Volume 38 — Iowa Reports

This is a suit in equity to obtain specific performance of alleged parol contracts, for the conveyance of certain real estate between the plaintiff and William Campbell, his father, now deceased. The defendants are the children and heirs at law of said William Campbell, deceased. The plaintiff alleges the making of the contracts and the defendants deny it.

Action at law upon the covenant of general warranty in a conveyance of the north half of the south-east quarter1 of section nine, township seventy-one, range twelve, made by the defendants, O. TI. & II. W. Perry,' to their cordefendant, ~W.r A. Jordan, and by him to the plaintiff, with like warranty. The defendants, O. II. & II. W. Perry, aver that at the date of their conveyance to Jordan, they had an absolute and perfect title, and deny any breach of their covenant.

Action in chancery to compel the specific performance of a contract to sell and convey certain lands in Hancock county, by defendant, McCandless, to plaintiff, and to set aside a deed for the same lands made by McCandless to defendant, Clark. There was a trial in the District Court upon the merits of‘the case, and a decree rendered dismissing plaintiff’s petition. He now appeals to this court. The facts of the case are set out in the opinion.

Action in chancery to enjoin the collection of a five per cent railroad tax, voted by the citizens of Bloomington township, Muscatine county, under the law of 1870, to aid the building of the Muscatine Western Railroad. One hundred and thirty other persons are joined with Sinnett, as plaintiffs. 5. Gf. Stein and J. B. Dougherty, the first president, and the second treasurer of the railroad incorporation, organized to build the road mentioned, are made defendants.

This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the defendants, who are trustees of Pike .township, Muscatine county, to issue a proper writing, as required by law, certifying that plaintiff has complied with and performed the conditions upon which a tax was voted by the electors of the township to aid in the construction of a railroad.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the second degree, and upon trial was found guilty of manslaughter. lie appeals. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.

Action in Chancery to enforce the conveyance of certain lands to. plaintiff, the legal title of which is in defendant. Upon the final hearing, the relief prayed for in the petition was granted; Defendant appeals.

Action to foreclose mortgage. Defease aad cross bill by Berry aad wife. Judgment and decree for plaintiff Morrison. The defendants Berry and wife appeal. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion. • • '■

Action upon a promissory note, dated at Darien, (N. Y.) Nov. 20, 1865, for ten hundred and forty-seven dollars, payable to Hannah Backus or bearer, five years after date, with use. The action was commenced October 11, 1871.

The first count of the petition states a cause of action upon a promissory note made by the defendant Grier, April 14th, 1871, for $320, payable to the. plaintiff sixty days from date. The second count alleges a cause of action for $279.17, as rent due the plaintiff from defendant on a parol lease of premises therein described, commencing Oct. 20th, 1870, one hundred and fifcy dollars, of which is alleged to be included in the note set out in the first count of the fetition.

These are actions to recover for the killing of two' horses, one belonging to each plaintiff, by an engine on the defendant’s railroad. The same facts are.presented in each case, both animals having been killed at the same time and j>lace. There was a verdict and judgment in each case for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Action at law against the defendant as indorser of two promissory notes made to him or bearer, and indorsed after maturity. The defendant for answer set up a general denial, and that the indorsement was made by an agent who made it without recourse, and was only authorized so' to make it. There was a trial to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the two notes and interest.

This action was originally brought against Wm. B. Lusk and G. W. McCarty to recover the sum of nine hundred dollars advanced by the plaintiff to McCarty. Pending the trial the cause was dismissed as to McCarty, who was never served with process. There wfas a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

<p>1. Municipal corporations: repeal oe ordinance: amendment. When the legislative authority of au incorporated town amends an ordinance by enacting an entire section which embraces and reviews the whole subject matter of a section in an existing ordinance, a clear implication arises of a legislative intention that the former shall repeal and taire the place of the latter.</p> <p>2. -:-:-. Under Section 1122, Revision of 1860, when a section of an ordinance is amended,'the section only, and not the entire ordinance in which it is contained, need be set out. ,</p> <p>3. -: powers: license: how granted. Where an incorporated town had the power to regulate and license auction sales, etc., and to pass all ordinances necessary to exercise that power, an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to fix the amount of the license within a specified sum was luid not invalid.</p>

Action to recover the value of a trunk and contents of clothing alleged to have been lost or destroyed while in possession of defendant as a carrier. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict rendered against plaintiff under an instruction of the court to the effect that there was no evidence showing that the trunk was delivered to defendant or its agents. From a judgment rendered upon this verdict plaintiff' appeals.

On the 12th of November, 1855, Gideon Edinger owned the west half of the southwest quarter of section 31, township 90, range 5, in Blackliawk county, and mortgaged the same to Joseph Pixley, to secure the payment of $100. Afterward, to-wit: August 12th, 1856, Gideon Edinger, the mortgagor, conveyed said premises to John McLMoil. August 20th, 1856, John McLMoil conveyed to Ephraim Mears. October 2d, 1856, .Ephraim Mears conveyed to Ona IT. Woodward. July 26th, 1858, Ona Ii.

0 The first count charges that defendant on the 12th of December, 1871, did feloniously and with intont to defraud falsely make, counterfeit and forge the following instrument: “$60. . Laporte City, Dec. 12, 187 Received of Elwell & Ingersoll, Bankers, on account of J. Mills, sixty dollars. No. 75.

Action in Chancery. The petition alleges that plaintiff is the owner of the S. W. ¿, of Sec. 33, T. 79, N. R. 2é W., in Polk county, her title thereto being derived from one Jonathan Lyon through a sheriff’s sale, and a deed thereon executed December 6, 1869. The judgment upon which this sale was had, was rendered in 1859 against Lyon.

<p> .Appeal from Benton District Court. </p> <p>Tms action is brought to recover of the defendant for negligently running and operating a train of cars upon its road in the city of Yinton, Iowa, whereby a mare and a mule belonging to the plaintiff were injured.</p> <p>The defendant in its answer admits the injury to the stock, but denies that it occurred through its negligence, and avers that the injury was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff. Jury trial. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p>

Plaintiff claims five hundred dollars damages on account of injuries to cattle shipped on defendant’s road from Maquoketa to Chicago.

<p> Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. ■ </p> <p>This action was commenced in ordinary proceedings, on the 25th of August, 1870, to recover one year’s interest upon a note for $24,000, dated January 1st, 1869, due on or before the first day of April, 18S0, with interest from the first of April, 1869, payable annually.</p> <p>The defendants filed their answer and cross-bill in equity, praying the cancellation of the note sued on, and the mortgage executed to secure the same, and alleging in substance that the note was given in purchase of section 17, and the southeast quarter of section 18, in township 72, range 5.</p> <p>That plaintiff, with intent to cheat and defraud defendants, represented that said premises lay in a body, six and one-lialf miles from the city of Mount Pleasant; that there was a large amount of hedge fence in a good state of cultivation thereon; that there was no road, and particularly no diagonal road,' across the land in any manner separating the same; that there was on the land a valuable living stream. of running water, sufficient at all times for a stock farm for the whole of said premises. The cross-bill alleges specifically the falsity of each of these representations, and states that the defendants offered to surrender the lands, and have the note and mortgage canceled.</p> <p>At the time of filing their cross-bill defendants filed a motion to transfer the action to equity, which was sustained.</p> <p>On the second day of February, 1871, plaintiff filed an amendment to the petition, alleging that the note was executed for the purchase money of the land above named, and that a mortgage was executed on said premises to secure the same. That there is due $1,110, with interest from April 1, 1870, and $1,110 will become due. April 1, 1871. That 100 acres of the premises are improved with buildings, etc., thereon; that 610 acres are fenced, and that defendants have abandoned the q>remises.</p> <p>Plaintiff prays for the. appointment of a receiver, for judgment for $1,410 and interest at 6 per cent., and for such further sum as may mature on said note before decree, for a foreclosure of the mortgage, and a sale of the premises; and that the excess of proceeds of sale be applied to pay sums not due'on said note with proper rebate, and for general relief.</p> <p>On the 26th day of June, 1871, plaintiff filed an answer to the cross-bill, denying all its material allegations.</p> <p>On the 30th of May, 1872, plaintiff filed an amendment to his petition, alleging that another year’s interest has fallen due on the note, and that in order to preserve his security he was compelled to pay taxes on the mortgaged premises for the years 1869 and 1870, amounting to $101.02, and praying judgment for these sums.</p> <p>The court decreed that the defendants are entitled to recover the sum of thirty-five hundred dollars, on account of the matters set up in the cross-bill. That the contract is valid and binding, and defendants áre not entitled to have the same rescinded. That the amount of interest which has not been paid on said note, together with the taxes paid by plaintiff on the mortgaged premises is $5205.03, leaving due plaintiff after deducting the damages, $1,705.03, and that the -mortgaged premises should be sold to satisfy the same.</p> <p>That there are other payments secured by the same mortgage not yet due, viz.: the sum of $24,000, with 6 per cent, interest, payable annually.</p> <p>That upon the sale of said mortgaged premises, after first satisfying- the judgment herein rendered, the surplus be applied as follows: First, in payment of the principal and interest from April 1, 1872, of the note set out in plaintiff’s petition; and second, that if any balance remain due after satisfying said note and interest, such balance be paid defendants. The plaintiff excepted to the decree so far as it awards the defendants damages, and the defendants excepted to the remainder. The defendants alone appeal.</p>

. These are actions in chancery brought to set aside deeds made upon tax sales of certain lands in Grundy county. The first cause involves the title to sections 26 and 35, T. 87, N. R. 16; the second, sections 27 and 34, and the third, section 36, all in the same township and range.

<p>1. Evidence: prommissory note. Parol evidence is not admissible to show that a note was not intended as a claim against tbe maker.</p> <p>2. Practice: instruction: verdict. In tbe absence of evidence to sustain a case, tbe court may instruct tbe jury to find for tbe defendant.</p>

On the 31st clay of May, 1871, the plaintiff filed his petition averring his possession and ownership in fee of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 3, township 96, north, range 7, west, in virtue of a deed made to him therefor by tbe heirs of Andrew Stewart, dated December 8, 1869, and that he is informed defendants make some claim to the property adverse to him.

Tiie plaintiff instituted this action in equity to quiet his alleged title to certain real estate. After answer by defendant, plaintiff filed his application for a change of venue based on alleged prejudice of the judge. The motion was sustained and the venue ordered changed to Clarke county, in the third judicial district.

Plaintiees, who are attorneys at law, bring this action to recover against defendant for professional services rendered by them in defending his wife in an action brought by him for divorce on the ground of adultery. The petition alleges that the services rendered were necessary to establish the wife’s innocence of the crime of adultery, with which she was charged by her husband,- and that she has no estate of her own from which the debt may be collected.

Action to recover doifble the value of a cow hilled by a train of cars upon defendant’s road at a place where there was no fence but where defendant had the right to fence. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

This cause was submitted to the District Court for Jackson County upon an agreed statement of facts setting forth that L. A. Ellis, District Attorney of the 7th judicial district, as attorney for the State, tried the case of the State of Iowa The District Court sustained the decision of the board of supervisors, and plaintiff appeals.

Action against the county for fees. Judgment for defendant for costs. Plaintiff ajopeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

<p>Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.</p> <p>Action to foreclose a mortgage. A demurrer to the petition was sustained. The plaintiff appeals.</p>

This is a suit in equity to enforce a specific performance of a written contract for a right of way, and to enjoin the defendants from proceeding, by ad guod damnum, to assess the damages for such right of way before a sheriff’s jury. The defendants demurred to the petition, and also moved to dissolve the temporary injunction which was allowed upon it. These were severally overruled.

Mpjoeal from Muscatine District Court. Action of right. The land in controversy was purchased of the United States, by Peter Fryberger, May 22, 1839. On the 29th day of April, 1853, by deed of general warranty, he conveyed the same to his daughter Rebecca Heaton, wife of Silas Heaton. Rebecca Heaton died in 1857, and Silas in 1869. Plaintiffs are the children of Rebecca and Silas Heaton, and claim the premises as heirs of their mother.

This action' is brought to quiet the title and possession in and of certain lands to which the plaintiff claims title under the Swamp Land Laws of the United States and of the State of Iowa, to which also the defendant claims title as a part of the railroad land grant made by Congress to the State by act of May 15, 1856. The court below rendered a decree for plaintiff from which defendant appeals.

Action in equity to redeem from the foreclosure of a school fund contract. ■ Trial by the court. Decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to recover six hundred and ninety-four bushels of corn, seized by the defendant, as constable, under three different attachments in his hands against the property of one Ledbetter. The plaintiff claims the corn under a contract of purchase hy him with .said Ledbetter. The cause was tried to the court, who found the facts as they are stated in the opinion, and rendered a judgment thereon for’ defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff brings this action to foreclose a certain contract for the sale of land to one Thomas, and to obtain judgment on a promissory note given in payment therefor. The contract is for the sale of an undivided interest in the property, the title to the remaining interest, at the time of the sale, being in other parties.

Action eor Seduction. Jury trial. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant «appeals. Tlie further facts appear in the opinion.

Action to recover double the value of a portion of fence erected by plaintiff upon the line separating his premises from those of defendant. Jury trial. Judgment and verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Afrpeal from Jones Disti'ict Court. Action in equity to set aside a tax deed to defendant for land of plaintiff on the ground that the land was sold for taxes' without having been legally assessed. A preliminary injunction was allowed restraining defendant from the sale of the land, and from disposing of the timber thereon.

Action of replevin for a horse of which plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner, and which he alleges defendant wrongfully detained. The answer admits that plaintiff is the owner of the horse, and alleges that defendant, a householder, took up said horse as an estray, and that he was lawfully in possession of him as such. Jury trial. Yerdict for defendant, and fixing the value of the horse at $90.00.

<p> Appeal from Henry Cireidt Court. </p> <p>Action upon a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene county, Pennsylvania, in favor of John ITufty, against the defendant, Levi Clark. Jury trial. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p> <p>The material facts are stated in the opinion. This cause was before us on a former appeal. See 31 Iowa, 77.</p>

At the November term, 1871, of the Polk District Court, the defendants were, indicted for conspiracy. Held: upon tlieir recognizance, already taken, to answer any future indictment for the same offense, and that the matter be re-submitted to tbe grand jury then in session.

Action to recover for damages sustained by plaintiff on ■account of an injury to a mule owned by bim, inflicted by a train on defendant’s road. The accident occurred at a flag station where there was a switch and side track. . There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Ti-ie defendants were indicted for obstructing a highway known as the road leading from the West Point and Fort Madison road to the Franklin and Fort Madison road. They were found guilty and fined in the sum of one dollar each, and ordered to abate the nuisance. Defendants appeal.

This suit is commenced on the following instruments: “ $500.00. Leon, Iowa, August 2, 1871.

Afjpeal from Montgomery District Gov/rt. The defendant was indicted for wilfully and maliciously placing an obstruction upon the track of a railroad. The indictment was based on Code of 1873, § 3979, which is tlié same as Eevision of 1860, § 4320. Upon a trial the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to three and a half years in the penitentiary. The defendant appeals.

Action to recover of defendant damages for the alleged appropriation of right of way over plaintiff’s premises, for the digging of a well and negligently leaving it uncovered, into which plaintiff’s animals fell, for the removal of plaintiff’s fence, and the covering up of a spring on plaintiff’s premises. On the 5th day of July, 1872, defendant filed an answer denying specifically the allegations of the petition.

<p>Appeal to Supreme Court: right of: amount. An appeal to Supreme Court will be dismissed when the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars.</p>

Action in Chancery. The petition shows that plaintiff sold to defendant, Irwin, by a written contract, a tract of land for the consideration of $500; that through mistake the consideration is stated in the contract to be $400; that by the terms of the contract Irwin was to cut the timber on the land and manufacture it into railroad ties upon which plaintiff was to have a lien for the purchase money of the land, and that the ties were so manufactured by Irwin, were sold and…

Certiorari. The petition shows that defendant Hays, with others, petitioned the Board of Supervisors to make a certain change in a road described in the petition. After proper orders appointing commissioners, fixing a day for final hearing before him by the Auditor, etc., that officer, upon a trial, determined against the petitioners for the road and refused to make the change.

On Nov. 16, 1871, plaintiff filed bis petition alleging that be bad contracted with tbe defendant for tbe manufacture and delivery of a certain power pump; that the contract was made by a communication, of which tbe following is a copy: “ To the City Council of Waterloo, Iowa: We are prepared to furnish tbe city with a power pump of our improved form, upon tbe following conditions: 1st. Tbe pump shall, be in every respect substantial. 2d. It shall force water with less power…

Petition for an injunction to restrain the defendants from selling, under a chattel mortgage, a steam saw mill situated upon the south-west fourth of the north-east quarter of section eight, township seventy, north, range twenty-seven, west. A temporary injunction was issued, which upon the hearing was made perpetual. Defendants appeal.

Plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court of Clarke county a petition praying judgment against the defendant, Alva Leonard, on two promissory notes, and asking the foreclosure of a mortgage executed to secure the same by said Leonard and wife, on the 17th day of February, 1871, upon lot two, in block eleven, in the town of Osceola.

This is an action on an award of arbitrators. There was a judgment for defendant on a demurrer to the petition. The plaintiff appeals. The further facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This action is brought by plaintiffs in equity for the cancellation of a tax deed, and for general relief. On the trial the District Court rendered judgment for defendant, dismissing plaintiffs’ petition. Plaintiffs appeal. The further facts appear in the opinion.

The petition alleges tliat Peter Lank, while exercising ordinary care, was, by the negligence of defendant, run down and killed by a locomotive on its road. For the injury occasioned the estate plaintiff claims $10,000. Jury trial; verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $6,250. Defendant appeals.

<p> Appeal from, Webster Ci/rcuit Gourt. </p> <p>Action at law. There was a trial to the court without a jury, and a judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts fully appear in the opinion.</p>

<p>1. Receipt: parol evidence admissible to explain: promissory notes. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a receipt was given upon the condition that tbe amount covered by it should be indorsed upon the note. If the indorsement is not made, the transaction does not operate as a payment upon the note.</p> <p>2. Evidence: discretion op the court: practice. Where the discrepancy between the testimony of a witness at a former trial, and on the pending trial was so slight that neither party could be affected thereby, the court was justified in refusing permission to cross-examine the witness by whom it was sought to establish the conflict of evidence.</p>

This action is brought to recover an alleged balance due from the defendant, the chief contractor for the construction of a portion of the Des Moines, Indianola & Missouri Bail-road, to the plaintiffs who were sub-contractors, by written agreement for the grading of part of said road from station 240 to 270, and by subsequent- parol agreement for the grading of the road from section 270 to 271, at the same price and on' the same terms as expressed in the written contract.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries to the plaintiff caused by a collision of a train of cars on defendant’s railroad with the plaintiff’s wagon, in which he was riding, upon the highway where the railroad crosses the same. The petition alleges the cause of the injury to have been the negligence of defendant’s employees operating the train, and avers his own care.

Indictment for the crime of Nuisance. Judgment that defendant pay a fine of five hundred dollars and costs, and stand committed, etc. Defendant appeals. * The facts are stated in the opinion.

40, and it was made a lien on the building and' the leasehold; that plaintiff signed a stay bond for Pierce and thereby became surety for the payment of said judgment; that on the ■date aforesaid Pierce sold and transferred his interest in the lot and building to the defendant herein, Ira Ingalls; that as part consideration therefor Ingalls verbally agreed with both Pierce and the plaintiff to pay the said judgment and costs; that Ingalls did not pay it, and the plaintiff…

The plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Circuit Court, sustaining certain motions to strike out reply to answer of garnishees, and to discharge garnishees upon their own answer. The facts necessary to an understanding of the points ruled are stated in the opinion.

Action for the recovery of one thousand dollars upon a policy of insurance on the life of Michael Mayer, who died on the 28th day of August, 1872. The premium upon the policy became due on the 22nd of August, and was unpaid at the time of his death. Upon this ground the defendant seeks to avoid liability. Jury trial. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for one thousand dollars. Defendant appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

This action is brought to recover double the value of a colt killed by the engine and train of the defendant near Woodbine. The colt was killed May 28th, 1870, and the^jplaintiff averred that he served the affidavit and notice of loss, as provided by statute, on the defendant’s agent, July 14th, 1870, and defendant had failed and refused to pay the value, $100.

Tins suit is brought to restrain and enjoin the defendant from running and operating its railroad through and over the lands of the plaintiff, which he alleges the defendant is doing without having made any compensation for the right to do so. The defendant filed an- answer to which plaintiff demurred, which the court overruled, and plaintiff, appeals. :

This is a proceeding under the statute to condemn a part of a certain lot in Council Bluffs over which defendant’s railroad was located, and to assess the value thereof to be awarded to plaintiffs as damages on account of such condemnation. - The sheriff’s jury awarded plaintiffs $25. An appeal was taken by jfiaintiffs to the Circuit Court, where a conditional judgment for $100 was awarded in their favor. Both parties appeal to this court.

The defendant was indicted for embezzlement. The indictment charges that the defendant “ on the first day of January, 1871, was engaged in and carrying on the business or employment of a warehouseman in the town of Anamosa, in Jones county, Iowa, and while so engaged and employed, to-wit: on or about the first day of April, 1871, one John Cheshire delivered to said A. Stoller, at the place aforesaid a large amount of grain, to-wit: one thousand and seventeen bushels of wheat…

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are attorneys at law, and that he delivered to them for collection a note on J. IT. Yalentine for $270, and interest; that they agreed to collect and remit the same to plaintiff; that they have collected .$300 thereon and have failed to remitas agreed, and judgment is asked therefor.

The first count of the petition alleges that on the first day of May, 1869, the defendant representing that he was the owner of a note for $120, executed by Abner Eldridge and W. H. Davidson, sold and transferred the same for value to the plaintiff, whereby he undertook and agreed that he had title to said note, that it was genuine, and had been executed by the parties whose names purport to be signed thereto, whereas in fact defendant had no title thereto; it never had been…

Action at law upon a contract in the following words: “ Messrs Nixon & Oo: Please manufacture and have ready for delivery in Chicago, by. the 15th, of April 1869, twelve of your Alliance Double Shovel Plows, for which I agree to pay you eighty-four dollars on or before the first day of June, 1869. Thos. C. Carson.” Iowa City, March 1, 1869.

The plaintiff brought his action on two promissory notes, and sued out a writ of attachment against the property of the defendant, upon which the sheriff attached the growing wheat upon the land of v the defendant.

The petition alleges in substance that on the first' day of November, A. D. 1866, he took possession of a certain piece of land in the city of Dubuque, and that -he has ever since held possession thereof, and that he put improvements thereon amounting to more than five hundred dollars, by commencing the erection of a dwelling house for the occupancy of himself and family.

Action of replevin. There was a trial to the court without a jury and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in tlie opinion.

Action in chancóry. The petition charges that defendant, Frederick Tugel, who is the son of petitioner, in 1868, borrowed of him $500; that afterwards petitioner demanded of defendant a note and mortgage to secure the debt, and defendant executed a writing in the German language, whi&h he represented to plaintiff to be the security required; that the petitioner is old and infirm and unable to read writing; that he relied upon the representations of his son to the effect that…

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a tract of forty acres of land from the possession of defendant. The defendant filed a cross-bill, setting up an equitable title in the land, and asked the court to quiet the legal title m him. The cause was tried in equity on the defendant’s cross-bill, and a decree rendered, quieting the title to the land in the defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

On tlie 3d day of September, 1872, tlie plaintiffs, wbo are unmarried women, commenced an action against tlie defendants, who are husband and wife, claiming of them five thousand dollars on account of certain slanderous words spoken by each of the defendants, at different times and places, imputing to the plaintiffs a want of chastity.

The plaintiff traded a saw mill and fixtures to the defendant, Alex. Freeman, for two forty-acre tracts of lands, and one nine-acre tract, all adjoining. Each conveyed to the other with warranty.

Plaintiff claims $1,000, alleged to be due on account of business transacted with defendant in the years 1872 and 1873. The defendant denies that any balance is due plaintiff. Trial to the court. Plaintiff testified in substance that on or about Nov. 25th, 1872, he gave defendant two drafts, each for $1,000, on Yaughn Bros., Chicago. That one of these drafts was forwarded to Chicago and paid.

This action is brought against the defendant Wilson, as principal, and against the other defendants as sureties, on the official bond of the former as clerk of the District Court. 'On a trial before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $1,367.77, and costs, from which the defendants appeal.

■ On the llth day of April, 1873, an information was filed in the office of D. W. Crouse, a justice of the peace of Olay county, charging that the defendant did feloniously steal property of Elsie Gr. Danow, of the value of $15.00. The information is in all respects formal, except that the name of the person, making it is not signed thereto. The defendant pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted. Afterward he appealed to the District Court.

This is an action of replevin to recover possession of 329 bars of railroad iron, alleged in the petition to be of the value of $3,600.

Tliis suit is brought on a promissory note, executed by. Thomas W. Hyde and R. Braden to the plaintiff.

H. J. Playter, of Butler Center, Iowa, is desirous of opening a small account with you. There is little money in the country, and collections almost impossible, and matters will remain so till after harvest. This involves the necessity of credit, more or less, until that time, upon at least part of his purchase.

This is an action against the city of Sionx City, to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff’s mare resulting from her falling into an excavation in one of the streets of the city, negligently left open and unguarded. The answer denies the negligence alleged, denies making or causing the éxcavation, denies the alleged injury, etc., and alleges that the injury complained of, resulted from the plaintiff’s own carelessness, etc. Trial and judgment ior plaintiff.

This is an action substantially grounded upon an alleged breach of a covenant of seizin contained in a conveyance of real estate.

Foreclosure of a mortgage executed by Kennison, defendant, to Biebhoof to secure two promissory notes. The petition alleges the assignment of one of the notes to plaintiff, and that Taggart, with notice of the mortgage, purchased the incumbered premises of Kennison, and as a part of the consideration therefor, agreed and verbally promised Kennison to pay the note in suit.

The plaintiff brings this action under Chapter 47 of the laws of 1862, to recover damages from the defendant for having sold intoxicating liquors to Thomas Dunlavey, the husband of plaintiff, whereby she alleges she has been injured in her person and means of support. The cause was tried to a jury who rendered a verdict for plaintiff for two hundred dollars-A motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered on the verdict. Defendant appeals.

<p> Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. </p> <p>Action on promissory note. . Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. The facts appear in the opinion.</p>

Plaintiff and defendant were married on -the 19tli day of December, 1866, tbe plaintiff being seventy-seven and tbe defendant forty-five years old. On tbe first of January, 1870, defendant filed a bill for divorce from plaintiff on the ground of cruel treatment.

Ajpjpeal from, Johnson Circunt Court. This action is brought on a promissory note, against William O’Brien as maker and Michael Cash as indorser thereof. The defendant Cash demurred to the petition. The court sustained the demurrer and plaintiff appeals. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Action in chancery to subject certain land to a judgment recovered by plaintiff against James McGuire, the husband of the other defendant. The facts of the case, as disclosed by the brief, are as follows: In 1856 James McGuire and another furnished John W. Thompson a certain sum of money with which to purchase the land in controversy.

This action was brought to recover for washing down the cellar wall and flooding the cellar and destroying vegetables and family .stores of the plaintiff, caused by the alleged unskillful and negligent manner in which the defendant constructed and left the gutters of its streets near the plaintiff’s house.

Action for assault and battery, arid for slander. This appeal relates only to the latter.

The defendant was indicted jointly with one John Cattell, for causing a nuisance by keeping intoxicating liquors in a certain building in the county, with intent to sell the same contrary to law. Both defendants pleaded “ not guilty,” and Laffer also pleaded a “ former acquittal ” on the same charge. Upon a trial to a jury a verdict of guilty was rendered against Laffer, and a verdict of not guilty as to Cattell. The former appeals.

One Glass recovered a judgment against the City of Independence for damages sustained by him on account of injuries received from falling into a cellar door, opening upon a sidewalk of a street of the city, which was negligently left without covering or railing for the protection of persons passing along that way. Jekel had charge of the work and the other defendant is the owner of the property.

This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace who rendered judgment against defendants upon their default. Upon an appeal by the defendants to the Circuit Court the cause was dismissed, and the judgment was affirmed against defendants and their surety on the appeal bond, because default was made in the justice’s court, and judgment thereon •was there rendered.

Action upon the indorsements of two promissory notes waiving demand and notice. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

This action is brought to quiet the title to certain lands described in plaintiff’s petition. In one count of tbe answer tbe defendant pleaded a former adjudication of tbe matters involved in this action. To this plea plaintiff demurred, and tbe demurrer being overruled, be appeals. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

<p> Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court. </p> <p>At the October Term, 1872, a judgment was rendered in the Crawford County District Court, wherein D. L. Gillett was plaintiff, and the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company defendant, for $150.00 double damages for killing plaintiff’s cow. On the 16th day of December, 1872, said railway filed its petition in said court to vacate this judgment, and praying an injunction restraining execution thereon.</p> <p>An injunction was granted as prayed, and at the March term said cause was consolidated with the original action, and the cause as consolidated was transferred to the Circuit Court of Crawford county. At the July term 1873, of said court, the plaintiff filed an amendment to the original petition to vacate, setting up that it had a full and complete defense to the original cause of action. At the same time it filed an answer to the main case, which was a complete paper defense.</p> <p>Upon the hearing the court adjudged that the judgment be vacated and a new trial granted, and the injunction be made perpetual. The defendant appeals.</p>

Action of replevin for a horse. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff; defendants appeal. The facts of the case so for as they are involved in the points of law ruled,, appear in the opinion.

<p> Appeal from, Hamilton Oircuit Oovrrt. </p> <p>The petition 'alleges that the District Township of Ells-worth, in the County of Hamilton is a 'body corporate organized as a School District Township, and that the defendants, Canute C. Nelson, Henry Staley, Linsey Sowers, and John A. Cooper, constitute the board of directors thereof.</p> <p>That at their annual meeting on the 3d Monday of September, 1872, the board of directors of said district township divided the same into four sub-districts, and that sub-district No. 4 was then set off.</p> <p>That on the 3d of March, 1873, the electors of sub-district No. 4, determined by unanimous vote that the sum of $600 is required for the erection of a school house in said sub-district.</p> <p>That the sub-director of sub-district No. 4, certified the amount determined, to the next regular meeting of the district township, and requested the electors to vote said sum, and that the electors considered the matter, and refused to vote said amount.</p> <p>That at the first regular meeting thereafter of the board of directors the neglect and refusal of the district township to vote any sum for the erection of a school house in said sub-district was presented and made known to said board of directors, and the plaintiff requested said board of directors to vote said sum of six hundred dollars asked by said sub-district No. 4, and to ascertain the per centum of the sum applied for on the property of the district township, and apportion the same among the several sub-districts, which the said board refused to do.</p> <p>, That plaintiff is an elector and tax payer, and has four children of school age residing with him in the district, and that by reason of Skunk river and other obstacles his children cannot attend' the other schools in the district.</p> <p>That sub-districts Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have each a school house, built by the levy of a uniform school house tax upon all the property of the district township, including the property of said district No. 4, and that no special tax was levied upon the property of either of said sub-districts.</p> <p>Plaintiff prays a writ of mandamus commanding the defendants to vote said stim of six hundred dollars, and to levy a tax as provided by law on the property of said district township, sufficient to raise said sum.</p> <p>The answer contains a general denial; alleges that the plaintiff John A. Cooper, and the defendant John A. Cooper, are •the same person, and that the organization of sub-district No. 4 was fraudulently and wrongfully procured at the instance of plaintiff.</p> <p>The cause was tried by the court and it was adjudged that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue commanding defendants, as sub-directors of the district township of Ellsworth, to convene and levy the amount of six hundred dollars for the erection of a school house in sub-district No. 4, and to direct the same to be raised by a tax on all the taxable property of said district township, and to certify the amount so voted to the Board of Supervisors before their September meeting. Defendants appeal.</p>

The plaintiff filed a petition stating that it is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State, and claiming of defendant the amount of two promissory notes, each given for the sum of $9.00.

This action is brought to obtain partition of certain real . property, in which the plaintiffs claim to be the owners of an undivided one-half interest, and which they allege the defendants to be owners of the other undivided one-half interest. From the overruling of a demurrer to the petition defendants appeal. The further facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Plaintiees claim the possession of lots no’s 2, 3, 4 and 5, in block 915, in Barrett’s subdivision of out lots in the City of Burlington, alleging that they are the owners thereof in fee simple, arid that defendant unlawfully keeps them out of possession.

A writ of injunction was allowed by the judge of the 1st Circuit of the 4th Judicial District restraining defendants from holding religious meetings in a certain school house, until the further order of the District Court. This writ was served April 19, 1872. At the September term, 1872, of the District Court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for alleged defects in the injunction bond.

Action for slander. In a former action by this plaintiff, Levi Ellis, against A. J. Lindley, B. E. Lindley, this defendant and another, the plaintiff herein testified as a witness. The case was decided at October Term, 1873, Dubuque. The petition in this case is in three counts and sets out in each that the defendant uttered of and concerning the plaintiff and his testimony in that action, that he swore to a lie.

Afjpeal from, Blackhawle District Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage' on lot 8, in block 7 of D. & G.’s addition to Cedar Falls, given to secure $879.81, made by the defendant, Sarah Cole, to John Zack, February 15, 1870, and recorded February 22, 1870. November 29, 1870, Zack sold and assigned the note -and mortgage to L. H. Severin. February 1, 1871, L. H. Severin sold and assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff, who commenced this action May 11, 1871.

This action is brought under Chapter 47 of the Laws of 1862, page 50, by the plaintiff, who is the wife of Robert Worley, to recover the damages for the injury to her person, property and means of support, by reason of the intoxication of her husband, caused by the unlawful sale to him of intoxicating liquors by the defendants. The defendants’ answer is a general denial. There was a trial to a jury. Yerdiet and judgment for plaintiff for one thousand dollars.

The plaintiffs set forth their cause of action in their petition as follows: “That on the 28th day of June, A. D. 1873, the plaintiffs with their team, (consisting of two horses and harness and double wagon, together with a whip of the value of one and one-half dollars), were peaceably driving upon and along a public highway called the Fort Dodge and Lizard road, at a point where a steep declivity exists commonly known and called the Colburn hill, immediately west of the…

Plaintiff being in possession of certain lands, brought this action to establish her title thereto, and to bar and estop defendants from claiming or setting up any right or title to the property. The answer denies the claim of plaintiff, and avers that the title of the premises is in defendants, Patterson & Rheinart. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury, who found the following facts and conclusions of law: ££ April 17, 1845. Wm.

Tiie plaintiff claims the ownership and right to the immediate possession of lot number three, in block number five, in the town of Bedford, Taylor county, Iowa, in virtue of a tax deed executed and recorded pursuant to a sale of the premises for the taxes of 1868. The finding of the court shows no irregularity in the proceeding connected with the tax sale.

On tbe 18tli clay of October, 1871, plaintiff filed his petition claiming the right to redeem the E-|- NE^, section 31, and the of section 30, township 77, range 39, from a Sheriff’s Sale to Addison Cochrane, on the 31st clay of March, 1871, for the aggregate sum of $1,100. ' Trial by court. Plaintiff’s petition was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover from tbe defendant damages wbicli she alleges .she has sustained in her person, property, means of support, etc., by reason of the defendant having, at various times, sold intoxicating liquors to plaintiff’s husband, thereby causing frequent and habitual intoxication and injury to the plaintiff. There was a jury trial. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

■ This is a suit in equity. The plaintiff in his petition alleges that he is the owner in fee of the northwest fractional quarter of section six, township eighty-nine, range twenty-five; and that he obtained title by deed from D. D. Chase. That the defendant, Lancaster, about 18G8, purchased the property from a party unknown to plaintiff, and had a quit claim deed made to one D. B. Johnson, who conveyed the same to Lancaster.

Ajopedl from Woodbury District Court. This action is brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the Treasurer of Woodbury County from selling certain lands belonging to the plaintiff, situated within the county, for taxes levied thereon for the years 1869, 1870 and. 1871, on the alleged ground that such lands were not subject to taxation for those years. A temporary writ of injunction was issued, which, on final hearing, was made perpetual. The defendants appeal.

<p> Appeal from Hcomilton District Court. </p> <p>The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for peijury. He appeals.</p>

This action is brought against the administrator of the estate of William W Sayles, deceased, for a specifie performance of a contract to convey certain lands to tlie plaintiff, made by said deceased in his lifetime; and against the defendant, Eunice G. Sears, the holder of the last note given by plaintiff for the purchase money of the land, to obtain a deduction of a part thereof.

On the 27th day of August 1873, plaintiff recovered in the Pottawattamie Circuit Court, a judgment for $831.07. The term at which the judgment was rendered adjourned on the 13th day of September, 1873. Within ten days after the adjournment of the term, the defendant filed in the office of the clerk of the court a stay bond which was duly approved, but on which the sureties did not justify.

Action to recover for injuries to the person and property of plaintiff, resulting from a train on defendant’s railway striking a wagon in which plaintiff was at the time riding and driving a team attached to it. The injury occurred at a point where a public traveled road crossed defendant’s railroad, and was caused, as is alleged in tbe petition, by the negligence of the employes of defendant who were running the train. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the north-east quarter of, and the east half of, the north-west quarter of Sec. 31, Tp. 83, Eange 7, east of the 5th principal meridian; containing in all 240 acres; that said land is and was prior to November 1st, 1872, improved and fenced land; that about 130 acres on the north side are and have been pasture land, used as such for the cattle of plaintiff, and of others who hired pasturage therein; that a good,…

' Plaintiffs allege that they are children of O. N. Kellogg who died in 1855. That in October, 1854, O. N. Kellogg purchased of Decatur county the N \ and SW J and NW ¿ SE J- of section 8, township 70, range 26, being 520 acres, paying at the,tithe $165, and securing the balance, $495, by note due in ten years with interest at ten per cent.

Action at law upon the covenants of a deed warranting against incumbrances. Tbe breach alleged is eviction under a foreclosure and sale of tbe premises upon two mortgages resting on tbe property wben tbe deed was executed. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Tbe facts of tbe case apjiear in tbe opinion.

'The plaintiffs commenced tbis action to recover of the defendants, Jennings & Co., sometimes called Jennings & Boydston, and composed of J. M. Jennings and I). R. Boydston, the sum of $653.21, and interest, on account of lumber furnished them, and to establish and foreclose a lien therefor, as against the defendant Metcalf, upon lot 7, in block 1, in Bayliss’ 2d Addition to Council Bluffs, and the dwelling thereon, in the erection of which the said lumber was used.

This action is brought to recover damages for the death of John Murphy, alleged by plaintiff to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s employes. The defendant denies the negligence on its part, and alleges that the accident resulting in the death was contributed to and caused by the negligence and carelessness of the deceased. There was a jury trial, with' verdict and judgment for three thousand dollars for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Action in chancery to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree for plaintiff. Defendant Hollenbeck appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.

On the 8th day of October, 1872, plaintiff filed in the Pottawattamie District Court a petition in equity, claiming that on June 11th, 1868, defendant was indebted to them on account of pianos in the sum of $1991.10, and that to secure the payment of said sum and interest, on the 16th and 17th days of December, 1868, he caused to be executed to them deeds of conveyance for lots one, two and three in block five, in Casady’s addition to Council Bluffs, and for lots eighteen…

This action was brought to recover damages for a failure to deliver a certain quantity of barley to the plaintiff according to contract. The defendant made default and judgment was rendered against him. for $212 and costs. On application of the defendant the default and judgment were set aside at the same term at which they were entered. Plaintiff appeals.

On the 29th day of March, 1872, executions were issued by G. W. Dodder, J. P., in Johnson County in favor of the plaintiff against William Reninger, upon which said John H. Clark was, on the 1st day of April, 1872, duly garnished as a debtor of said William Reninger, and required to appear and answer as such, on the 25th of April. The garnishee answered that he was indebted to William Reninger in the sum of $295.00, for feeding cattle under a written contract.

'The plaintiff alleges that his premises were enclosed with a lawful fence and that defendant permitted his domestic animals to break into and trespass upon plaintiff’s premises, consuming corn, hay and wheat to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. Answer in denial.

In May 1872, the plaintiff, Larz Nelson, then about eighteen years old, was in the employment of the defendant, and was engaged in taking up the track and platform, at the depot near the Missouri river, and loading the ties, rails, spikes, etc., on flat cars, and in bringing water for others engaged with him in the work.

This is a suit in equity, instituted by the plaintiff to obtain an accounting and settlement of a partnership business between himself, and the defendant, Isaac Cox. After the making up of the issues, the cause was referred to M. T. Williams, Esq., as referee, to take the testimony and to state an account between the parties. On the 17th day of February, 1873, the referee filed his report, upon which the court rendered a decree from which the defendant Oox appeals.

The plaintiff filed a petition in equity alleging that he was the owner of a certain eighty acre tract of land, and that the defendant claimed a prior title thereto under a purchase at tax sale, and asking that this title be declared void. The defendant filed an answer and cross-bill, alleging that he was the absolute owner of said land, under a treasurer’s deed, and asking that the title be quieted in him.

The petition alleges that plaintiff and defendant formed a partnership for the purpose of dealing in real estate; that the business was to be carried on by defendant in his individual name, and that in July, 1870, defendant bought with the assets of the firm, a farm in Iowa county, of 240 acres, and two pieces of real estate in Wilton, Muscatine county.

The petition alleged in substance that on the 11th day of December, 1869, the plaintiff, John M. Ourless, borrowed of the First National Bank of Cedar Rapids, through its cashier and agent, the sum of three hundred dollars, to be paid in the spring or summer of 1870, with interest at ten per cent, per annum, and that to secure said sum he deeded to W. W. Walker, the President of said bank, the lands in controversy, consisting of about sixty acres adjacent to Cedar Rapids.

The plaintiff filed his x>etition in equity, as follows: “ 1.

This is an action to recover for the alleged killing of a mare belonging to the plaintiff, by. the cars of the defendant at its depot in the city of Waveriy, through the negligence of the employes of defendant in charge of the train. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Action to foreclose title bond. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer. Defendant appeals. The. facts are stated in the opinion.

This suit is brought to compel the treasurer of Chickasaw county to collect a certain tax voted in aid of the plaintiff’s railroad. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appeals. The facts of the cáse are stated in the opinion.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, while in the employment of defendant, on account of the negligence- of his co-employes. There was a verdict and judgment of $9,000 for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts necessary for a proper understanding of the points ruled appear in the opinion.

The petition of plaintiffs alleges that about the 18th of August, 1857, the defendant Elijah A. Hovey, sold and deeded a certain quarter section of land to William Stevens, who took possession and cultivated the same, and afterward sold portions thereof to John Cameron, E. S. Searles and the Sioux City Eailroad Company, and that it was laid out into lots, streets and alleys, and named the village of Jessup.

Action at law to recover damages >on account of the failure and refusal of defendant to carry a large quantity of oats from Dubuque, and other points upon defendant’s railroad, to Cairo. The original petition was filed March 5th, 1870, and contains five counts.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover of tbe defendant certain taxes, levied for city purposes, on tbe depot grounds, track,, etc., of tbe defendant, witbin tbe limits of tbe city, and on the north half of its railroad bridge across the Mississippi river, for tbe years 1867, 1868,1869, 1870 and 1871.

• This action is brought to recover sevep and one-half acres of land, situated within the corporate limits of the town of Montana, in Boone county, Iowa. The plaintiff claims title derived from one M. 0.

The petition alleges in substance that the defendant John Bascom’, and one L. Bascom,, executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note for a sum specified. That after the delivery of said note to plaintiff, he sold and delivered the same to one L. Holroyd, who afterward presented it to the defendant, J. Bascom, for payment.

Action in Chancery to enforce the specific performance of a contract to convey certain land. There was a decree granting the relief prayed for in plaintiff’s petition. Defendants appeal. The facts of the case, so far as they are involved in points of law ruled by the court, appear in the opinion.

Tuts action is brought to recover of the defendant an alleged balance due on a “ Bran Duster,” sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.

In October, 1872, tbe plaintiffs filed their petition containing two counts, as follows: “ First count avers that the town, now city of Dubuque, was, by the proper authorities of the United States, laid off on the west bank of the slough of the Mississippi river, under the Act of Congress passed July 2d, 1836, and the Act amendatory thereto passed March 3d, 1837, into lots, streets and public squares, with a quantity of land one hundred feet wide, on the bank of said slough,…

This suit .is .'brought to recover, .on a premium note made by tbe defendant to the Iowa Central Insurance Company, the sum of forty-five dollars, in such portions as the directors of the company were authorized, agreeably to their charter and bylaws, to require. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

1. agency. Facts discussed which fail to constitute an agency to purchase real estate. 2. contract to convey real estate. Conditions must be complied with by obligee. 3. dedication. Use for the purposes to which land is dedicated must be shown to establish a claim based upon dedication. Appeal from Pottatvattamie District Court.

specific performance. Pacts discussed which are held insufficient to authorize a decree for specific performance of a contract to convey land. Appeal from Guthrie District Court. Action in chancery for the specific performance of a contract to convey lands, and for other relief. There was a decree in accordance with the prayer of the petition; defendants appeal. The facts of the case fully appear in the opinion.

excessive damages: attachment. Facts considered which justify reversal where excessive damages were allowed for the wrongful sueing out of an attachment. Appeal from Page District Court. Action upon an attachment bond for the alleged wrongful and malicious sueing out of an attachment. Jury trial; verdict for $750. Motion for new trial overruled. Judgment upon the verdict. Defendant appeals.

1. Absolute deed: mortgage. Where the one party to an instrument claimed it to be a deed, and the other a mortgage, facts considered which determined its character. 2. -: husband and wiee. When the wife may be bound by a conveyance of her real estate by the husband. . Appeal from the Jones District Caurt. Action in equity for the quieting of title to the south half of the northeast quarter of section seven, township eighty,-eight, range four.

Descent. Effect of assignment of a contract for the purchase of school land upon the interest of heirs at law. Appeal from Decatur District Court. The plaintiffs in their petition state that on the 17th day of October, 1854, 0. FT.

A finding by the court will not be disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, if it appears to he the result of an honest application of judgment to the evidence. Appeal from Johnson District Court. Replevin for two horses and a wagon with other personal property of small value.

verdict: evidence necessary to sustain. Appeal from Boone District Court. Action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, endangering life. Jury trial. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Deed obtained by Fraud: evidence. Evidence discussed in an action to set aside a conveyance of land, alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Appeal from Dubuque District Court.

<p>appeal Where the amount involved is less than $100.</p> <p> Appeal from Winneshiek Circuit Court. </p>

<p>District Attorney: May appear for the counties of his district.</p> <p> Appeal from Woodbury District Court. </p>

Fraudulent conveyance. Tacts stated which are sufficient to sustain a charge of fraudulent conveyance. ' Appeal from Page District Court.

Appeal. Where plaintiff claimed to recover an amount exceeding $100, which defendants admitted to be due, and at the same time pleaded a counter-claim of $100: Held, that the counter-claim was the… Held: that the counter-claim was the amount in controversy; and that no appeal would lie without the certificate of the trial judge. Appeal fvom Winneshiek Circuit Court.

Practice: appeal. The abstract must set out the matters upon which error is predicated. Defects in pleading should be assailed before judgment. Appeal from Wright Circuit Court. Action at law to recover damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of a .notice served upon him by defendant to take depositions in a case between them. At the time and place appointed defendant did not appear, and the depositions were not taken.

evidence: res ad judio ata. Appeal from Bremer District Court. This action is upon a promissory note executed by the defendants to the plaintiff, on -which thirty-nine dollars are claimed to be due. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff. From, the judgment thereon defendants appeal.

<p>PRACTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT: PREPARATION OE ABSTRACTS.</p>