nancy and John Shockey of the west half of the north-west quarter of section 23, township 68 north, range 24 west, in Decatur county, executed June 20, 1866.

Friday, September 19. On the 31st day of January, 1812, tbe grand jury of Wapello county presented to tbe district court of said county an indictment, the portion whereof material to an understanding of tbe question involved is as follows: The State of Iowa vs. Winstrand. Distriet Court of the County of Wapello. “ Indictment for the crime of nuisance.

Friday, September 19. The original petition and the amendment thereto in substance state that about the 18th day of July, 1870, the defendant, representing himself as the owner of an agricultural warehouse in Afton, as the successor of W. H. McBride, and as such owning and controlling certain goods and agricultural implements in said town, and representing that he was general agent, and had power to appoint agencies and manage the sale of the Buckeye reaper and mower, the…

Friday, September 19. Action in equity to enforce an alleged agreement of defendant to furnish plaintiff two causeways or other adequate means of crossing defendant’s road, constructed through the premises of plaintiff.

Friday, September 19. This is a summary proceeding by motion to compel the defendant Fitchpatrick, who is clerk of the court, to pay over money received by him.

Friday, September 19. This action was commenced November 27, 1872, to recover a balance due for work done in September and October of that year. The defendant avers tbe payment of said balance under process of garnishment and judgment thereon, to Harris & Co., judgment creditors of plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he was a married man and the head of a family when such services were rendered, and that the wages therefor were exempt.

Friday, September 19. This is an information under our statute (Rev. 1860, chap. 151) in the nature of a proceeding by quo warramto to test the right of defendant to the office of sub-director of sub-district No. 5 of the district township of Des Moines in Yan Burén county. The petition or information shows that it is approved and allowed by the district attorney. A demurrer to the information was sustained, and from that ruling the plaintiff appeals.

Friday, September 19. Suit in equity brought September 22, 1869, to compel a specific performance of an alleged contract for sale of 40 acres of swamp land, made by tbe county at an auction sale to the plaintiff. The district court refused to decree a specific performance by ordering the county to convey as prayed, and dismissed the plaintiff’s petition absolutely. Parkhurstwas made a party, for that he claimed some interest in the land. The plaintiff appeals.

Friday, September 19. Plaintiff brought Ms action against the defendant to-recover a balance alleged to be due for lumber sold and delivered.

Friday, September 19. Action of replevin; jury trial, verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The further facts appear in the opinion.

<p>School district: disorganization of district. The removal of an old school-house to make place for a new one, which is built on the site, is not such a removal as is contemplated by section 78, chapter 172, Laws of 1862, and does not operate to disorganize a district composed of territory in different civil townships, and restore it to the respective jurisdictions of the same.</p>

<p> Appeal from Lee Disi/riet Oowrt. </p> <p>Frida?, September 19.</p> <p>Action at law to recover damages sustained by plaintiff for an assault and battery committed upon ber by the officers of a steamboat used by defendant as a common carrier in navigating the Mississippi river, while she was a passenger thereon, and for forcibly and with violence, removing her from the dinner table of said boat, without cause, and for no improper conduct on her part. The defense pleaded in the answer sets up, at great length, that plaintiff is a colored woman, and that there was a custom or a regulation of all boats of defendant, well known to plaintiff, under which colored persons could not receive state rooms and first class privileges and accommodations; that she purchased a ticket which entitled her to the rights of a colored person under the custom, and gave her no right to meals; that she purchased a ticket for meals, such as, under said regulations of the boat, were sold to colored persons entitling them to meals upon the guards of the boat or in the pantry, but she returned the same and demanded and received back the money paid for it. Afterward, by fraud, she purchased such a ticket for meals as were sold to white persons; that, under these circumstances, she seated herself at the dinner table with the white passengers of the boat and in a seat that had been assigned to another, whereupon- the officers of said boat removed her from the table, having requested her to leave it, which she, with violent and rude language, refused to do, but that no greater force was used than was necessary to take her, against her resistance, from the table. The facts of the case, so far as they are intended as a defense, are particularly stated. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict for plaintiff. A motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence and is in conflict with the law, and for alleged errors in instructions given to the jury, was overruled and judgment was rendered upon the verdict. Defendant .appeals.</p>

Tuesday, October 12. The plaintiff, who is the guardian of the defendants, minors, made application, under the statutes, to the circuit court of Decatur county, for authority to sell certain real estate, belonging to his wards, situate in that county, on the ground that the sale of the property was necessary for the minors’ support and education, and that their interests, by reason of the unproductiveness of the property, would be promoted thereby.

Tuesday, October 7. This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace. It was tried January 5, 1872, before the justice, who rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. No notice •of appeal was given on the day of the trial. On January 23, 1872, the plaintiff filed an appeal bond with the justice, who approved the same; and on March 22, 1872, he sent up a transcript and the appeal bond, and filed the same with the clerk of the circuit court.

Tuesday, October I. The plaintiffs in their capacity as executors of the last will and testament of Caleb James, deceased, sue the defendants on a promissory note made by tbe defendants, to recover an installment of interest alleged to be due thereon. The note is as follows: “ $2,000.

Tuesday, October 1. Action in chancery. The petition alleges that on the 3d day of October, 1868, plaintiffs purchased of the county of Clark certain lands described therein, and oh the 15th day of April, 1869, conveyed the same by deed of general warranty to Ira Fields. The land was conveyed to him by the proper officer of the county under a resolution of the board of supervisors.

Wednesday, October 8. The original petition alleges that, in the Wapello circuit court, judgment was rendered against plaintiff, as garnishee, in a suit wherein Lawrence and Chambers were plaintiffs, and A. C. Smith was defendant, and prays that the defendant Wright be restrained from the enforcement of an execution in his hands, issued upon said judgment, and that the other defendants be enjoined from proceeding to enforce said judgment.

Wednesday, October 18. The petition contains four counts. The first and third counts are upon covenants of warranty in two deeds, and the breach assigned in each is delinquent taxes, paid by plaintiff; the second count is for fraudulent representation of the existence of a water power on land sold by defendant to plaintiff; and the fourth is for fraudulent representations as to title in defendant, to land sold and conveyed by quit-claim deed by defendant to plaintiff.

Wednesday, October 8. The defendant was indicted for oppression in office, for that he “ did by color of his office as a constable of Center township * * * willfully and corruptly oppress one Josephine Snider under pretense of acting in his official capacity as said officer.

'Wednesday, October 8. The facts of this case are numerous and extended. It is not necessary to state them in detail.

Wednesday, October 8. Appeal by plaintiff from the board of supervisors, on the assessment of damages, upon a change in a county road. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Wednesday, October 8. This action is brought to recover for a balance claimed to be due for services which plaintiff alleges he rendered for the defendant as its swamp land agent, under the employment of record. The cause was tried to a jury. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Wednesday, October 8. Action upon a promissory note. Tliere was a trial to the court, without a jury, and a judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Wednesday, October 8. Action at law to recover damages for trespass. The petition, alleges that plaintiff was the owner of certain real estate, whereon was a woolen mill with the necessary machinery.

Wednesday, October 8. Action in chancery to set aside a deed for certain lands, executed by plaintiff to defendants in satisfaction of certain services rendered by defendants as attorneys, on the ground of fraud and undue influence used by defendants in procuring the conveyance.

Thursday, October 9. On the 23d day of September, 1872, the plaintiff commenced an action by attachment against the defendant, ~W. T. Browne, claiming of him the sum of $2,200, with interest from August 21,1872.

Thursday, October 9. On the 16th day of October, 1872, plaintiff instituted an action against defendant upon a promissory note executed by defendant to W. P. Large, and indorsed without recourse, dated June 5, 1861, due one day after date; and to take the case out of the bar of the statute of limitations, relied upon a letter of defendant, dated November 14, 1869, acknowledging the existence of the debt, and promising to pay as soon as he could.

Thursday, October 9. Action before a justice of the peace for the recovery of $10 for taking depositions in the case of J. F. Former v. W. W. More. Defendants denied having employed plaintiff to take said depositions, and denied that they were indebted therefor. Judgment for plaintiff. The cause was appealed to the circuit court, in which, also, judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Thursday, October 9. This action was begun by plaintiff before a justice of the peace to recover of defendant $75 for damages done as a house carpenter — defective work. On the trial before the justice the plaintiff recovered a judgment. The defendant took an appeal to the circuit court, and there, by leave of court, he filed an additional answer, and also set up a counter-claim for carpenter work done by him for the plaintiff.

Appeal'from Des Momes District Oowrt. Thursday, October 9. The plaintiff purchased a saloon and its contents of Geo. Guelick for $350, and paid cash $200 and gave his note for $150, payable to Geo. Guelick or order, in one month, and also gave a mortgage on the fixtures and furniture, “ as well as all stock of wine, liquors, etc., beer and cigars ” therein. The note and mortgage were sold and transferred to the defendant, Guelick, before due.

Thursday, October 9. The plaintiff alleges that on the 12th of October, 1871, he was a stock dealer, shipping hogs from Marshalltown, Iowa, to Chicago, Illinois, and had agents in Chicago, Kelley, Graber & Co., who were instructed to inform plaintiff of the state of the market, etc.; that on said 12th of October, plaintiff had on hand at Marshalltown ready for shipment 180 head of fat hogs; that on that day said Kelley, Graber & Co. delivered to the defendant, at Chicago, to…

Appeal from Story District Cowrt. Thursday, October 9. Action to quiet title to real estate. Decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.

Thursday, October 9. This is an action in which the plaintiff claims a certain quantity of wheat, which he alleges he stored in the warehouse of E. Gr. Sleight in October, 1872. A specific attachment was prayed and granted, under which the quantity of wheat demanded was taken out of the warehouse of Sleight and delivered to the plaintiff.

Thursday, October 9. Action in chancery to foreclose a contract for the purchase of certain lands, prosecuted under Revision, sections 3671, 3672. The facts appear in the opinion. The court dismissed plaintiff’s petition, and granted to defendants relief prayed for in a cross-bill filed by them. Plaintiffs appeal.

Thursday, October 9. Action to foreclose a mortgage executed by one Cooper to secure a promissory note made by Mm to plaintiff.

' Friday, October 10. On the 28th day of Frebruary, 1871, the plaintiff filed his ■petition, alleging that he is the owner of the north-east quarter of the south-west quarter of section twenty-six, township ■seventy, range twenty-six, under a tax deed dated March 22, 1869, and that he had, at the time of filing his petition, been in possession thereof two years; that on the 8th day of May, 1858, said lands belonged to America Ellis and J. H. Ellis, Margaret Ball and Daniel…

Friday, October 10. - Plaintiffs filed in tbe office of F. Wilcox, a justice of the peace, their petition, as follows: “First — That in 1868, plaintiffs were publishing the Burlington Hcmk Fye; that defendants, Overton & Trulock, were partners and doing business in said city; that in. and prior to 1868, and during said copartnership, defendants advertised in said paper to the amount of $131.20, as per account annexed; that said account is due, etc. “Second — For other cause…

Friday, October 9. Action for trespass upon real estate. Answer in denial and also justifying, for that defendant Deihl was road supervisor, and the other defendants, road hands under him, doing their duty in repairing the highway — the locus in quo. Trial to the court who found the facts, in substance, as follows : 1.

Friday, October 10. Action in replevin for a calf valued at $7, originally brought before a justice of the peace. The defendant denied plaintiff’s title, and averred ownership in himself. On the first trial before the justice the jury failed to agree; on the second the' jury found for defendant..

Friday, October 10. This action is brought to enforce the following written contract : “This agreement witnesseth, that whereas, H. S. George, of “Laconia, Warren-county, Iowa, has failed, indebted to all of “ the subscribers r an¿¡¿whereas, it is the right of any creditor “ to put said George in bankruptcy ; and whereas, some of us “ creditors have attached the property of said George ; now in “ consideration of the premises, and being willing to share the “ benefits and…

Friday, October 10. This is a suit to quiet the title to the north-west half of lot nine, in block 113, in the city of Keokuk, Iowa. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. The further facts appear in the opinion.

Friday, October 10. Action upon a promissory note indorsed by payee to plaintiff. Defense, that tbe note became tbe property of plaintiff after maturity; that defendant fully paid the note to payee while it was in his hands, and that upon payment of $50 thereon the payee agreed to receive the same in satisfaction of the note and cancel and destroy the same. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Tuesday, October 21. Action to recover damages for injuries received by cars on defendant’s road.

Tuesday, October 21. The petition alleges that defendant was plaintiff’s agent for the sale of lands in Warren county during the year 1867, and that plaintiff resided in the State of Yirginia, and relied upon defendant for information as to the location and value of the land.

Tuesday, October 21. The plaintiff filed in the Lee circuit court a petition claiming of the defendants R. Warnock, James Lynch andW.

Tuesday, October 21. Action upon a note executed by John Coffman, as follows: “ Eighteen months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Daniel Rogers fifteen hundred dollars, bearing ten per cent interest from March 1, 1870, until paid, as witness my hand this 31st day of July, 1869.

Tuesday, October 21. The petition and the exhibits thereto set forth the following facts: That in the month of June, 1869, William Baker made a contract with defendant in which he agreed to perform certain labor for defendant, for the purpose of securing the indemnity due defendant from the government of the United States for lands sold by the government, which belonged to defendant under the law relating to swamp lands, and said Baker undertook to prepare the claim of…

Tuesday, October 21. Action in equity for the abatement of the defendant’s stable, hog-pen, privy and sewer, as nuisances. The defendant denies the allegations of the petition, and by way of counter-claim asks the abatement of hog-pens, stable, stable yard and privy maintained by plaintiff. Trial by the court by the first method. The petition and counter-claim were both dismissed, and judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs. Plaintiff appeals.

Tuesday, October 21. The plaintiffs filed in the Poweshiek district court, their petition in substance as follows: That in 1870 they purchased the west half of section fourteen in township numbered seventy-nine north, of range number fifteen west, of W. D. Freeman, who was the owner thereof in fee simple, and that Freeman and plaintiffs, together, have fenced and broken one hundred and sixty-five acres of said land, and erected a dwelling-house and other substantial and…

Tuesday, October 21. Action for the recovery of real property; plaintiffs aver their absolute ownership, and defendant’s wrongful possession.

Tuesday, October 21. Action upon a replevin bond for $6,000, given by Melvin Stone - as principal and these defendants as sureties, in an action of replevin brought by said Stone against John B. Struman and J. S. Tullís, sheriff, etc. The plaintiff, in his petition, averred the execution of the bond, the breach of it and his damages. The defendants, for answer, admit the execution of the bond by them as sureties, and deny the breach and damages.

Tuesday, October 21. Action upon this instrument of writing, duly signed alone by defendant: “April 13,1870. For and in consideration of goods ordered by us, we individually guarantee the prompt payment of $112 to A. H. Andrews & Oo., or bearer, at the First National Bank of Des Moines, Iowa, on or before the first day of April, 1871, with interest at 10 per cent from date until paid ” (duly signed, stamped and canceled).

Tuesday, October 21. Action for damages on account of injuries received by plaintiff by being run over by an engine on tbe defendant’s railroad in consequence of the negligence of its employees. The answer denies the material allegations of the petition and avers that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the result of his own negligence. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. For the further facts of the case see opinion.

Tuesday, October 21. The plaintiffs bring this action in equity, claiming to be judgment creditors of one Hiram R. Steele, setting forth in their petition the dates and amounts of their several judgments, and claiming also that their judgments are and became liens on out-lot No. 14, in the town of Albia, Monroe county, at the respective dates stated.

Tuesday, October 21. This suit is brought in equity to redeem from a sale of land made by defendant as trustee under a deed of trust executed by the plaintiff as security for money loaned to him by Sarah A. Jennings. The grounds upon which this claim, to redeem, is based are the alleged facts that the sale by the trustee was fraudulently made, and that he became the purchaser of the land at such sale for a grossly inadequate price.

Tuesday, October 21. Action in equity. Trial by the court. From the decree rendered, the plaintiff and the defendant, J. A. Lindley, both appeal. The facts appear in the opinion.

Tuesday, October 21. Action on an account for goods sold and delivered. Jury trial. Yerdictand judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The further facts, necessary to an understanding of the points ruled are stated in the opinion.

Tuesday, October 21. At the October term, 1872, of the district court, the defendant, James J. Peck, filed in each of these causes a motion showing that on the 26th day of March, 1872, he had been convicted of the crime of nuisance; was sentenced to paya fine of $500 and costs of suit, and in default of payment to be imprisoned until the same should be paid, or at the rate of $3.33 per day for fhe requisite time; that afterward he was, for non-payment of such fines, taken…

Tuesday, October 21. This action is brought to recover of the defendant, a railroad corporation, for killing plaintiff’s cow in September, 1871, while operating and running its cars on the track of the Davenport and St. Paul railroad, under a lease from that company, at a place where the defendant and its lessors had a right to fence but had neglected to do so.

Tuesday, October 21. Action upon a bond; there was a judgment for plaintiff, from which he appeals. The facts of the case fully appear in the opinion.

Tuesday, October 21. Action at law to recover certain lands in Adair county. There was a trial of the case to the court without a jury, and a judgment for plaintiffs; defendant appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.

Tuesday,4 October 21. Action upon a policy of insurance to recover for the loss sustained by the burning of the property insured. A demurrer to the answer was sustained and from the judgment thereon defendant appeals. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.

Wednesday, October 22. On the 27th day of May, 1872, plaintiff filed in the Polk district court a petition at law, stating substantially that in March, 1872, one, James Peck, had been convicted of nuisance committed in violation of the act for the suppression of intemperance, and fined $500 and costs; and that the crime was committed in a building and on a lot duly described, belonging to the defendant J. Hierb, and used for such unlawful purpose, with the knowledge and…

Wednesday, October 22. On the 20th day of .September, 1866, the plaintiff filed in the district court of Carroll county, a petition asking that a certain contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant, for the conveyance to defendant of certain swamp lands owned by plaintiff, might be canceled, upon the ground that it was procured through the defendant’s fraud.

Wednesday, October 22. Action of replevin, for one mare, originally brought before a justice of the peace. On appeal, in the circuit court, the cause was tried to the court, who found for defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appeals.

Wednesday, October 22. Suit in equity to enjoin the collection of a judgment in favor of these defendants against this plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff in the judgment agreed in parol with the defendant before the judgment was rendered, that if the defendant then would pay certain other judgments against him and interpose no defense to that action, he should have a stay of execution for one year without bond; the defendant then paid the other judgments, withdrew…

Wednesday, October 22. This action is brought upon an attachment bond. The defendants demurred. The court overruled the demurrer and rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Wednesday, October 22. Motion to set aside a judgment against the defendant, and to discharge garnishee, overruled by the court, from which the defendant appeals. The further facts appear in the opinion.

Wednesday, October 22. Action at law upon four contracts, three substantially in the form of the one of which the following is a copy : “ Centerville, Iowa, Mcvy 12, 1870. “ For value received, I promise to pay the Chicago and Southwestern Railroad Company one hundred dollars; one-half to be paid within ten days after said railroad shall have been completed and the cars running over the same to a permanent depot, to be located within three-fourths of a mile of the corporate…

Wednesday, October 22. Replevin for personal property described in the petition as follows: “ Three piles of hard wood lumber lying on Plumb street north of block No. 7 in Carpenter, Morrison & Yin-cent’s addition to Port Dodge, estimated as containing 3,000 feet in the aggregate, more or less, and of the value of $25 per thousand feet; one pole scraper of the value of $20, two common scrapers of the value of $5 each, one plow of the value of $10, one keg of spikes of the…

<p> Appeal from, Howard District Cov/rt. </p> <p>Thursday, October 23.</p> <p>Action in equity for an undivided one-sixth interest in the town of Creseo, Howard couDty, situated. upon the north fifty-one fifty-six hundredths acres of the north half north-west quarter, section twenty-six, and one hundred and eight thirty-one hundredths acres off the south side of the south-west quarter of section 23, township 99, range 11.</p> <p>John T. Stoneman filed a petition of intervention, claiming the one-eighth part of the interest of Davies and Beadle in said town.</p> <p>Judgment for plaintiff, for the interest claimed, and dismissing the petition of intervenor. The defendant Beadle and the intervenor appeal.</p> <p>The material facts appear in the opinion.</p>

Thursday, October 23. Action upon an insurance policy for total of $800, issued by defendant to plaintiff against loss by fire and lightning on frame dwelling, furniture, apparel, etc., and “live stock on premises, $225, situated sec. 1, T6, 21.” The plaintiff claims $200 for one horse owned and kept by him- on the said premises, but which was killed by lightning six miles therefrom while plaintiff was driving along the highway going to mill, and driving him with another…

<p>1. Criminal law: assault and battery: how triable. Tlie offense of assault and battery is triable summarily before a justice of the peace or other officer authorized by law on information under oath without indictment or the intervention of a grand jury, and not otherwise.</p> <p>2,- Section 1 of chapter 50, Laws of the Seventh General Assembly, changed the punishment for this offense to “imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty days, or by fine not exceeding $100,” and this provision of the statute still remains the law. Section 4220 of the Revision is an erroneous compilation of the statutes on this subject.</p>

Thursday, October 23. The defendant was indicted and convicted of embezzlement, and appeals to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

<p> Appeal from Pottawattamie Circuit Court. </p> <p>Friday, October 24.</p> <p>Action to recover attorney’s fees. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p>

Friday, October 24. The plaintiffs brought this action against defendant upon an account for tobacco sold him September 30, 1870, to the amount of $596.50, with a credit indorsed August 12, 1871, for $298.25 cash paid. The defendant, for answer, denied the indebtedness, but admitted the purchase of the tobacco, and averred its payment, October 31, 1870, by note, which was accepted in full satisfaction.

Friday, October 24. Suit in equity to obtain and quiet title in .plaintiff to the southeast quarter of section 8, township 92, range 45. The land is swamp land, and the plaintiff claims to have acquired his right by contract of purchase under a resolution of the board of supervisors, on December 15, 1868.

Friday, October 24. Action upon a promissory note for eighty-five dollars made by defendant to Arthur Farrar & Co., or order, payable six months after date, (Sept. 6, 1870,) with six per cent interest at the National State Bank, Mt. Pleasant, indorsed in blank to plaintiffs, who allege the same to be their property and unpaid.

Friday, October 24. Action in ordinary to recover $6,359.90 upon a written agreement executed by both plaintiff and defendants. The writing sued on does not specify any place of performance. The plaintiff avers in his petition that defendants are partners and have an office in Polk county for the transaction of their business.

Friday, October 24. On the 2d day of October, 1872, plaintiffs commenced their action against defendant on two promissory notes not yet due, and asking a writ of attachment. The action was brought as upon a debt then due, and not for the purpose of obtaining a writ of attachment upon a debt not yet due where time only is wanting to fix an absolute indebtedness.

Friday, October 24. This action is brought by the plaintiffs to recover for alleged trespasses committed by defendant upon certain lots in Sioux City, East Addition, Wooodbury county, Iowa. The defendant answered: 1. Denying the allegations of the petition; 2. Setting up as a defense a right to enter upon the lots in controversy under a condemnation therof according to law for a right of way for a railroad, constructed by them from Sioux City, .Iowa, to Columbus, Nebraska.

Friday, October 24. This suit is brought upon two promissory notes made hy the defendant for $448.19, and interest thereon at ten per cent from October 14, 1871. At the commencement of the action plaintiff sued out a writ of attachment against the property of the defendant. The answer of the defendant admits the making of the notes, and that the amount claimed thereon is due.

<p>1. Railroad: liability for injuries : negligence. In an action against a railroad company to recover for injuries received by plaintiff while attempting to cross the track, the plaintiff in order to recover must show not only the negligence of the defendant, the injury, and that plaintiff was without fault, but that the injury was caused by defendant’s '• negligence.</p> <p>2.-degree of care. A railroad company is only held to the. exercise of reasonable and ordinary care to prevent injuries to persons crossing its track on a public highway. Only a like degree of care to avoid injury is' required of persons about to cross the track. Neither are bound to exercise extraordinary care.</p>

Friday, October 24. Replevin for a herd of cattle. The answer sets out as a defense the facts that, under a contract with plaintiff’s assignor, the defendant wintered the cattle, and that he holds a lien thereon until payment of his charges be made. Trial to the court without a jury. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Friday, October 24. Action at law to recover a bounty for services in the United States army, during the war of the rebellion, which plaintiff claims under a resolution of the board of supervisors of Louisa county, of date December 8, 1863. A demurrer to the petition, on the ground that the action, as shown by the petition, is barred by the statute of limitations, was sustained. From the decision thereon plaintiff appeals.

Tuesday, October 28. Action to recover damages for tbe failure of defendant to deliver $400 in amount, of accounts contained in two certain books of account kept by the late firm of Sadler & Bean, in Hawleyville, Iowa, which the plaintiff alleged he had purchased of defendant for $25 cash, paid him in hand.

<p>1. Fence: what may constitute. A steep bluff, a hedge, a ditch or the like which furnishes as effectual security to the indosure as the fence prescribed by statute, may be regarded as a lawful fence.</p> <p>2. Railroad: liability EOR STOCK killed. Before a railroad company will be held liable for stock killed on its track by reason of its failure to keep in repair its fence along the right of way, it must be shown that it had knowledge, actual or implied, that the fence was out of repair, and a reasonable time thereafter to put it in repair.</p>

Tuesday, October 28. The petition alleges that the defendants, on the 15th day of August, 1873, by force and fraud broke and entered a certain house belonging to the plaintiff and which he was about to occupy, and that on or about the 31st day of August following, the defendants wrongfully and maliciously tore down and destroyed said house and the adjoining garden fence, and destroyed the garden, for which alleged unlawful malicious acts the plaintiff claims damages in the…

<p>1. Appeal: to supreme court : within what time taken. An appeal to the supreme court from a judgment on a verdict, must he taken -within six months from the rendition of the same.</p> <p>2.-It was accordingly held, that an appeal from a judgment rendered on a verdict, and from an order dismissing a petition for a new trial filed under section 3116 of the Revision; only authorized a review of the action of the court upon the petition for a new trial, and not of the proceedings prior to and resulting in the verdict and judgment, more than six months having expired since the rendition of the same when the appeal was taken.</p> <p>3. New trial: newly-discovered evidence. An application for new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, is insufficient if it fails to state the facts constituting due diligence. Nor will a new trial he granted when the evidence is cumulative.</p> <p>4-practice. Where a petition for new trial is filed under section 3116 of the Revision, the rights of the petitioner may he properly determined on demurrer to the petition.</p>

Wednesday, October 29. This is a suit in equity to set aside a tax sale and deed, made by the treasurer of Cass county to the defendant for the south half of the south-east quarter, and the north-west quarter of the south-east quarter of section three, township 75, range 34. The tax sale was made January 4, 1864, for the delinquent taxes of 1861 and 1862; and the tax deed was executed March 23, 1867. This action was brought December 14, 1868.

Wednesday, October 29. T. H. Alexander is the husband of Martha M. Alexander, and he becoming insolvent, made a general assignment under our State law for the benefit of his creditors. The wife, M. M. Alexander, filed her claim which was based upon promissory notes executed by him to her as a creditor of her said husband ; other creditors contested her claim, and upon a hearing the district court adjudged that her claim should not be allowed.

Wednesday, December 3. Action for the recovery from defendant of losses sustained by the alleged failure of defendant to give proper notice to an indorser of the failure of the maker to pay a note of $650, executed by D. A. Kettle, dated Mount Pleasant, Iowa, November 17, 1868, payable to John Becker, or order, at Mount Pleasant, Iowa, on or before January !, 1871, and indorsed by John Becker to the plaintiff. Trial by the court. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Wednesday, December 3. Dependant was prosecuted before the mayor of Newton for selling beer in violation of an ordinance of that town, and, upon an appeal to the district court, after a demurrer to the information was overruled and a plea of “ not guilty ” entered, was convicted and fined in the sum of $50. He now appeals to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Thursday, December 4. The agreed abstract of record shows the following facts: On the trial of the cause of Clark & Grant against Lyon county, which was an action against, said county on its warrants, C. H. Lewis, district attorney of the fourth judicial district, came, and asked leave of court to file an answer for said county, which request of the said district attorney the court denied for the reason that there had been an appearance by attorneys employed by the board of…

Thursday, December 4. This is a suit in equity to enforce performance of a bid made at a judicial sale.

Thursday, December J. The plaintiff filed a petition in the district court, alleging substantially that it was the owner of a -large quantity of lands in Cherokee county; that the treasurer of the county had advertised said lands for sale for taxes levied thereon for 1870 ; that the board of supervisors had levied taxes thereon for 1871, and averring that the said lands belonged to the State of Iowa until the 5th day of July, 1871, when the same became' the property of the…

Thursday, December 4. Plaintiff brought this action August 1, 1871, upon a certified copy of a judgment rendered in the State of Indiana. The petition was sworn to,'and prayed the issuing of a writ of attachment, which was accordingly issued on the same day. On the 4th of August, 1871, Gr.

Thursday, December 4. Action at law. The petition alleges that plaintiff was employed by defendant under a verbal contract to aid in operating its railroad, whereby defendant undertook and became bound “ to employ good, careful, skillful hands and agents to manage and operate * * * * the trains used by the defendant,” and that they would, “ at all times, carefully, skillfully and prudently ” perform their duty, during the time petitioner should be employed by defendant, and…

<p>Practice: paildre to bile transcript and abstract. Under sections 3180, 3181, Code of 1873, and ‘the rules of the supreme court, appeals must be docketed and the abstracts and briefs required by the rules filed fifteen days before the commencement of the term, and on the failure of the appellant to have this done, and in the absence of a certificate of the clerk of the district court to the effect that he has not had sufficient time to prepare the transcript, the appellee may, on filing a transcript of the judgment, have the same affirmed on motion. The same consequences in this respect will result from failure to file the abstract within the time required, as from failure to file the transcript.</p>

<p> Appeal from Des Momes District Qowrt. </p> <p>Thursday, December 4.</p>

Friday, December 5. Action at law upon an instrument in writing of wbicb the following is a coDy: “ $500. “ I promise to pay to tbe Iowa Bailroad Company or their order, Five Hundred Dollars, as soon as the cars shall run to Brighton, Iowa, upon a contemplated Railroad, running from Washington, Iowa, or some point on the Railroad completed to that place.

<p> Appeal from Des Moines District Qowrt. </p> <p>Thursday, December 4.</p>

<p> Appeal from Washington District Court. </p> <p>Friday, December 5.</p> <p>' The plaintiff in his petition alleges that on the 19th day of September, 1872, he recovered in that court a judgment against the defendant George Figgins for the sum of $200.99 with costs and interest; that afterward, on the 12th day of October, 1872, an execution was issued on said judgment, which was on the 15th day of October, 1872, returned nulla bona, and said judgment remains unpaid and in force.</p> <p>The petition further states that after the creation of the indebtedness on which said judgment was rendered, to wit: on the 8th day of March, 1872, one John F. Spittler conveyed by deed of general warranty to the defendant Elizabeth Figgins, wife of the defendant George Figgins, certain described lands, which deed was fled for record March 16, 1872, and that said Elizabeth Figgins still holds the legal title to said lands, and together with her husband occupies and controls the same.</p> <p>It is further averred that the consideration which passed to said Sjiittler for the lands thus conveyed by him to said Elizabeth Figgins was certain brewery property in "Washington county, tbe title of which was in said George Eiggins and was by him conveyed to said Spittler, said Elizabeth uniting in the deed and relinquishing her dower therein; that said Elizabeth did not own said brewery property and had no interest therein except her inchoate right of dower; that she paid no money or property of her own for the property conveyed to her by Spittler, but the same was purchased with the money and property of her husband, George Eiggins, and the deed therefor taken in her name, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the plaintiff and other creditors of George Eiggins.</p> <p>The plaintiff also annexed to his petition the following interrogatories, which he asked should be answered under oath by each of the defendants:</p> <p>1.- What was the consideration by you or either of you paid John P. Spittler for the real estate described in Exhibit “A,” and how was it paid, in money or in property ?</p> <p>2. If paid in whole, or part in property, to whom did it belong, and by whom was the means furnished for the purchase of the same ? And if any money paid, by whom, and who furnished it ?</p> <p>3. If you state in answer to last interrogatory that defendant Elizabeth Figgins owned any of the property exchanged, or furnished any of the money paid for said real estate, purchased from John Spittler, state the source from which she obtained such property and money, or either. State particulars in full.</p> <p>é. If Elizabeth Figgins owned any of the real estate exchanged, state from whom she purchased it, what consideration, and the character of the same, she paid therefor, and time, place and name of person from whom she received and obtained her individual and separate means.</p> <p>5. From whom was the brewery property purchased bjT you, and what was given therefor — money or property — and who owned the property or furnished the money so given or exchanged for said brewery property ?</p> <p>6. Has Elizabeth Figgins ever at any time had any separate property or estate of her own. If yea, from what source did she obtain it? State amount and wbat has been done with same.</p> <p>Upon the allegations of the petition the plaintiff prayed for a decree subjecting the land conveyed by Spittler to Elizabeth Eiggins to the payment of his judgment.</p> <p>The defendants answered as follows:</p> <p>1. “ They admit that Henry Gwyer obtained judgment in ’ the district court against George Figgins as is alleged in said petition.</p> <p>2. As to the issuing of an execution, and the return made thereon, these respondents have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief.</p> <p>3. It is true that John Spittler made deed to Elizabeth Fig-gins at the time stated and for the real estate described, and that said deed is recorded as alleged. It is true that said defendants now occupy said premises.</p> <p>4. It is true that George Figgins conveyed to Spittler for said premises certain real estate on which there was a brewery and which at the same time these defendants occupied as a homestead. It is true that said Elizabeth Figgins did not own said brewery property and had no interest in it beyond her homestead and prospective or inchoate dower interest. That said brewery property was bought with the products of a former homestead.</p> <p>It is not true that the deed made from Spittler to Elizabeth Figgins was for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff. But the defendant George Figgins was indebted to said Elizabeth Figgins in the sum of $500, and in consideration of said indebtedness and in consideration of the said brewery property being the result of their joint labor, and in consideration that said Elizabeth had united with the said George Fig-gins in conveyance of former homesteads, the title of the said real estate in dispute was put in the said Elizabeth Fig-gins’ name.</p> <p>In answer to 6th, these defendants say said Elizabeth had a separate estate of her own, which she received from her father. She had two horses, one cow, and seven fat hogs, all of which were by said George Figgins converted to his own use, and for which he owed said Elizabeth, at the time of the conveyance referred to, $500 or thereabouts, interest and principal.</p> <p>The cause was submitted to the court on the pleadings, and a decree rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant Elizabeth Figgins appeals.</p>

Monday, December 8. The plaintiff filed a petition alleging that William Story, on the 6th day of November, 1871, was held to answer to the State on a charge of burglary, and that the committing magistrate admitted him to bail in the sum of $800.

Monday, December 8. This action was originally brought bofore a justice of the peace, upon an account for one barrel of sugar, $27.40. The defendant denied the account, and on a trial, the justice rendered judgment for plaintiff, for the amount claimed. The defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, to wit: 1.

Monday, December 8. The plaintiffs in their petition state that the defendant is the administrator of the estate of A. Reeves, deceased. That on the 14th day of September, 1858, said estate being indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $185.40 on a promissory note, they filed in the county court of Keokuk county their said claim, which was duly sworn to according to law. That said claim was on said day duly allowed by the said administrator, and by the court.

Appeals from Grundy District Court. Monday, December 8. These are actions in chancery to quiet plaintiffs’ titles to certain different tracts of land, and to set aside tax sales and deeds, whereon defendant bases a claim of title thereto. The points of law involved in each, case and the facts are the same, and fully appear in the opinion. There was a decree in each case for plaintiff; the defendant appeals in each.

Tuesday, December 9. Plaintiff instituted an action against defendant upon three warrants drawn by the president of defendant upon its treasurer, payable out of the contingent fund, and aggregating $500.44.

Ajojpectl from, Keokuk District Oowrt. Tuesday, December 9. This is a proceeding by certiorari against the board of supervisors of the county, the trustees of Sigourney township and the assessor of the incorporated town of Sigourney, in which the plaintiffs state, in substance, that they were in the year 1872 owners and holders, respectively, of certain shares in the capital stock of the First National Bank of Sigourney, subject for that year to assessment in said town; that…

Tuesday, December, 9. Action upon an official bond executed by defendant Morton, as treasurer of plaintiff, and by tbe other defendant, Hills, as his secretary.

“Wednesday, December 10. On the 17th day of March, 1871, plaintiff filed his petition against defendants, as administrator and administratrix of the estate of James L. Langworthy, deceased, alleging that said estate is justly indebted to him in the sum of $7,296.98, and stating for cause of such claim that on the 19th day of March, 1867, he recovered, against said defendants, as administrator and administratrix of said estate, in the circuit court of Grant county, Wisconsin,…

Wednesday, December 10. Action in equity to set aside tax sale of the S. W. i of section 22, township 71, range 14, in Wapello county, for the delinquent taxes of the years 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, and 1862.

Wednesday, December 10. This is an action for the recovery of real property, the northwest quarter of the south-east quarter of section thirty-three, township eighty-six, range seventeen. The plaintiff derives title by deed from the Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Railroad Company of date May 20, 1871, and under the act of congress and the acts of the State legislature, granting lands for railroad purposes.

Wednesday, December 10. The petition states, in substance, tbat at tbe June term of tbe circuit court of Clinton county, tbe plaintiff obtained a judgment against tbe Union Works, a corporation theretofore organized and existing under tbe laws of this State, and doing business in tbe city of Clinton, in said county; tbat ever since tbe rendition of such judgment, said corporation bas been and is insolvent, its property having been all sold to satisfy debts against it; tbat…

Wednesday, December 10. Action in chancery instituted by plaintiff to foreclose a mortgage upon lands in Clinton county. Everhart, who purchased the land from Cox, was made a defendant. Butterfield filed a cross-petition setting out that Cox, the grantor in the mortgage in suit, on the 6th day of November, 1857, executed to him a deed of trust to secure certain notes before given, and since the 1st day of June, 1865, has been a non-resident of the State.

Thursday, December 11. The petition claims of the defendant a balance alleged to be due upon the purchase price of lot No. 2 in section 27, township 80. Attached to the petition is the copy of a bond for a deed for said lot, executed by plaintiff to defendant.

Thursday, December 11. The defendants were indicted for the crime of establishing a lottery and selling and offering for sale lottery tickets. They were duly arraigned and each filed his plea of gnilty, whereupon the court imposed upon each a fine of sixty dollars and costs, and ordered that they be committed to jail until the same be paid or secured. On the same day the defendants paid the judgment.

Thursdat, December II. This action is founded on an instrument of writing as follows: “$100.

Appeal from Washington Pistriot Court. Thursday, December 11. Action on contract. Demurrer to petition sustained. Attachment quashed on motion of defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.

Thursday, December 11. • The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner in fee simple of the east half of the north-west quarter of section 27, in township 97, north of range 7 west; that the defendant holds a tax deed from the treasurer of the county for the same lands on a sale thereof for delinquent taxes for the year 1861, which tax deed, it is alleged, is illegal and void because a tract of more than forty acres was sold for the gross amount of taxes due thereon, and that…

Thursday, December 11. Action in chancery. There was a trial upon an issue joined on a cross-bill filed by defendant, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts involved in the points ruled appear in the opinion.

Thursday, December 11. Action in chancery. The petition, among other matters, alleges that plaintiff’s father, Daniel O. Boyles, in December, 1834, died intestate in Black Hawk county, seized of certain real estate which is properly described; that he left no widow, and that plaintiff, then a minor, was his only heir, and the defendant, John E. Boyles, was appointed administrator of his estate.

Friday, December 12. The plaintiff and the intervenor, McDaniels, each claim a priority of lien, in virtue of an attachment, upon lot 4, block 50, in the town of Atlantic. The cause was tried by the court, and a judgment was rendered for the intervenor. Plaintiff appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Friday, December 12. This is a suit in equity to enjoin tbe collection of a tax voted in aid of tbe Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Minnesota Railroad. A temporary injunction was allowed. On tbe final trial, tbe injunction was dissolved and tbe petition dismissed at tbe cost of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appeal. The material facts are sufficiently set out in the opinion, in connection with the points ruled thereon.

Friday, December 12. Action by ordinary proceedings for the recovery of real property • — ■ the south-west quarter of the south-east quarter of section 18, township 96, in range 10 west. The petition is in the usual form, and the plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner in fee, and has the right of immediatepossession, which the defendant wrongfully withholds.

Friday, December 12. The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages which he alleges he has sustained by reason of the defendant failing and refusing to close a gate at the end of a private right of way which defendant is entitled to across the premises of the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff’s crops were exposed and injured. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury on the pleadings and agreement of the parties. The court rendered judgment for plaintiff.

Friday, December 12. This is a proceeding by certiorari to tlie board of supervisors alleging that they are acting illegally in the establishment of a county road in the county of Fayette, and asking that the order establishing the road be set aside, etc. After answer to the writ was made, the court on a hearing adjudged that the order establishing the road be vacated and set aside. Defendant appeals.

Friday, December 12. Action in chancery. The petition alleges that defendant executed to one Press, or bearer, a promissory note, which, upon its face, calls for $50, but the consideration thereof was $150, and it was the intention of the parties that it should be for that amount. Through mistake and oversight the word “ fifty ” was written therein instead of “ one hundred and fifty,” and the note thereby failed to express the true contract as made by the parties.

Friday, December 12. Action to recover damages resulting from injuries sustained by plaintiff from a gun-shot wound received by him, by means of a spring gun placed by defendant on his own premises. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Saturday, December 13. Action upon anote executed by Sidney R. Rudd and S. E. Dow, for tbe sum of $160, payable to Lewis Jackson or bearer. Tbe defendant S. E. Dow alone was served with notice and filed an answer.

Saturday, December 13. This cause was submitted to the district court upon an agreed statement of facts setting forth in substance that the defendant Hall, on the 17th of July, 1871, obtained judgment against one C. Templin for $53.33 and costs, in an attachment suit commenced before C. M. Mills, a justice of the peace of said county, and that A. Mallory, as station agent of said railway company, was attached as garnishee, and answered acknowledging an indebtedness from said…

Saturday, December 13. On the 1st day of August, 1873, the plaintiff filed a petition in equity in the district court of Scott county, asking for a writ of injunction to restrain the defendant from constructing its railroad on a certain street in the city. On the next day the petition was presented to the Hon. J. M. Beck, chief justice of this court, at his chambers, and he granted an order, ex parte, for the writ to issue as asked. It was issued and served.

Saturday, December 13. On the 10th day of July, 1871, plaintiff commenced this action before a justice of the peace, .by causing a notice to be issued claiming of the defendant $30, with interest for one year, upon a note and an account. The notice was made returnable at 9 o’clock.^., m., July 15, 1871.

Saturday, December 13. Action at law. The petition states that plaintiff performed work and labor under a contract with Crane & Keenan, who are sub-contractors under Burch, Lakin & Co., contractors under the D. & St. P. R. Co., and that Crane & Keenan gave him a statement in writing, showing an amount due him for such labor and directing Burch, Lakin & Co. to pay the same.

<p> Appeal from Polk District Gov/rt. </p> <p>Saturday, December 13.</p>

Saturday, December 13. Action in chancery to set aside a sale for taxes of certain lands in Hancock county.

Monday, December 15. The petition alleges that defendants, a firm doing business in the city of New York, sold, through their agents, to the plaintiffs, at Manchester, Iowa, a large amount of goods, and that defendants refused to deliver the same to plaintiffs, to their damage, in the sum of $100. The defendants, for answer, deny the alleged sale. Trial hy the court. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. The material facts are disclosed in the opinion.

Afjpealfrom Monroe District Court. Monday, December 15. The petition contains two counts. The first is for a malicious prosecution, and sets forth in detail the alleged facts constituting the wrong; the second is for false imprisonment, and sets forth in detail substantially the same alleged facts as in the first count, with the additional averment that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the case.

Monday, December 15. This is an action in equity to enjoin the sale of certain property under execution, on the ground that it is the homestead of the plaintiff. The answer denies that it is so the homestead as to be exempt from sale under the execution. The sheriff was also made a party defendant. A temporary injunction was granted expa/rie, and afterward, on notice, a motion was made by the defendant, before the judge who granted it, to dissolve the injunction.

Monday, December 15. The plaintiff brings this action to foreclose a mortgage for the sum of $640, and accrued interest evidenced by two promissory notes made by the defendant for part consideration of a farm purchased by him from the plaintiff. In defense, the defendant pleads a breach of the warranty against incumbrances, contained in plaintiff’s deed to the defendant for the lapd sold to him and upon which the mortgage was given.

Monday, December 15. Action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover money illegally collected by defendant for impounding plaintiff’s cow, and for damages claimed to have been done by the cow for which she was impounded. There was a judgment for plaintiff before the justice, and a like judgment upon a verdict on an appeal in the circuit court. The defendant appeals to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Monday, December 15. Action at law upon promissory notes. The answer of defendant sets up equitable matter in defense, and a demurrer thereto was sustained. The defendant, standing upon his answer, a judgment was entered against him and he now appeals to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Monday, December 15. Action to foreclose a mortgage upon real estate in Esther-ville, Emmet county. The defendant appeared in tbe district court and filed a motion asking that the proceedings in and determination of the case be stayed to await the decision of the court of bankruptcy on tbe question of defendant’s discharge, in a proceeding therein pending.

Tuesday, December 16. This is an application of both plaintiff and defendant at the April term, 1873, at Dubuque, for a judgment in this court dismissing the plaintiff’s action in the court below, thus revers ing the judgment of the district court. The motion is resisted by the First National Bank of Dubuque. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Tuesday, December 16. This action is brought on two notes executed to plaintiff by William H. Huston, one dated April 15, 1863, for $100, payable when called for, with ten per cent interest, and the other dated June 10, 1860, for $100, payable in twelve months, with ten per cent interest.

<p>Judgment: on service by publication: ekkeot ok sale under. Where there is service by publication only, and no appearance, but judgment by default is rendered, quieting plaintiff’s title to real property, and thereafter the plaintiff sells the real property to a good-faith purchaser for value, such purchaser will be protected in his title, by Revision 1860, section 8163, although a re-trial may be had under section 3160, even if it should appear that the first judgment was erroneous.</p>

Tuesday, December 16. This action was brought upon a promissory note as follows: “$172.69.

Tuesday, December 16. The action was brought at law to recover the east half of the south-east quarter sections 18, 96,10.

Tuesday, December 16. At the April term, 1873, plaintiffs made a motion in the circuit court of Lee county, to vacate the appointment of defendant, A. J. McCrary, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Tasker, deceased, which was overruled, and from this order of the court plaintiffs appeal. The facts involved in the points ruled appear in the opinion.

Tuesday, December 16. Action at law to recover the possession of certain lots in Gray’s addition to the city of Clinton. There was a judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The further facts of the case involved in the points ruled appear in the opinion.

Wednesday, December 17. The petition alleges in substance that at an election duly beld in tbe township of Floyd, in Floyd county, on the 29th. day of October, 1868, pursuant to the proper petition of resident tax payers and order of the township trustees, a tax of five per cent was voted in aid of the construction of the Cedar Falls & Minnesota Railway, as provided by chapter 18, Laws 12th general assembly.