Volume 39 — Wisconsin Reports

* An action was commenced in said court in December, 1871, by one Jung, of Berlin, Germany, against Herman Hmd-Img, to recover the value of personal property… Held: what is apparent from the statute itself, that its j>rovisions are, and were intended to be, a substitute for the proceedings on ered-itors’ bill in a court of equity, and tbat they abolish the old proceedings. In re Remington, 7 Wis., 643;. Graham v. R. R. Oo., 10 id., 459; Seymour v. Briggs, 11 id., 196.

Action for materials alleged to have been furnished and labor performed to tbe value of $26.60, pursuant to a contract, in tbe construction of a dwelling bouse for tbe plaintiff, viz., in erecting on said dwelling bouse a lightning rod.

Action on two promissory notes of the defendant, dated August 22, 1870, for $100 each, with interest, payable June 1, 1871, and June 1, 1872, repectively.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint alleges tbat the plaintiff was a guest at defendant’s hotel in Madison, and tbat while such guest, and on a day specified, “ the said defendant, without any cause or provocation, unlawfully, rudely and violently seized hold of the person of this plaintiff, and then and there, with great force and violence, threw this, plaintiff on the floor in a public bar room in said house, whereby and by which means this…

The action was commenced in this court, to recover for alleged services of the plaintiff, as a commissioner of the geo-dogical survey of the state, from March, 1862, to March, 1863. The plaintiff was appointed such commissioner hy ch. 40, Laws of 1857; and in March, 1858, the governor entered into a contract with him as prescribed in spid act, to continue in force five years.

Action on a policy of marine insurance. Verdict for the-plaintiff, and judgment thereon, from -which the defendant appealed. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. among other points, argued,, 1.

This case arises -upon an order of distribution, made by the county court of Milwaukee county, in the estate of William L. Clearer. The testator was twice married, and had three children by his first wife, and three by his second; the latter being the appellants in this case, and the former the respondents.

Tbe defendant company issued three policies of insurance to tbe plaintiff, of five hundred dollars each, on bis live stock.

Action upon a policy of insurance dated May 12, 1870, by which the defendant company insured the plaintiff’s testator against loss by fire on certain personal property therein described, for the term… Held: That receiving tbe unpaid balance of tbe cash premium after notice of tlie loss, was a waiver of tbe default in paying tbe same, estopping tbe defendant from asserting that its liability on tbe policy was suspended when tbe loss occurred; and 2.

Action upon a policy of insurance dated August 21, 1871, issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff, the term of insurance being five years. The insured property was destroyed by fire September 11, 1874. These facts appear from the complaint, and it is further alleged therein that the plaintiff paid for such insurance a premium of twenty-four dollars.

Action upon a promissory note. Defense, a discharge in bankruptcy proceedings in the distinct court of the United States. The evidence offered and exceptions taken thereto sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Action to recover tbe value of cows belonging to tbe plaintiff, wbicb escaped from bis farm and were billed on tbe track of a railroad adjacent thereto. The facts upon wbicb it is claimed that tbe defendant is liable, as they are stated in tbe pleadings and appear from tbe evidence, are as follows: Plaintiff is tbe lessee and occupant of a farm in Jefferson •county; and defendant is tbe owner and occupant ofan adjoining farm on tbe west.

Action to recover tbe amount of an insurance policy issued by tbe defendant company, dated January 12, 1875, upon tbe plaintiffs hotel property in tbe town of Waterville, in Pepin county. Tbe complaint alleges a compliance by tbe plaintiff with all tbe conditions of tbe policy; a total loss by fire on tbe 14th day of February, 1875; due notice thereof to tbe defendant; and a demand and refusal of payment.

Action for the foreclosure of a contract for the purchase of land.

Action commenced, in 1871, for a foreclosure of a mortgage alleged to Rave been executed by the Silverthom Lead Mining There were four separate answers; one by the defendant corporation, one by the defendant Howa/rd, the third by the defendants Tallma/n and Knowlton, and the fourth by the defendant Charles. The nature of the defenses relied upon will sufficiently appear from the opinion. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff; and the defendants appealed. 1.

Tbe complaint alleges that plaintiff’ is tbe owner in fee and in actual possession of certain lots in tbe defendant city, on wbicb bis dwelling bouse is situated; that tbe lots are inclosed with fences, and entirely surrounded by wbat purport to be public streets; that standing and growing upon such lots are a great many fruit- and ornamental trees and much shrubbery of several years’ growth and cultivation, and of great value, and which greatly enhance the value of the…

<p>APPEAL from tlie Circuit Court for Dodge County.</p> <p>Submitted for the respondent on the brief of II. W. Lander.</p>

<p>APPEAL .from the Circuit Court for Dodge County.</p> <p>Submitted for tbe respondent on the brief of JEE. W. lander.</p>

Tbis was an action for divorce brought by tbe wife against tbe husband, in which judgment was bad by default. Defendant made two several motions to set aside or modify tbe judgment as to tbe custody of tbe children, and on tbe ground of excessive alimony. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Both motions were denied; and tbe present appeal is from tbe second motion, dated April 28, 1875. if 1.

<p>APPEALS from tie Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. _</p> <p>TIese appeals were submitted by both sides upon briefs.</p>

Ejectment, for lands in tbe Brothertown Beservation, tbe complaint alleging tbat tbe plaintiff, Elizabeth Hammer, bad an estate in fee simple in said premises, as tbe widow of Ira Hammer, deceased. Answer, a general denial. Tbe case was tried by tbe court without a jury.

The action was brought to recover an undivided interest in certain lands situated in Washington county, and was tried by the court without a jury. The case, as it appears from the pleadings, evidence and findings of fact by the court, is as follows: The land in which the plaintiff claims such interest was purchased from the United States by one Ebenezer Jones, and, in the year 1846 was conveyed to Eosina Ahnert, the wife of Johann Gottlieb Ahnert.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. In 1864, the plaintiff and her husband, Adolph Berrinkott (now deceased), conveyed to the defendant Henry Mausbach, their son-in-law, a farm in Dane county; and for the consideration or price of the farm, or for a portion of it, the grantee executed to .the plaintiff a bond in the penal sum of $900, the condition 'of which is thus stated in the complaint: “ The condition of the said bond was such, that if the above named defendant, the obligor…

On tbe 14th of December, 18T5,1. G. Sloan, Esq., moved tbe court for tbe admission to tbe bar of tbis court of Miss-R. Lavinia Goodell, and read to tbe court a certifícate of tbe clerk of tbe circuit court for Rock county in tbis state, wbicb stated that at a term of said court begun and beld on tbe 17th of June, 1874, Miss Goodell was examined in open court, and that, it appearing that she was a resident of tbis state, more-than twenty-one years of age, of good moral…

It appears from tbe pleadings and evidence that tbe plaintiffs agreed to manufacture for, and put up for use in tbe mill of tbe defendants, certain paper-mill machinery, for tbe manufacture of straw board paper, for which tbe defendant agreed to pay $19,250, and that they paid on the contract about $15,000. This action is for the unpaid balance of such contract price. The plaintiffs gave testimony on the trial tending to prove performance by them of the agreement.

The complaint in this action asked for a dissolution of a copartnership (between the defendant Augustus Covert, and the plaintiffs or those whom they represent), the appointment of a receiver, and the division and settlement of the partnership property.

Replevin, for a quantity of pine saw logs; complaint in the usual form. The defendant in 'his answer claims to he the owner and entitled to the possession of snch logs, by virtue of a sale thereof to him by the sheriff of Oconto county, on an execution, as hereinafter stated. Such proceedings were had under ch. 128, R. S., that the logs were delivered to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, in April, 1875, brought his action in this court against the state, to recover $45,962.13, with interest on that snna from May 1, 1860; alleging that this amount was the balance due him-, “ according to the principles and at the rates and prices mentioned in chapter 323 of the laws of 1874,” for work done and materials furnisked in 1859 and 1860 by him as assignee of a contract for the state printing, etc., entered into between James Ross and tbe state.

Tbe circuit court made an injunctional order in a civil - cause, restraining the plaintiffs therein, their attorneys, etc., from procuring an order from any court or officer preventing or interfering with a sale, as theretofore advertised, of certain lands which the judgment in the cause directed to be sold. Mr. Murphey was not a party to that action, but was attorney for the plaintiffs therein.

Tbe plaintiff appealed from an order dissolving an attachment previously granted against defendant’s property. Tbe merits of tbe appeal, and a motion to dismiss it upon grounds stated in tbe opinion, were argued at tbe same time. ,

Griffiths brought Ms action in justice’s court upon a promissory note for the sum of $76.25, alleged to have been made by the defendant Pluma Kellogg to the order of Gillespie Bros., and by them sold and assigned to plaintiff before maturity. The answer admitted the making of a note for $47.50, but denied having executed any note for $76.25. Defendant had judgment, from which plaintiff appealed to the circuit court.

This appeal is from an order refusing to vacate a previous order requiring tbat tbe Farmers- Loan & Trust Company be made a défendant in tbe action.

This action was brought to recover tbe amount of a note for $1,560 at one year from date, witb interest at ten per cent., executed February 1,1867, by tbe defendant to Owen Griffiths, tbe plaintiffs’ intestate; and also to recover for labor and services alleged to have been performed by said Griffiths as a miller, for 'the defendant, at bis request, at bis grist and flouring mills in Danville, Dodge county, and Cambria, Columbia county, from February 1, 1867, to June 25,…

APPEALS from tlie Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. • Appeals from tliree orders made in the progress of the cause. The action is for a divorce, and was commenced in the circuit court for Milwaukee county. The summons and complaint were served on the defendant in Portage county, March 8,1875. It is undisputed that the defendant was then, and for many years had been, a resident of the latter county.

Action to recover a balance alleged to be due upon an open account from the defendants, G. H. and L. J. MoOormich, residents of Illinois, to the plaintiff, who is a resident of this state. Service was attempted to be had upon defendants by publication, the facts concerning which appear in the opinion.

Action to restrain defendants from digging and mining on premises described in tire complaint. Held: that the discovery of the range or vein of ore on Jones’ land, made while the Watkins range was abandoned and unworked, was^as against any miner, subsequently on the old Watkins range, a prior discovery of that vein, and entitled the discoverers to follow the vein to the limits of the land on which such discovery was made, unless…

APPEAL fz’om the Circuit Court for Ashland County. This action was brought by Stahl, as county treasurer, under sec. 170, ch. 18, E. S., against O ’Malley, as town treasurer, and the sureties upon his official bond, for his failure to pay over to plaintiff moneys of the county collected by such town treasurer.

Tbe complaint alleges, in substance, that on April 7, 1874, the plaintiff owned and possessed certain lands in Grant county, and on that day be made with tbe defendant a contract in writing for tbe sale of tbe land.

Action upon an instrument in writing signed by the defendant, of which the following is a copy: “ Maoefobd, Sept. 12, 1874.

The complaint in this action alleged, in substance, that on or about August 3, 1848, “ The Lawrence University of Wisconsin ” “ proposed to erect and maintain at Appleton a collegiate institute, and the plaintiff, being interested in the growth of Appleton, made a donation of certain lands to said university, for the objects and pui’poses of said institution, and for no other, and upon the condition that such lands were not , and should not become the absolute property of…

Action for damages caused by a change of grade of the street in front of certain lots owned by plaintiff in the defendant city. The facts are undisputed, and are substantially as follows: In 1869, the common council of Milwaukee passed an ordinance changing the grade of the streets surrounding some fifty blocks lying in a compact form adjacent to each other. Block 116, in which the plaintiff owned two lots, was one of these.

• Action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house and lot. Held: among other things, that the telegraphic despatch of June 2, 1874, was an acceptance by Mrs. Lewis of the offer made to her agent, and was sufficient to authorize him to enter into the contract with plaintiff, and such contract was binding; that plaintiff had paid the purchase money, and was entitled to a conveyance of the premises;…

Tbe plaintiff, a married woman, brought this action against tbe defendant as administrator of tbe estate of one ¥m. Abendrotb. A claim was presented to tbe county court against said estate upon an instrument in writing purporting to be a promissory note for $2,500 and ten per cent, interest, payable in installments to tbe plaintiff' or order, and purporting to have been signed by tbe defendant’s intestate.

The county court having- allowed a claim of the plaintiff against the estate of D. D. Burrington, deceased, for personal services, an appeal was taken to the circuit court.

This was an action under tbe statute relating to mills and mill dams, to recover damages for flowing plaintiff’s land, and to abate, tbe dam. Tbe answer, among other defenses, set up tbe statute of limitations in bar.

1. The order was not appealable. Baldnoim, v. Marygold, 2Wis.,419; Bines v.Boyd, 7 id., 155; Bunals v. Brown, 11 id., 186; Western Ba/nh of Scotland v. Tallman, 15 id., 92; 22 id., 99. 2. The question was not res adjudioata by the denial of the former motion. 1. The question» was res adjudioata by the denial of the former motion, made on the same grounds.

Action for a loss by fire, under an alleged agreement for insurance.

Action upon a policy of life insurance, issued to plaintiff’s intestate, Alfred Hull. The terms and conditions of the policy, so far as they have any bearing upon the case, are stated at length, in the opinion of the court. The policy was issued March 29, 1870, upon the ten-year-payment plan, premiums payable annually (subsequently changed to semi-aiinually), partly in cash and partly by premium note.

.The plaintiff, Raving taken an appeal to the circuit court from an assessment and award of damages and benefits made by the board of public works of the defendant city on account of some proposed public improvement, moved that court for1 a change of the place of trial to some other county.

On March 30, 1874, a claim was filed in tbe probate court for Milwaukee county, against tbe estate of G. W. Pocldiam, deceased, by tbe plaintiffs as executors of tbe estate of Eliza Griggs, deceased, of Albany county, New York. ' On April 20, 1874, objection to tbe allowance of tbe claim was made in writing, on tbe grounds tbat it was outlawed, and was void for usury. On October 23, 1874, tbe claim was allowed by the county judge.

APPEAL ñ-om tbe County Court of Milwaukee County. Action to recover a commission upon a sale of real estate, claimed by plaintiffs to Rave been effected by them as brokers nnder employment for the defendant.

The action was brought before a justice of the peace, pursuant to sec. 10, ch. 119, Laws of 1872, as amended by sec. 1, ch. 246, Laws of 1873, to recover for work done by the plaintiff in the construction of the defendant’s railroad. The plaintiff was employed to perform such work by a subcontractor in the second degree from the defendant company, and not by the person who contracted directly with the company to construct such railroad.

Tbe complaint is as follows: “ Milo W. Brown, tlie plaintiff in tbe above entitled action, complains of Euclid Worden, and says tbat between tbe first day of November, 1873, and the 15th day of October, 1874, be, plaintiff, found and furnished for one Melissa M. Worden, then tbe wife of tbe defendant, at the request of tbe said Melissa M. Worden, necessaries for her use, to tbe value of seventy-five dollars; tbat said sum thereupon, on tbe 15th day of October, 1874, became…

' In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the trial court having rendered a judgment in favor of all the defendants, this court, on appeal, at the January term, 1875, held that the mortgage was valid, though not so recorded as to constitute constructive, notice, and that the defendants Mólloy* and Partoz were chargeable with actual notice; and it reversed the judgment. below as to them. See 37 Wis., 449-468.

' JBalcer filed with the county clerk his claim to recover from the county, under ch. 22, Laws of 1859, the amount of certain tax certificates, alleged to he void… Held: under sec. 26, ch. 22, Laws of 1859, that tbe statute -of limitations did not begin to run until tbe illegality was discovered, that law bas since been repealed by sec. 1, cb. 68, Laws of 1870. Tbis last statute says nothing about “ discovery of illegality,” and hence sec. 17, cb. 138, R. S., would aj>ply.

On Friday, December 4, 1874, tlie plaintiff delivered to the defendant company at Milwaukee, for shipment, three boxes of medicine of the value of $190, consigned to his agent, Emil Stellmaeher, at Watertown, and notified the latter, hy mail, of such shipment. Stellmaeher received the notice by due course of mail, and on Saturday, December 5th, at three o’clock P. M., called at the depot of the defendant in Watertown for the goods, but the same had not then arrived there.

■ Replevin, for logs. The action was originally brought against three defendants, but was dismissed as to two of them, on the trial. The complaint, in addition to other averments usually found in complaints in similar actions, also alleged that the defendants had willfully intermingled said logs with others of the same description and mark, belonging to themselves. Answer, a general denial.

Ej ectment, commenced July 7,1874. Plaintiff (who brought suit by her guardian ad litem) showed that she was the daugter of Thomas A. Swearingen, deceased; that the latter died in 1855; and that she was in her twentieth year at the commencement of this action; and she introduced in evidence a patent from the United States to the said Thomas A. Swear-ingen of the premises in controversy.

This was an action against Kañme, as town treasurer, and tbe sureties upon bis official bond, to recover funds of tbe town which were lost through the failure of the bank wherein they were deposited by Kavme. Kaime was first elected town treasurer April 7, 1873, and on the 8th of April took the oath of office and filed the bond on which his codefendants in this action were sureties.

Eeplevin, for a quantity of pine logs. The facts, as they appeared on the trial, are as follows: By an instrument in writing dated December 7, 1870, one Ketchum agreed to sell to the plaintiff’s testator, G-eorge E. Andrews, all the pine timber on a certain forty-acre tract of land for $5,000, payable as therein specified. It is not disputed that Andrews paid for the timber as agreed.

Action for libel, originally brought by Mrs. Florence A. JBechwith, who subsequently intermarried with one Cary, who was then joined as a plaintiff in the suit.

Action upon a policy of insurance. Tire facts, as shown by the pleadings and proofs, are these: The plaintiff had an insurance in the American Fire Ins. Company of Chicago, on his dwelling house and contents, to the amount of $600, for a term of five years from February 14, 1874, for which he paid the premium in full.

Tbe appellant, Smith, and one David Kimball, being tbe owners of a certain tract of land in tbe county of Winnebago, entered into a contract in writing, in tbe usual form, witb tbe defendant Bogk, to sell and convey sucb land to tbe latter for $4,000. Bogk paid $300 in cask, and gave bis notes to tbe vendors, payable to Kimball or bearer, for different amounts and payable at different times, for tbe residue of tbe purchase money.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff was the owner of and possessed as his own property a large number of pine saw logs lying near the mouth of Onion river, and amounting to about one million feet, and that the defendants, on the 9th of August, 1874, wrongfully took and carried away about two hundred thousand feet of said logs and converted them to their own use. Answer, a general denial.

Tbe plaintiff, a builder, erected for tbe defendant six small bouses or cottages, of uniform size and plan, at a stipulated price; and be brought tbis action to recover an alleged unpaid balance of tbe contract price, and for certain work performed tbereon and materials furnished therefor not required by tbe contract. A charge in tbe plaintiff’s account for changing tbe pitch of tbe roofs seems to be tbe only item therein seriously contested.

On tbe lltb of April, 1876, W. F. Yilas, Esq., moved tbe court for tbe admission of Ole Mosness, Esq., to tbe bar of tbis court, as an attorney and counselor thereof.

Foreclosure. Tlie mortgage iu suit was given to plaintiff by defendant Wait and her husband, since deceased, in Janu-uary, 1867, and covered four lots in the city of Appleton, one of which, described as lot 7, is claimed by the mortgagor as a homestead.

Action for the value of a house alleged to have been converted by defendant. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff sold a lot to one Lee on credit, giving him an ordinary land contract, Lee covenanting to erect a house of a given value upon the lot within a specified time. Lee built the house, but failed to make his payments as agreed, and afterwards, before the commencement of this action, moved the house to defendant’s lot.

Action upon a hill of exchange drawn upon the defendant company by its general agent, in payment of a loss under one of its policies issued to the payee. Defense, that the bill was obtained by fraud on the part of the latter. The facts are-stated in the opinion. By direction of the court, the jury found for the plaintiffs;, and from a judgment on the verdict, the defendant conqpany appealed.

Action for a balance claimed to be due plaintiff on a sale of certain saw logs. The defendant, in its answer, among other counterclaims, set up a claim, under ch. 12, Laws of 1873, for toll upon certain logs floated by the plaintiff down the Yellow river, by the aid of its improvements constructed therein prior to November, 1872, and down to the commencement of the action, and alleged by it to have been erected and maintained at an expense of eighteen thousand dollars.

This action was brbuglit by the treasurer of Chippewa county against Hogcm, as treasurer of the town of Eagle Point in said county, and his sureties; and the complaint avers in substance, that said town treasurer, prior to March 1, 1875, had collected for highway taxes on lands lying north of a line drawn east and west through the south line of township thirty-three in said county, the sum of $2,898; that by ch. 4-58, P. & L. Laws of 1869, it became his duty to pay over said…

Under date of December 6, 1873, tbe defendant agreed in writing to sell and deliver to tbe plaintiffs, on tbe first day of January then next, five hundred marketable bogs in a frozen condition, at five dollars per cwt., each bog to weigh not less than two hundred pounds. Tbe plaintiffs were ready and willing to receive tbe bogs and pay for them, at tbe agreed time; but tbe defendant failed entirely to deliver them. This action was for damages for such failure.

Ejectment, commenced in 1872, for one hundred and sixty acres of land in Iowa county.

This was an action for damages accruing to the plaintiff from the running away of his horses and the breaking of the wagon to which they were attached; the complaint alleging that the horses were frightened by a hog lying in a public highway on which plaintiff was then driving, and that the hog belonged to the defendant and. was then and there unlawfully at large through his negligence.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover the value of the services of himself and wife for four months and ten days.

Action to recover tbe expenses incurred by tbe plaintiff in caring for and curing bis minor son of wounds inflicted upon bim by tbe female dog of tbe defendant. It is averred in tbe complaint that, before tbe injuries were inflicted, tbe defendant bad notice of tbe vicious propensities of bis dog, etc., notwithstanding wbicb be suffered ber to go at large and do tbe injury. Tbe answer is a general denial.

Action upon an account which, the defendant admitted was correct.

Tbis case was submitted on tbe record, printed case and briefs, on tbe 3d of March, 1876; and on tbe 21st of tbe same month tbe court made an order dismissing tbe appeal, “ because tbe printed case is materially defective and fails to comply with tbe rule.” On tbe 13th of April following, tbe appellant’s attorneys served on those of tbe respondent notice of a motion to be made on tbe 18th of that month, or as soon thereafter as they could be beard (based on an affidavit…

The plaintiffs were partners doing business in the city of Appleton as tinners and jobbers. The defendant, as sheriff, on tbe 2d of November, 1874, levied on tbe partnership property of tbe plaintiffs tben in their store, consisting of tools and stock in trade, under an execution to satisfy a judgment against tbe plaintiffs for about $235.

This action was to enforce tbe collection of a mechanic's lien, and was commenced on tbe 19th of September, 1872, by service of tbe summons upon the defendant. Tbe complaint was filed October 29, 1872, and judgment as upon default was entered on tbe 8th of March, 1875, after tbe service of an order to show cause why it should not be so entered.

Tbe complaint,, alleges tbat on tbe 21st of June, 1859, at Quincy, in tbe state of Illinois, tbe defendant bargained and sold and agreed to deliver to tbe plaintiff, at tbe place and on tbe day above mentioned, 750,000 feet of good merchantable pine lumber, at a certain agreed price; tbat tbe plaintiff then and there paid defendant tbe sum agreed upon for said quantity of lumber; tbat tbe defendant did not deliver tbe agreed quantity, but failed' to deliver, and has ever…

The complaint in this action contained two counts: 1. For hauling and placing upon a certain lot of the plaintiff and on streets adjoining, before December 1, 1870, 1,889 yards of earth and sand, at an agreed rate of thirty-five cents per yard.

Action to restrain the collection of a judgment at law previously rendered in the same court in favor of the present defendant, Adolph Rukeyser, against Bcm'ber, the present plaintiff. Barber claimed, among other things, and introduced evidence to show, that the judgment was taken in violation of an oral agreement between the attorneys of the respective pai’ties.

On the relator’s petition, said circuit court made an order requiring the Board of Supervisors of Crawford Comity to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue against them, requiring them to admit the relator as a member of said hoard, and permit him to participate in its proceedings.

In January, 1867, Sydnor and others (the defendants in this proceeding) commenced an action of ejectment in said circuit court against the Phoenix Lead Mining da Smelting Company and another, to recover possession of an undivided one-sixth of. certain land; the title to the remaining undivided five-sixths of the land being admitted to be in the defendants to that action.- The action was tried at the June term, 1870; the plaintiffs therein had a verdict; a motion made for a…

The plaintiffs and certain infant wards of the plaintiff Mary A. Stowell being the owners of certain real estate in the city of Chicago, the plaintiffs, in the year 1856, leased the same to one Grey for a term to commence April 1st in that year, and to terminate April 1, 1863. The rent reserved in snch lease was $9,000 for the first year, with an increase of $1,000 each year, so that for the last year of the term the stipulated rent was $14,000.

' APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Book County. This case was before this court on a former appeal; and in the report thereof, in 36 Wis., 450, will be found a statement of the pleadings, and also of the testimony given on the first trial of the action. On that appeal, the judgment for the plaintiff was reversed for error in the instructions given to the jury; and the -cause was again tried.

The case stated in tbe complaint is substantially as follows: On June 29,1864, Allen Bates and tbe defendant George Harvey were in possession, and tbe apparent owners of .certain lands in Bock county, claiming title to a portion of tbe same by deed, dated August 4, 1860, from Henry Naiden, wbo bad become tbe owner of tbe same by foreclosure of a certain mortgage given by tbe defendant Wilcox, dated April 4,1857; and to tbe remainder under a tax deed dated September 13, 1861,…

Action commenced in July, 1874, for a divorce, on tlie ground of adultery, alleged to bave been committed at various times between June 26 and July 6, 1874.

Croix County. The complaint alleges that on the 6th of November, 1872, plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants to cut and deliver, rafted in strings, all the saw logs he should cut during tbe ensuing winter, at prices fixed by said contract, and to have said logs rafted by tbe first day of June, ensuing; tbat be duly performed all tbe agreements to be by Mm performed, by tbe terms of said contract, and bad rafted, and ready for delivery on said day, all said…

Action for damages for injury to tbe' plaintiff’s person, caused by a defective highway.