Volume 39 — Iowa Reports

Action upon the official bond of the treasurer of the plaintiff to recover money received by him in the discharge of his official duties, which he has failed to pay over. The condition of the bond is in these words: “If the above bounden Jed.

Plaintiff claims one thousand dollars for the alleged wrongful seizure and conversion of a quantity of corn grown upon-plaintiff’s premises by his tenant, John T. Jester, and upon which plaintiff held a chattel mortgage.

This is an ad quod damnum proceeding. Au appeal from the assessment of the sheriff’s jury was taken to the Circuit Court. Upon the trial in that court, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars and costs. The defendant appeals to this court.

Action at law. The petition shows that plaintiffs were garnished in an action wherein defendants in this suit were plaintiffs, and John and Catharine Murphy were defendants; that having appeared and answered, admitting separate indebtedness, judgments were rendered against them severally, and that afterward defendants undertook and agreed, in consideration of the payment by plaintiffs of the garnishment judgments, to hold plaintiffs “ harmless and without damage or…

<p>.1. Dower: relinquishment of: mortgage.. Where the wife has joined in the execution of a mortgage, a foreclosure and sale thereunder, after the death of her husband, will discharge the land of her dower. Following Moomey v. Maas, 22 Iowa, 380.</p> <p>2. -: -: sale by administrator. Where an administrator, under the provisions of the statute, has applied to the court and obtained authority to sell land upon which rests a mortgage in which the wife joined, such sale will have the same effect as one made on special execution in a foreclosure proceeding to which she has been made a party, and the purchaser takes the land discharged of dower.</p> <p>3. -: -: -. The omission to file the notes and mortgages against the estate, is supplied by the application of the administrator to the court for authority to sell, he thereby admitting them to be just and due.</p>

Ppaintife, the administrator of the estate of Henry A. Nienau, deceased, brings this action to recover damages resulting to tbe estate of deceased, on account of the death of the intestate caused by a collision of two trains upon defendant’s road, on one of -which he was a passenger, which was the consequence of negligence and want of skill on the part of-defendant’s servants running the trains. There was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $6,000.

This actipn is brought on four promissory notes, three of which are secured by mortgages. The cause was tried 'to a jury. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plantilf appeals.

, The defendant is indicted under Section. 4363 of the Revision, for keeping a house -resorted to for the purpose of gambling. On a trial by jury he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs; from which judgment he appeals.

Action to recover for the value of a cow killed by a train on defendant’s railroad, through the negligence of its servants. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This action is brought upon a writing as follows : John Hancock ] vs. >• A. C. Elliott, j I, A. C. Elliott, being duly sworn, do depose and say that I am justly indebted unto John Hancock in the full sum of six hundred and ten dollars, and that the said sum of six hundred and ten dollars is for money had and received by me of the said Hancock to my own use and benefit, and that the same is now justly due and unpaid. Now, therefore, I, A. 0.

This is an action or proceeding in the Ciraiit Court to establish a claim against the estate of O. F. Avery, deceased, of which the defendant is the administrator. The claim is based upon a promissory note executed by said decedent in his life time for the sum of $2460.00. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, .from which the defendant appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.

Action to recover the taxes levied by the Oity of Dubuque for the year 1871, upon the railroad track and right of way, and certain real estate owned and used by defendant within the city limits, and upon coal, oil, and other supplies kept therein, and used in operating defendant’s road, and upon the engines and cars, being “ the rolling stock ” of the road, used upon its lines in the State.

This is an action in chancery, brought by plaintiffs to restrain defendants from mining lead ore upon certain lands in Dubuque county. By a cross-bill defendants ask that plaintiffs may be enjoined from mining upon the same premises. The relief prayed for by defendants was by the final decree granted. Plaintiffs appeal. Other facts necessary for the proper understanding of the points ruled are found in the opinion.

This is an action of replevin of four stacks of wheat, one stack of barley and three stacks of oats, and for damages for the wrongful detention thereof. The cause was tried to a jury who, under the direction of the court, returned a verdict for the defendant, Wells. Judgment being rendered on the verdict, plaintiff appeals. The further facts of the case are stated in the opinion.

On the 7th day of April, 1874, the plaintiff filed in the District Court its petition alleging that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Iowa; that the defendants constitute the Board of Supervisors of Carroll county; that for the year 1871 said board levied upon all the property iii the county, including a large quantity of lands belonging to the plaintiff, county judgment taxes for the purpose of paying certain judgments rendered against the county…

Appeals from the Sae District Court. These suits a.re instituted for the purpose of enjoining-the defendants from selling the lands of plaintiff for alleged delinquent taxes for the years 1870 and 1871, which plaintiff avers are illegal. In the first case defendants answered, denying the allegations of the petition, and on a trial a decree was rendered for defendants. In the second case the court rendered a decree for defendants on a demurrer to the petition.

Actions to restrain, by injunction, tbe collection of certain alleged illegal taxes levied oil the lands of the plaintiffs. From the judgments rendered both parties appeal. The facts appear in the opinion.

This action was brought upon a bond executed by the defendants to the plaintiff, to secure the fulfillment of a contract made between the parties, by which Jacob Reichard, one of the defendants, was to build a school house for the plaintiff. Defendants applied for a change of venue, which was refused and they appealed. 'The further facts apjiear in the opinion.

■ The plaintiffs state in their petition that they are each duly organized corporations under the laws of Iowa; that Wood-bury county is a civil corporation and that Charles Kent is the treasurer of said county; that each of the plaintiffs are respectively owners of large quantities of land in said county, described in schedules annexed to the said petition; that on the 4th day of September, 1871, the Board of Supervisors of said county levied the following taxes upon the…

On the 10th. day of April, 1873, the defendant was indicted in the Greene District Court, for the murder of Charles W. Kendall, and on the 11th of the same month, he filed his plea of not guilty. The venue was changed to Crawford County. At the September term, 1873, the cause was tried. Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. Defendant appeals.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of manslaughter, and was tried, found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years, and to pay a fine of three hundred dollars. The defendant appeals.

Action for money paid by plaintiff to the nse of defendant in the discharge and satisfaction of bis promissory note to one Walter'A. Burleigh, in consideration of which the defendant promised to pay plaintiff the amount on demand with interest. The answer is a general denial of each allegation of the petition. Trial'to a jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $763.04, the full amount claimed. The defendant appeals.

<p> Appeal from Sooté District Court. </p> <p>These actions are brought to set aside an appraisement of real property respectively field by tbe plaintiffs, under leases of portions of what is known as the “ Catholic Square,” in the city of Davenport, which leases commenced January 1st, 1867, and run for terms of fifteen years; the amount of rent to be fixed at the end of five years by an appraisement of the ground in the manner stipulated in the leases respectively. The causes were tried by the court, and decrees rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. By agreement of parties the testimony was taken in but one case, but to be used in all, subject to objections for incompetency. This mode was adopted because all the cases present substantially the same issues. In this court they have heen argued and submitted together.</p>

. Plaintiff-alleges that he is the owner, under a chattel mort-. gage, .of a dark brown stallion, eight years old, of the value of $500, and that he is, under the terms of said chattel mortgage, entitled to the immediate possession of the same. That defendant wrongfully took possession of said horse, and claims the same in virtue of a sheriff’s sale under an execution against the property of the mortgagor.

Apjyealfrom Linn Circuit Court. Action was commenced before a justice of the peace, claiming eighty dollars damages on a horse trade. There was á jury trial, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff for fifty dolT lars. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. The next .term of the Circuit Court began on the fifth day of January, 1874.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree in the Circuit Court for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The facts of the case fully appear in the opinion.

The plaintiffs allege that they are residents, tax payers, and land owners in territory heretofore known as sub-district number seven, in the district township of Yan Burén, in Keokuk county, composed in part of two townships, in which is a good school house; that on 'the 25th day of January, 1873, the .board of directors of said district township met, on their own motion, at a special meeting, without being called for any purpose, or petitioned or requested so to do, and…

This is a proceeding for a mandamus to compel the defendant, Stranahan, as sheriff of Keokuk county, to execute a sheriff’s deed for certain real estate sold subject to redemption, and for which a certificate was issued to the .plaintiff. The defendant J. A. Hurt, as administrator of the estate of L. IT. Hurt, deceased, was made a defendant upon the order of court. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s right to the conveyance.

<p> Appeal from Humboldt District Court. </p> <p>The plaintiff, on the 19th day of May, 1870, filed in the Humboldt District Court his petition alleging that he was the-owner in fee and entitled to the immediate possession of lots-numbered three and four, and the west half of the southeast quarter of section 27, township 92, north, of range 28, west, and that he was unlawfully kept out of possession of the same by^the defendant, and praying judgment for the possession and for damages. Notice of the commencement of the action was served on defendant on the 18th day of May, 1870.</p> <p>The defendant for answer denied the allegations of the petition,. and alleged that he is the owner of the property claimed; that he settled upon the premises under the pre-emption and homestead laws of the United States in 1860; that he has in all respects complied with the same, and is now in possession of said land in virtue of such settlement and entry. That he settled upon said land more than ten years prior to the commencement of this action, under a title adverse to that of plaintiff, and that this action accrued more than ten years prior to the commencement thereof.</p> <p>On the 28th of March, 1872, defendant filed an amended and substituted answer, alleging, in addition to the defenses before interposed, in substance, that the title of plaintiff is derived through the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, an association claiming to have been incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa, but that it was not in fact incorporated; that it was composed entirely of persons who were at no time citizens or residents of the State of Iowa; that all -their acts of incorporation were done in the city of New York; that the association did not, previous to commencing business, adopt'articles of incorporation and cause the same to be recorded in the county where its jn-incipal place of business was to be. That the conveyance under which plaintiff claims to have derived title from said corporation was executed by the president and treasurer thereof, at the city of New York, and that no resolution or order authorizing such conveyance was made by its board of directors in the State of Iowa, nor was the same in any other manner authorized by any act of said pretended corporation.</p> <p>That on the 8th day of August, 1816, Congress made a grant of lands to the Territory, of Iowa, to aid in the improvement of the Des Moines River, and on the 9th day of June, 1851, the commissioner of the Des Moines River improvement, without any authoritj’-, made a contract with the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, whereby said company were to receive said lands for certain work to be done on the river by said company; that the General Assembly of Iowa settled with said company in March, 1858, and on the 2d of May, 1858, the Governor, in pursuance of such settlement, conveyed said lands to said company; that on the 29th day of March, 1861, the Congress of the United States, by joint resolution, released to the State of Iowa all the title which the United States then retained in said land for the benefit of the T>ona fide purchasers thereof, including this defendant; that on the 30th day of March, 1866, the General Assembly of Iowa appointed a commissioner to adjust the claims of the Des Moines Navigation and Eailroad Company and defendant and others to said lands, and that on the 30th day of June, 1866, final adjustment was had, whereby the lands in question were excluded from the grant of March 2d, 1861, on account of the claim of defendant, and other lands were certified to the State in lieu thereof, which adjustment was confirmed by the State in March, 1868, and by the Congress of the United States in March, 1871, and therefore the title of defendant is paramount to that of plaintiff.</p> <p>Plaintiff offered in evidence, amongst others, the following items of proof:</p> <p>1. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation of the Des Moines Navigation and Eailroad Company, dated May 6th, 1854</p> <p>2. The duly certified copy of the contract between the State of Iowa and said company, dated June 19th, 1854, whereby said company undertook to make and finish the ■ improvement of the Des Moines Eiver, and the State undertook and agreed on its part to sell and convey to said company all of the lands donated to the State of Iowa for the improvement of the Des Moines Eiver, by an Act of Congress of " August 8th, 1846, and remaining unsold by the. State on the 23d day of December, 1853.</p> <p>3. The joint resolution of the General Assembly of Iowa, containing propositions for a settlement with the Des Moines Navigation and Eailroad Company, approved, March 23, 1858.</p> <p>4. A duly certified list of lands in odd numbered sections, above the Eaccoon Fork, and within five miles of the Des Moines river so far as the surveys have progressed, falling to the State of Iowa under the act of the 8th August, 1846, as construed by the Secretary of the Treasury in his letter of the 2d of March, 1849, which list embraced the lands in controversy, and was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, on the 17th day of December, 1853.</p> <p>5. A letter of R. M. Young, Commissioner- of the General Land Office of the United States,'to the Secretary of the Board, of Public Works in Iowa, announcing the opinion of the General Land Office, that the State, under the act of 8th of August, 1846, is entitled to, the alternate, sections within five miles of the. Des Moines river, throughout the; whole extent of that river, within the limits of Iowa.</p> <p>6. A certified copy of a letter from R. J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States,, to the members of both houses of Congress from Iowa, and to Richard M. Young, Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated March 2d, 1849, and announcing the opinion that the grant of 8th of August, 1846, extends.on both sides of the river, from its source to its mouth, but not to lands on the river, in the State of Missouri.</p> <p>7., The letter of R. M. Young, Commissioner-of the General Land Office, to the Register and Receiver of the United States Land Office at Iowa City, dated June 1st, 1849, advising them that the Secretary of the Treasury had decided that the grant to the State of Iowa, under the act of the 8th of August, 1846, extended along the Des Moines river to. its source, and that it did not stop at the Raccoon Fork, as the General Land Office had previously decided, and directing them to withhold from sale all lands situated in the odd numbered sections.,, within five miles on each side of the river,-above the Raccoon forks.</p> <p>8. A letter of John Wilson, Commissioner of . the General Land Office, to the Register of the Land Office at Fort Des Moines, dated January 7th, 1854, and one to George Gillaspy, Register of the State Land Office, at Ottumwa, dated January 6th, 1854, transmitting lists embracing the lands in controversy, as falling to the State of Iowa, under the act of 8th of August, 1846, as construed by the Secretary of the Treasury in his letter of 2d March, 1849, and of the Secretary of the Interior, of the 29th October, 1851, approved by the Secretary of the Interior on the 17th day of December, 1853.</p> <p>9. A letter of J. M. EdmOnds, Commissioner of tlie General Land Office, dated June 26tli, 1862, and! addressed to the Governor of Iowa. This letter calls attention to the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the December Term, 1859, restricts the act of 1846 to lands lying below the mouth of Raccoon Fork, and abnegates the claim of the State to lands lying above that point, and that, under said decision the Secretary of the Interior has held, that the alternate odd numbered sections, falling within the six and fifteen mile limits of the railroads, where they- traverse the region of the Des Moines river, above the mouth of the Raccoon Fork thereof, would enure to the State under the act of 15th May, 1856, to aid in the construction of said roads.</p> <p>The letter recites the joint resolution of Congress of the 2d March, 1861, declaring, “ that all the title which the United States still retain in the tracts of land along the Des Moines river, and above the mouth of the Raccoon Fork thereof, in the State of Iowa, which have been certified to the State improperly, by the Department of the Interior, as part of the grant by Congress, approved. August eighth, eighteen hundred and forty-six, and which is now held by bona fide purchasers under the State .of Iowa, be, and the same is, hereby relinquished to the State of Iowa,” and requests that the General Land Office be furnished with a list of the tracts of land referred to in said resolution, held by bona fide purchasers of the State of Iowa, on the 2d of March, 1861.</p> <p>10. A list of the Governor, furnished in reply to Commissioner Edmonds’ letter, embracing the lands in controversy, and showing that they were patented to the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, May 3d, 1858.</p> <p>11. A deed from the State of Iowa to the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, dated May 3d, 1858, conveying a large quantity of land, which embraces the land in controversy.</p> <p>12. A deed of the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, executed March 9th, 1861, conveying lots three and four, in controversy herein, to Robert J. Hubbard.</p> <p>13. A deed from said Navigation Company, executed December 14th, 1868, conveying to E. B. Litchfield, the SEJ of section 27, township 92, range 28.</p> <p>14. The deed of E. C. Litchfield and wife to plaintiff, executed February 24th, 1870, conveying lots number three and four, described in the petition.</p> <p>15. The deed of E. B. Litchfield and wife to plaintiff, executed February 11th, 1870, conveying the W£, SEJ of section 27, in petition described.</p> <p>Defendant proved that he settled upon the land in 1860, and that he has remained in possession ever since. That he went on the land as apreemptor, and occupied it as such until after the passage of the homestead law, when he surrendered his preemption certificate, and entered it under the homestead afet, and received his final certificate in June, 1868. That he has cultivated it under his entry, plowed some fifty acres, and erected a frame dwelling, cellar and outhouses, and that plaintiff had knowledge of these facts.</p> <p>In rebuttal plaintiff introduced a letter of Joseph Wilson, Commissioner of the General Land Office, to the Register and Receiver of the Fort Dodge Land Office, dated January 16th, 186*9, cancelling the homestead entry of defendant, for conflict with the Des Moines River Grant of 1846, and joint resolution of Congress of March 2, 1861, and a certified copy of defendant’s homestead entry, from the homestead register in the Fort Dodge Land Office, showing a cancellation of such entry. Defendant proved that he had no knowledge of the cancellation until the commencement of this action on the 18th of May,-1870.</p> <p>There was a jury trial and a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. This case was before us on a former occasion. See 34 Iowa, 18.</p>

Action for the recovery of double the value of a mare killed on defendant’s road. Jury trial. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $270. Defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

<p>Municipal Corporation: special tax: improvement of streets. The resolution of a city council, declaring the necessity for the improvement of a certain street, requiring the proper committee to advertise for bids for the work, and affirming that the cost should be assessed upon the owners of abutting property, was not such an order for the work as to authorize the levy of a special tax, after the repeal of the statute under which the city was empowered to assess the cost of improvements upon adjacent lots.</p>

District Court. ' The defendant was indicted for willfully obstructing a public highway, and upon a trial, on a plea of not guilty, he was convicted. He appeals. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

- The plaintiff filed in the Dubuque District Court a petition, for writ of certiorari, alleging that during the whole of the year 1872 he was the owner and holder of the legal title by purchase, of the following lots, situate in the city of Dubuque, to-wit: Lots No. 384 and 385, conveyed to him by deed from the Dubuque Cabinet Makers’ Association, and dated May 16, 1871; also, lot No. 97, conveyed to him- by deed from Catharine and John Mullany, dated February 8, 1871;…

The plaintiff brought this action to foreclose a mortgage given to secure ten promissory notes for $2,000 each, the suit being to foreclose for the notes due. The defendant, Allen, answered admitting the execution of the notes and mortgage by him and his co-defendant Richart, who, it is alleged, had conveyed his interest in the mortgaged premises to Allen.

This is a suit .in equity, brought by the plaintiff to restrain, by injunction, the sale on execution of a .certain house claimed by her as her own individual property, and which, it is alleged, the .defendants are about to sell on a judgment against Henry. Rock, the husband of the plaintiff. The District Court rendered a decree for the plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.

This action is brought upon five promissory notes made by the defendants to Henry Rust, Sr.,-now deceased, the plaintiff’s intestate, on the 9th of February, 1861, for two hundred dollars each, payable on February 3, 1862-3-4-5-6, respes tively, and secured by a chattel mortgage.

Ayppeal.from Warren Girewit Go'u/rt. The plaintiffs appealed to the Circuit Court from an assessment of damages in the establishment of a county road. In that court the appeals were, on motion of defendant, dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal to this court.

This is an action for damages for the alleged killing of C. O. Nose by the negligence of the employes of the defendant while the said C. O. Rose was riding as a passenger on a train of cars on the defendant’s railroad. The cause was tried to a jury, who rendered a verdict for $10,000.00 for the plaintiff, upon which the court rendered judgment. Defendant appeals.

Action in Chancery. There was a decree rendered in tbe District, Court, granting tbe relief prayed for in plaintiff’s petition. Defendants appeal. The facts of tbe case fully appear in .the opinion.

The plaintiff, on the 18th day of September, 1873, filed a petition in the Circuit Court, alleging in substance that on the 24th clay of July, 1871, a petition in writing was presented to the… Held: which notice specified the time and place of holding said election and the line of road to be aided, namely, the plaintiff’s road, and that a tax of five per centum on the dollar valuation of the property in the township was proposed to be raised.

This action was originally brought February 1, 1873, before a justice of the peace to recover fifteen dollars, advanced by plaintiff to defendant, upon a contract for the purchase of hogs, and eighty-four dollars damages, for failure to comply therewith. The defendant gave due notice thereof and offered to confess judgment for fifteen dollars and costs, which the plaintiff refused to accept.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of obstructing a highway and now appeals to this court. The facts of the case are set out in the opinion.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for larceny, from which, conviction he appeals to this court. The facts of the case bearing on the points ruled appear in the opinion.

Action at law to recover certain lands. There was a trial to the court without a jury, and a judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion.

This is a suit in equity to have certain conveyances, absolute in form, declared to be but mortages, and to have the alleged mortgagor’s interest in the real estate conveyed subjected to sale under the plaintiff’s judgment and execution.

This is a proceeding in equity to subject certain land to the payment of tbe debts of Harrison W. Ames, which land is claimed, and the legal title held, by Alpheus F. Miller, but alleged to be so… Held: by Alpheus F. Miller, but alleged to be so held in secret trust for said Ames, and in fraud of his creditors. Upon a trial in the District Court, a decree was rendered for the plaintiffs, from, which Miller appeals.

Tuts cause was consolidated with the case' of Q. H. Cowley, v. John McDimn, in the court below, and they were tried together. They are so heard and determined in this court. The whole controversy is narrowed to the single question of the true measure of damages on breach of covenant of warranty. Cowley sues to foreclose a mortgage for $1200, part consideration for an acre and a fraction of land and improvements, the whole consideration being $1700.

This is a suit in equity, brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the defendants from removing, or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s fence along the highway. The defendants, the road supervisors, and others who have intervened, admit the purpose to remove the fence, and claim the right to do so, on the ground that the same is in the center of the highwaj1, and an obstruction to travel, instead of being on the north line of the highway, as it should he.

<p>1. Surety: .discharge of: promissory note. A valid agreement between the maker and payee of a promissory note, extending the time of payment, without the assent or concurrence of the surety, operates to discharge him, whether he has thereby suffered prejudice or not.</p> <p>2. --: pleading: estoppel. When the only issue was the existence of an agreement between the payee and the maker of a promissory note, extending the time of payment, the court properly refused to instruct the jury that, if the payee had informed the surety that he had extended ’ the time of payment, he<was estopped from afterwards denying it.</p> <p>3. -: discharge of: consideration. To operate as a discharge of a surety, an agreement extending the time of payment must 'be founded upon a sufficient consideration.</p>

Action of replevin for a bay mare. Plaintiff avers bis absolute ownership and right to the present possession. The defendant, for answer, admits the ownership of plaintiff, and justifies his seizure of the mare as marshal of the city under a tax list and warrant for its collection, issued by the mayor of the city of Lyons, for a balance of taxes due from the plaintiff to said city upon his personal property. The tax list and warrant are annexed and are conceded regular.

Action at law to recover the possession of certain town lots.

• This action is brought upion the following instrument: “No. 15. Stockholder’s note. No. shares, 5. State of Iowa,’ Clinton county, Wheatland, January 4, 1868.

The petition alleges that on the 27th of May, 1871, plaintiff loaned to defendant a horse, upon condition that he would' take good care of him and return him in good condition by’ the 30th day of May, 1871. That defendant over-drove the horse, and he died of the effects of said over-drive and ill treatment. Plaintiff claims one hundred and forty dollars, and asks a writ of attachment. The answer denies specifically the alleged over-driving and ill treatment.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance upon the life of James A. Miller, plaintiff’s husband. There was a jury trial, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. This case has been before us on two former appeals. See 31 Iowa, 216, and 34 Iowa, 222.

On the 26th- of May, 1870, plaintiff filed,in the Chickasaw Circuit Court a petition alleging that the defendant, Sutton, executed to plaintiff a mortgage to secure him in the sum of $480; that the mortgage by mistake was made for only $400; that the defendants, John Bell & Co., purchased the mortgaged property subject to the mortgage and as part of the consideration agreed to pay the sum secured.

This is an action brought toenforcea mechanic’s lien claimed by the plaintiffs. There was a trial by the court, in which judgment was rendered for plaintiffs. The defendant, Spofford, alone appeals from so much of the judgment as establishes the plaintiff’s lien as prior and superior to the claim and lien of said appellant. The further facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This is a suit in equity to enjoin the sale of a certain house and lot in Decorah, on execution. It is not necessary to state the facts and dates in detail; they are numerous and not a little complicated. So far as necessary to understand the points adjudicated, they are stated in the opinion. The cause was tried by the first method, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.

This is an appeal from an order of the Dsitrict Court, overruling a motion made by defendant to set aside an indictment against him for the crime of embezzlement. The further facts appear in the opinion.

The petition states plaintiff’s cause of action as follows: “ That on or about the 5th day of September, 1865, the Board of Supervisors of Iowa County appropriated $500.00 to repair the bridge across Iowa river, known as the Kosta bridge, in Iowa county, and on the 8th day of June, 1866, said board appropriated an additional sum of $500.00, for like purposes.

This is an action of replevin for three cows of the value of thirty dollars each, and two calves of the value of ten dollars each. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner, and that she acquired title by purchase from her husband, by bill of sale of date October 26, 1872, filed for record Nov. 23, 1872, and that her notice of ownership was filed May 23, 1873. The defendant, for answer, avers that he was deputy sheriff, and seized the property under execution against Con.

Action at law against defendant as the surviving partner of the firm of Bunnell & Co., for a balance due upon an account for money drawn in the usual course of business from the bank of plaintiff. The account was in the name of A. Bunnell, and the petition charges that the business of the firm was transacted in plaintiff’s bank under that name.

This is a suit in equity to obtain an injunction against the collection of a tax, voted in aid of The B., C. R. & M. R. Co. The railroad company and the treasurer of the county are made defendants.

' Action upon an instrument of writing, made by defendant to plaintiff, acknowledging an indebtedness and assigning a promissory note made by another to defendant, as collateral security for its payment. The defense is a plea of the statute of limitations. Trial to a jury; verdict and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Action in chancery. The petition alleges that in the winter of 1870-71, the Chicago & Southwestern Railway Company entered upon a tract of land, being one-half section, situated in Wayne county, and owned by plaintiff, for the purpose of constructing its railroad over the same, and subsequently, in the spring of 1871, completed the road, and now occupies a'strip one hundred feet in width, for the uses of the railroad; that this appropriation of plaintiff’s land was without…

Plaintiff claims of defendants the sum of $112.01, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the 16th day of December, 1858, on account of a judgment recovered by Elisha L. Woodruff and Cyrus M. Curtis, against defendants, in the Circuit Court of Stephenson county, Illinois, and of which plaintiff alleges he is the owner.

Action upon a bond given by the defendant, Henrietta Billings, who had been appointed the agent of plaintiff for the sale of sewing machines, as principal, and her co-defendants, as sureties. The bond was conditioned to account for all machines, materials, etc., and pay all notes given and indorsed by her, the agent. The breach assigned was a failure to pay one note for $52.50. Answer denying the signature, and verified.

The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of $1270.40, on account of dieting, washing, and articles of clothing- furnished prisoners at defendant’s request. The attorneys of the respective parties filed an agreement, in substance as follows: It is agreed that the plaintiff, Wapello county, dieted prisoners sent from Monroe county to the jail of plaintiff for safe keeping, the number of days set out in plaintiff’s exhibits.

On tbe 26tb day of March, 1859, Alfred A. Sawyer being the owner of and in possession of 440 acres of land in Cass county, to-wit: SE jr, NE J and W •£, NE ¿ and E -J-, NW £ and E SW \ and W -J-, SE ¿ and NE SE J, section 25, township. 76, range 37; and SE J, NW J, section 30, township 76, range. 36, mortgaged 200 acres thereof to his brother, Horace Sawyer, to secure the sum of $222.

Action in chancery to enjoin the sale on execution of property claimed by plaintiff as a homestead. There was a decree subjecting an undivided interest in the property to the judgment upon which ' the execution issued. Defendants appeal. The facts necessary to an understanding of the points ruled are set out in the opinion.

The petition alleges, in substance, that, on the 14th day of March, 1870, the plaintiff sold to the defendant, William Me.

Action upon a written contract whereby defendant and others are bound, each for himself, to pay plaintiff a.certain compensation on condition that he secure the release of each from obligations executed by them respectively to the Lamar Insurance Company, to pay for stock in that corporation subscribed by them. The petition alleges the performance of the services by plaintiff contemplated in this contract.

Action in equity to rescind a lease of land and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from committing repeated trespasses. A demurrer to the petition of plaintiffs being sustained and the petition dismissed, they appeal to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This is an action of replevin, brought by Dorinda Root to recover the possession of certain personal property claimed to belong to her, and which was levied on by the sheriff to satisfy an execution in favor of Whitmore, Carter & Brown, and against A. M. Root and Daniel ITaskell, Jr. Daniel Haskell, Sr., intervened in the action, claiming the possession of the property by virtue of a chattel mortgage thereon executed by Dorinda Root.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of leasing a house for the purjioses of prostitution and lewdness. On a trial to a jury he was acquitted. The State appeals. The facts relating to the questions decided are found in the opinion.

■ This is an information in the nature of a quo warra/nto to test the legality of defendant’s claim to the office of sub-director of sub-district No. 5, in the district .township of Des Moines in Yan Burén county. The cause was tried to a jury, who returned a special verdict, upon which the Circuit Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

This action is brought to recover from tbe defendants for one year’s labor and services rendered by plaintiff’s minor son for defendants. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

TnE defendant was indicted for keeping a nuisance; he pleaded guilty and was fined five hundred dollars, and ordered confined at hard labor until said fine and costs are paid, said labor to be performed in or out of jail under the direction of the sheriff of said eounty. The defendant appeals.

This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs, Britton and two others, for themselves and others, too numerous to name, to enjoin the collection of a tax voted by the township of Marshall; in aid of the Central Railroad of Iowa. A preliminary injunction was granted, ex parte. The answers of the defendants, The Central Railroad Company, the county treasurer, and others, were mainly in denial of the allegations of the petition.

* Action upon an instrument in writing, to-wit: “$212.50. For the purpose of aiding in the construction of the Sabula, Ackley & Dakota Railroad, from Sabula, Iowa, to Marion, in Linn county, Iowa, as well as for value received, I promise to pay said Sabula, Ackley & Dakota Railroad Company, the sum of two hundred and twelve and fifty one-hundredths dol- ' lars, the same to be paid when said road is completed and the cars running on the same from Sabula to a dej)ot to be…

• Application to be discharged, on habeas corpus, from' imprisonment' in the county jail. On a hearing before the court the applicant was remanded, from which order he appeals. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.

This is a suit in equity by the plaintiff, a member of the firm of Judd, Stowe & Co., to enjoin the sale of a horse, alleged to be the property of the firm, which the defendant had seized and was about to sell under execution against J. M. Stowe, another member of the firm. An application for an injunction was made August 5, 1873, to ITon. Robert Gr. Reiniger, Circuit Judge of the twelfth judicial district, at his chambers, and was refused.

This is a suit in équity to require James Davis, as sheriff of Clayton county, to' make a deed pursuant to á certificate of sale given by him upon a sale under execution; and to cancel a former deed made by bim to the defendant, George J. Brown, and a conveyance by Brown to the defendants, William and John Flemming. The whole case turns upon the single question of the ownership of the certificate.

This is a suit in equity to redeem certain lands sold for taxes, and afterwards conveyed by tax deed to the purchaser. The plaintiff is still a minor. The lands were sold for taxes, April 2, 1862, and the tax deed was made June 26, 1865, and recorded the next day. In September, 1865, the purchaser sold and conveyed a part of said lands to his co-defendants.

This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, to recover a balance due upon a promissory note for fifteen dollars.

Ti-ib plaintiff, an Iowa corporation, brought an action against the defendant on account. The defendant filed an answer, setting up bis defense; and also filed a cross-claiiii, consisting of three counts. The plaintiff demurred to tbe cross-claim, and hereon arises the only question made in this appeal.

<p> Appeal from Winneshiek Circuit Court. </p> <p>Action of replevin for a horse of the value of one hundred dollars. Plaintiff avers that he is the absolute owner and entitled to the immediate possession; that the horse was taken on execution on a judgment rendered April 16, 1869, by A. ■ B. Thomas, a justice of the peace in Winneshiek county, in favor of S. L. Sheldon & Bro. and against the plaintiff; which judgment the plaintiff avers is absolutely void, for that the said justice had no jurisdiction to render the same; that the horse was taken by the defendant, Bailey, as constable, under the direction of the defendant Cramer. The petition was verified, and ón it the writ issued, and the horse was taken and delivered to this plaintiff.</p> <p>The defendants admit the taking of the horse on the execution, as alleged, but deny that the judgment was void, and aver its validity; and, for a further answer, they aver that the defendant, Cramer, became the owner of said, judgment and the claim whereon it was rendered; that said Cramer, in February, 1871, instituted suit upon said claim before J. W. Tower, a justice of the peace for Calmar township, in said county, against this plaintiff, to recover the amount- thereof; that in said suit this plaintiff filed his answer, duly signed, and verified by himself, as follows: “1. The defendant, for answer to the plaintiff’s notice, petition, claim and demand,denies each and every allegation thereof. 2. For further answer, the defendant avers that, on April 8, 1869, S. L. Shel-. don & Bro. did commence an action against this defendant before A. E. Thomas, then a justice of the peace in Calmar township, in said county, by the service of notice thereof on this defendant personally; that such proceedings were had in said action as that, on April 17, 1869, a judgment in favor of said S. L. Sheldon & Bro., and against this defendant, was rendered in said action by said justice, for $86 and costs of suit. That the said action so commenced, and the judgment rendered therein, as aforesaid, was for the identical cause of action upon which this action is founded.” And these defendants aver that, by reason of said answer in said action, this defendant, Cramer, who was plaintiff therein, withdrew said suit, and these defendants aver that thereby this plaintiff is estopped to deny the validity of said judgment.</p> <p>This plaintiff', for reply, admits the filing of said answer as alleged, etc., and avers that at the time he filed it he did not know it was void, or have knowledge of the facts which render it void.</p> <p>Up„on these issues this cause was tried before the court, without a jury, and upon the trial this plaintiff was sworn as a witness, and by him it was offered to prove that the plaintiffs in the former action, S. L. Sheldon & Bro., then resided in Madison, Wisconsin, that the justice of the peace resided and kept his office in Calmar township, ’that this plaintiff, the' defendant therein, resided in Bloomfield, township; that he did not appear in said action, that the action was founded upon an account, and no property was attached therein; and that at the time he filed said answer, and the suit was withdrawn, he did not know that- S. L. Sheldon & Bro. did not reside in Calmar township, nor that the.constable’s return of service of the notice therein showed that the service was made in Bloomfield township.</p> <p>But the court excluded said testimony on the ground that it was immaterial, because the plaintiff is estopped.</p> <p>Judgment was rendered for defendants in this action, and: the plaintiff appeals.</p>

This is a suit in equity to enjoin the collection of a tax of five per cent., voted by the people of the City of Maquoketa, in aid of the Iowa Midland Railway Company.

This action is brought to quiet the title in plaintiffs of certain real property. There was judgment for the plaintiffs in the District Court, from which defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Tuts action was tried in the District Court, on, appeal from a justice of the peace, upon an information charging defendant 'With selling intoxicating liquors in the township of Magnolia, . in Harrison county, Iowa, within three months next before filing the information. The defendant was acquitted. The State appeals.

• These actions were brought by 'plaintiffs, to recover certain lands in Monroe county, which they claim as the devisees of Samuel Harris, deceased. •

On the 30th day of September, 1868, the plaintiff sold to defendants, Wagner and Nockles, certain real estate, and executed to them a bond for a' deed. In consideration thereof defendants executed to plaintiff seven promissory notes, three of them for one thousand dollars each, and respectively due August first, 1869, 1870 and 1871, and four of them for two thousand dollars each, and respectively due August first, 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1875.

Moines Circuit Court. On the 11th day of August, 1873, the plaintiff filed in the Des Moines Circuit Court a petition, sworn to, claiming of defendants $1,333.00, and alleging that that sum had been paid by plaintiff to the defendants for intoxicating liquors, sold in violation of law; that the defendants had no license to sell intoxicating liquors under the laws of Iowa, hut sold the same to plaintiff, a druggist of the town of Fairfield, without any right or permit, and…

Tiie defendant was indicted for the seduction of one Eliza H. Brown. At the March term of the Delaware District Court, he was tried and convicted. Defendant appeals.

Plaintiff claims $10.00, the value of a cow, which, he alleges, died by reason of Texas fever, communicated by cattle imported into plaintiff’s neighborhood by defendant, and wrongfully permitted to run at large. There was a jury trial, and a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

On the 19th day of February, 1873, plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, H. H. Couse, for $700.17. Execution issued on this judgment upon which was returned, “No property found.” This action is brought to set aside, as fraudulent, a conveyance from defendant to his son-in-law Levi Nichols, of certain property known as the Harliugton Cemetery.

On the 22d day of January, 1874, plaintiff filed his petition in equity, stating that he is the owner of a certain eighty acres of land in Lincoln township, Mitchell county, and that it was duly assessed by the assessor in Lincoln township for the year 1873, and that the valuation was approved by the township hoard of equalization of said township at their regular meeting for the year 1873.

The City Marshal of the City of Keokuk filed before the Recorder an information accusing the defendant of violating an ordinance of said city, entitled “An ordinance for the prevention of fires.” The cause was tried by a jury, and defendant was found guilty and fined fifty dollars and costs. Defendant appealed to the Lee District Court, where the cause was tried without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff alleges that on the 27th clay of February, 1866, the defendant, through his legally appointed attorney, T. W. Burdick, executed and delivered to plaintiff, a properly executed and acknowledged deed for a certain described forty acres of land, and that T. W. Burdick informed defendant of the execution and delivery of said deed, and. defendant by letter acknowledged the receipt of the • consideration and acquiesced in and ratified the conveyance.

The abstract shows that there was pending in the court below an action to modify a decree relative to the custody of a child. Appellant filed a motion and an affidavit verified by herself and three disinterested persons, not related to her nearer than in the fourth degree, stating that the judge of said court was so prejudiced against her that she could not obtain a fair trial before him, and asking for a change of venue.

Action upon a promissory note. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant; plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of larceny, and appeals to this court. The facts of the case fully appear iu the opinion.

On the 17th of November, 1878, an indictment was presented against the defendant, charging that on the 29th day of August, 1873, he “ did feloniously steal, take and carry away divers bank bills, commonly, known and denominated national currency, of divers denominations, the number and denomination of which is to the grand jury unknown, of the amount ■and value of six hundred and fifty dollars, which said bank bills circulated and passed as money, and which were then and…

Plaintiff states that on the 12th of March, 1872, he became the treasurer of defendant, and performed the duties incident to said office for one year. That after the expiration of his term of office, the board fixed his compensation for the year at forty dollars. That said sum is grossly inadequate and unreasonable, and he would not and has not accepted the same. That a reasonable compensation for the labor he performed would be $220.00. Plaintiff asks judgment for that sum.

On the 9th day of December, 1872, the plaintiff commenced this action, on an undertaking for the appearance of F. W. Oorville before a j ustice of the peace on a charge of keeping a house of ill-fame, on which undertaking the defendant was surety. The cause was tried to a jury. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The further facts of the case are stated in the opinion.-

Action to recover damages for criminal conversation with the wife of plaintiff. There was a verdict and judgment.in the sum of §1,000. The defendant appeals. The facts involved in the questions passed upon in the opinion will be found fully stated therein.

This is an action by the plaintiffs, who are commission merchants of Chicago, to recover an alleged balance due them. The account sued upon is brief — the defendant is charged June 11, 1872, to amount' paid on draft, $1,400; and is credited, Aug. 2, 1872, by sale of oats, $689.06, leaving balance claimed of $710.94.

On the 28th of May, 1872, plaintiff filed a verified petition, claiming of the defendant the sum of $1,000, with interest from May 20tli, 1868, on account of a school house order of which the following is a copy: “No. 29. Marshall, May 20, 1868. The Treasurer of the Independent District of Marshall, County of ITenry, and State of Iowa, will pay to John Williams or bearer, the sum of one thousand dollars, out of the school house fund in said township.

Action in ordinary by plaintiff, who is a dealer in agricultural implements, to recover of defendant, who was his agent for the sale of such implements at Decorah, the value of one number two ¿Etna self-rake combined, $200, less fifteen per cent., the commission allowed defendant for the sale. The petition contained also a second count for $31.66, for missing parts of another implement returned.

This is an action to recover $167.58, the value'of certain goods which plaintiffs allege they shipped with the defendant in New York City to Davenport, on September, 30, 1871. The amended petition sets up that the original bill of lading is lost, and that the copy annexed to the original petition is not a true copy; that the contract of defendant was to carry the goods from New York to Davenport, and the goods were never delivered.

<p> Appeal from Johnson District Court. </p> <p>This action was originally commenced September 28,1870, as an ordinary proceeding for the recovery of real properiy— lots one and three, in section three, township eighty one, range five, in Johnson county. An answer to the petition was filed. Afterwards the plaintiff, by leave of court, filed an amended petition in equity, setting up her right to the same property, and averring that the defendant claimed some right thereto under an alleged tax title purchase, deed and foreclosure; and also averred the facts showing their invalidity, etc.; that defendant had used and sold large quantities of stone from said premises, etc., and asked an accounting. The answer is in denial, and also sets up tax title in defendant, and pleads the Statute of limitations. While the cause was pending below,' the plaintiff died, and her heirs were substituted. There was ¿ trial to the court; judgment for defendant. The plaintiffs' appeal.</p>

. ■ This is a suit in equity to establish and quiet plaintiff’s title ,to certain lands, as being swamp lands situated in said county, • and to which the defendant claims title and over which it exercises acts of ownership.

This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries received by him by falling from a sidewalk, negligently and defectively constructed and negligently left out of repair. The answer denied the negligence alleged and avers that the defendant’s injuries were caused hy his own carelessness and negligence. The cause was tried to a jury, who rendered a verdict for plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered. Defendant appeals.

■ Action commenced before a justice of the peace, appealed by plaintiff to the Circuit Court, and there dismissed upon motion of defendant. Plaintiff appeals to this court. The Circuit Court, under Code § 3173, certified that the cause involves a question upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of the Supreme Court. The facts are fully set out in the opinion.

Action upon a promissory note; defense, the suit is barred, by the statute of limitations. The cause was submitted; to the court without a jury. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The action was originally brought in the name of Oollins, Adm’r, and has before been in this court. See 34 Iowa, 386. After it was remanded, the former administrator having been discharged, the present plaintiff was substituted.

Action upon a written contract for the delivery of 200,000 brick at the price of $8.50 per M., which plaintiff undertook to furnish defendant. The petition alleges that in pursuance-of the contract the brick were delivered, and admits certain payments therefor. The answer denies the delivery of the brick pursuant to the contract, and sets up certain payments thereon.

Action to recover for personal injuries sustained at a highway crossing on defendant’s road. The answer contains ageneral denial of the allegations of the petition, and alleges that the accident was occasioned by the gross negligence of the plaintiff and without fault of defendant. There was a jury trial, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $10.000. Defendant appeals.

In September, 1870, the plaintiffs filed in the office of the clerk of the Monroe Circuit Court, their petition, claiming a sum of money of H. K. Steele and H. G-. Ellis, partners composing the firm of Steele & Ellis. 'On the 19th of February, 1871, the defendant, L. M. Steele, filed her petition of intervention in said case, and afterward, on her motion, the venue was changed to the Circuit Court of Wapello County.

This is an action on appeal to the Circuit Court from the Board of Supervisors, on .account of damages resulting from the establishment of a highway.

Suit in equity to set aside a conveyance of real’estate, made by the sheriff to the defendant, upon a sale under execution issued upon a mortgage foreclosure judgment in favor of this plaintiff against P. S. Wilson, and to set aside an assignment of the judgment. The plaintiff alleges that defendant was his attorney in obtaining such judgment and, by fraud at the sale, purchased the same in his own name.

This is a proceeding in equity under Revision of 1860, Sec, 3602, by the plaintiff, who is in possession of real estate — lots 4 and 5, of block 21, of Barrett’s addition to Burlington, to quiet his title thereto.

The plaintiff sues for the recovery of an assessment of $117.75, ordered by tbe City Council of the city of Burlington upon lot 911 owned by plaintiff, for macadamizing and curbing streets, which sum plaintiff paid under protest. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the collection of- an assessment of $206.08, made on said lot on the 23d day of June, 1873, for the same purpose.

This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs to have an absolute deed of certain land adjudged to be a mortgage, and to redeem therefrom. Trial by the court; judgment for defendant, dismissing plaintiffs’ petition, from which they appeal.

Plaintiffs, heirs of Prescott II. Read, who died intestate in Blackhawk county, on the 31st day of August, 1859, allege that C.' K. Howe was,on the 5th day of September, 1859, appointed special administrator; that he took possession of the personal property and credits, and appropriated the same to his own use, amounting, including interest, to. $16,000.

Action for failure to deliver brick on demand according to contract. Trial by the court, judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The further facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This is an action on the official bond of Angus McDonald, as treasurer of plaintiff, against him and his sureties thereon, for balance of moneys in his hands, which he neglects to pay over. There was a trial by the court, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendants appeal.

■ Action by ordinary proceedings upon an indemnifying bond. Defense, no consideration, and that plaintiff paid the money sued for in his own wrong;, that defendant was an attorney at law, and the bond was given in a proceeding in court, and hence void. A jury trial was waived, and the cause tried by consent to the court, who found for the plaintiff $514.60 and costs, and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant appeals.

This action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, Byers, before a justice of the peace, by attachment, upon a note for $88.75. Among- the property attached was one mule and a double harness. Judgment was rendered against the defendant for the debt and costs. But the intervenor, in proper time, filed his petition of intervention, claiming the mule and harness. Hpon a jury trial, the right to the possession of the property was found in the plaintiff.

■ This action was commenced before a justice of the peace for the recovery of damages on account of slanderous words, alleged to have been spoken of plaintiff by defendant. The answer contains a general denial, and alleges that the words spoken were spoken without malice and in discharge of defendant’s duty. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $10.00. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, where a jury trial was had, and a verdict was returned for plaintiff for $100.00.

On the 17th- day of January, 1874, the plaintiff filed his petition stating, in substance, that the defendant is a municipal. corporation, organized under the laws of Iowa; that on the 4th day of July, 1872, there was a fire in progress within the limits of the city, and near the buildings of the plaintiff; that there was then in force an ordinance of the city, passed December 10th, 1868, entitled “An ordinance establishing and regulating a Eire Department,” Section 16 of…

Proceedings upon a garnishment. The controversy is between the plaintiffs* who are judgment creditors of Young and Sales, and who garnished Poison as the supposed debtor of Young, on the one hand, and the intervenor, Sigler, on the other. The question arose upon demurrer, and the court held with the intervenor. The material facts are concisely stated in the opinion. The plaintiffs appeal.

This action was brought July 7, 1869, to quiet the title in plaintiffs to fifteen acres off the north end of the west half of the northeast quarter of section twenty-four, township seventy-two, range fourteen west, in Wapello county.

The plaintiff having obtained judgment against J. M. Iiiatt, November 16, 1872, for $1,358.37, had execution issued thereon, and on December 18, 1872, the defendant herein, A. Hosmer, was garnished, as the supposed debtor of said Hiatt. Hosmer, in his answer, admitted that he owed Hiatt a certain small sum, which he paid at once to the proper officer, and, also, denied any further indebtedness whatever. Issue was taken upon this answer.

In equity. The petition alleges that the petitioner, Sarah, is the widow of William S. Jones, who died in.1855, seized of 400 acres of land and left surviving him three heirs, Geraldine, Joseph and Huldah; that she became entitled to dower in said'land to the extent of one-third thereof for life; that in 1856 Huldah died unmarried-, and her interest descended to the plaintiff, Sarah, for life, remainder in fee to the surviving heirs, and that in 1866 Joseph died unmarried…

.■ From tbe year 1855 until the 28th of April, 1865, the plaintiff and William Montgomery and Daniel Rider were tenants in common of the equitable title to certain lots in Sioux City, the legal title being in Daniel Rider, At a tax sale begun on the first Monday of October, 1860, George Weare purchased all of said lots for the delinquent taxes of 1859, and a part of them also for the delinquent taxes of1857 and 1858.

The Ci rcuit Court, on the hearing of the writ and return, adjudged that the Board of Supervisors had no jurisdiction to make the order abating the taxes ■ in question, and dismissed the proceedings. The defendants appeal.

Action by ordinary proceedings to recover damages for an alleged willful trespass in tearing down plaintiff’s fence along, the highway, and letting in stock to destroy his crops. The defendant auswers by a general denial, and also justifying as doing the alleged wrongs in discharge of his duties as road supervisor, and after notice to plaiptiff to remove his fence from the highway, which is alleged to be such by prescription.

Action upon a promissory note, made by the defendant to The Iowa Southern Nail way ■ Company or order, for $104.20, dated' February 8, 1870, and payable one day after date.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace for the recovery of $68.00, and interest from July 6th, 1870. Judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, where the cause was tried by the court, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff for the amount claimed. The defendant appeals.

This action was originally brought by Edward Laughlin, May 8, 1869, to recover for injuries resulting to him Sejitember 9, 1868, while engaged in coupling cars for the defendant. The said Edward Laughlin died May 13, 1869, and the suit was revived by substituting the administratrix as plaintiff.

Action to recover upon the breach of a covenant of seizin in a deed for land executed by defendant to plaintiff. The answer -is a general denial of the allegations of the petition. There was a verdict and judgment for jilaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

■ This is an- action to recover money alleged to have been received by the defendant, Mahala, for the use of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are three sisters, children of John M. Knott, now deceased, by a first wife. The defendants are the widow of said Knott by a second marriage, and her second husband.

Indictment for burglary; jury trial, resulting in a verdict of guilty, upon which the defendant was sentenced to the pen: itentiary for ten years. Defendant appeals.

Action iii equity to set aside the defendant Smith’s tax title to the N.W. jr of S.E. J, sec. 8, tp. 84, r. 27. The cause was submitted to the court upon the following agreed state*ment of facts: “That in December, 1862, the land in suit herein was a part of the public domain, and subject to preemption and homestead entry of tíre United States.

This is an action, brought upon two promissory notes for $500 each, against the defendants as makers thereof. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants, Hess & Baehring, appeal.

On the 20th day of February, 1813, plaintiff commenced his action of replevin before á justice of the peace, alleging that he is the unqualified owner of a horse of the value of $35.00. That the horse was taken by defendants in virtue of an execution issued by William Laughlin, a justice of the peace, on a pretended judgment against the plaintiff, in favor of the defendant, Williams.

Two indictments were presented against the defendant, one charging him with adultery on divers days and times, between the first day of August, 1873, and the first day of March, 1874, with one Amanda P. Russell; the other charging him with the same crime, during the same period, with one Polly M. Russell. The defendant was convicted, and appeals. The same questions are involved in both cases.

Action by ordinary proceedings to recover for seventy-two hogs, sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants. The defendants denied their liability, and averred that as agents for Gr. B. Smith & Oo. they purchased the hogs, and not on their own account.

This is an appeal from the refusal of the Circuit Court to admit an alleged verbal will to probate. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Action in equity to enjoin the defendant, as treasurer of Palo Alto county, from placing certain lands of the plaintiff upon the tax list for the year 1871, and from collecting the taxes thereon for that year; and this, upon the ground that they were not subject to taxation for that year. A preliminary injunction was allowed.

Suit in equity to foreclose a trust deed, and to bar conflict-' ing equities.

This is au agreed case for the purpose of determining the right of plaintiff to recover of defendant his fees as a witness in certain state cases tried in Polk county. He was subpoenaed in five different cases, and attended the court for fifteen days. The subpoenas required him to attend on the 10th of November in each case; he was finally discharged on the 25th. In the meantime, on different days, the causes had been disposed of.

On March 19, 1872, the plaintiff filed his petition in equity, averring that he is a tax payer, and resident in Woodbury county, and brings this action in behalf of the tax payers in said county who are numerous, and whom it is impracticable to bring before the court or join in the action.

Appeal from Webster District Oourt. This is an appeal from an order overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance. The defendant appeals.

The plaintiff in his petition alleges that he is a manufacturer of intoxicating liquors within the State of Iowa,- to be sold according to the statute, and to be used for mechanical and medicinal purposes; and that the defendant has been duly licensed to sell intoxicating liquors for those purposes, at his place of business in Pella.

This action was commenced June 24, 1872, and by their petition the plaintiffs aver that, in 1851, they were owners in fee of out-lot five, in Oskaloosa; that John White, the defendant’s intestate, was then owner of nine acres adjoining Oskaloosa, (describing it,) that- said White desired .to exchange his nine acres for out-lot five, and such exchange was made in 1851, whereby White sold his nine acres to plaintiffs, some .of whom were then minors; that plaintiffs then…

The petition was filed on the 9th day of November, 1869. Plaintiff alleges that about the 11th day of June, 1856, and the 19th day of August, 1857, he executed to S. Y. Keene, defendant’s testator, two promissory notes, respectively for the sum of eighteen hundred dollars, and forty-seven hundred dollars, and to secure' the payment thereof he executed a mortgage on certain real estate therein mentioned.

This is a proceeding upon the report of defendant as guardian of minor heirs. The. correctness of .the report was denied by the guardian ad litem. The Circuit Court, upon a trial of the issues thus raised, found that the guardian had in his hands'a balance of $591.56,.money of the wards, and rendered judgment accordingly. The guardian ad litem appeals. The facts are set out in the opinion.

The petition alleges that plaintiff is the widow of Daniel Garvin, late of the State of Ohio, deceased, and prays for the admeasurement of her dower in certain lands described, situate in Lucas county. It is averred that her deceased husband left surviving him certain heirs, whose interest in the lands is vested in the defendants, except Hatcher, by proceedings in the Court of Probate of the county wherein the lands are situated.

On the 23d day of October, 1873, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages from the defendant, alleging that in the summer of 1870 the defendant was the keeper of a saloon in the old town of DeWitt, Clinton county, Iowa, where he kept intoxicating liquors for sale in violation of the law, and, at divers times during the year 1870, did sell said intoxicating liquors to John Emmert, who was then and there the husband of plaintiff, whereby she has sustained…

- This action was commenced to recover on three promissory notes, and to foreclose a mortgage on real property. The canse, on the trial in the Circuit Court, was, by consent, consolidated with another cause therein pending between the parties on a promissory note. The causes being tried to a jury, a verdict was rendered for plaintiff on the note for $40, and .for defendant for $110.40, as damages claimed by him in the foreclosure action.

Appeal: jurisdiction. -When the certificate of the trial judge provided for by Sec. 3173 of the Code should be made, to confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Appeal from Poweshiek Circuit Court. Submitted on motion to dismiss the appeal.

1. Mortgage: Deed. When a deed absolute upon its face was held to operate as a mortgage. 2. Rent. When liability for rent is- incurred under possession obtained by legal process. 3. Evidence. What was held sufficient to sustain a verdict. Appeal from Blaclchawlc District Court. The plaintiff, on the 18th of September, 1872, filed'her amended petition, alleging that in May, 1867, she purchased of G-.

Tax sale: conflict of evidence. Appeal from Johnson District Court. This action was brought to recover certain land, plaintiff’s title resting upon a tax sale and a deed executed thereon. The defendants, by answer, denied the allegations of the petition, and by cross bill set up, among other matters, that the taxes were paid before sale. The cause was referred, and the referee found the facts for plaintiff.

Conveyance. When set aside on the ground of accident and mistake. Appeal from Lee Circuit Court. This is a suit in equity, to set aside and cancel certain conveyances of real property, on grounds of fraud, accident and mistake. The court rendered a decree for the plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

<p>Contract. Evidence not sufficient to establish.</p> <p> Appeal from Allamakee District Court. </p> <p>Action in equity. Petition 'dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. The facts, appear in the opinion.</p>

Jurisdiction: change of venue: order without prejudice. Appeal from Keohuh District Court. This is a habeas corpus proceeding. The plaintiff filed a motion for a change of venue. Pending this application, the court, upon motion of defendant, dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction, and ordered the child, whose custody was involved in the proceeding, to be restored to defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Certiorari. Proceeding superseded by proceedings in bankruptcy. Certiorari to the District Court of Blaclchawlc. This is a proceeding in certiorari. Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion.

Agency: trust. Pacts considered which were held sufficient to establish an agency or trust. Appeal from Van Burén District Court. This is an action in equity to establish a trust as against the defendant, and in favor of plaintiffs, and to enforce its performance. 'The facts are numerous, extended, and somewhat complicated. So far as necessary to the understanding of the real question at issue, they will be found stated in the opinion.