Volume 5 — Wisconsin Reports

The bill in this case was filed to obtain possession of certain, property, viz : two steam engines,, and tbeir appurtenances, and to subject them to foreclosure and sale… Held: that the engine which propelled a steam mill was a part of the building. In Nolle vs. Bosworth (19 Pick. 314), where the owner of land set up three dye kettles in a brick work, the court held, that they passed with the land by deed, even where there was a parol agreement that they should not pass.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, to recover possession of a quantity or stock of goods and merchandise, of the alleged value of some five thousand dollars.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced by declaration, in tbe Green Circuit Court, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error. The declaration contained the common counts with copy of note and rule to plead, and was served upon John W. Stewart, Nelson Merrill and George E. Dexter, on the 8th. and 9th of November, 1855. The copy of the note and in-dorsements thereon were as follows: “ $100.

Action of covenant against incumbrances, commenced and tried before a justice of tbe peace, and appealed to the Circuit Court. The declaration counted upon the non-payment of certain taxes, which, as alleged, constituted the breach of the covenant in a deed against incumbrances. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of special matter. The cause was tried at the circuit at the October term, 1855.

Action of trover commenced before a justice of tbe peace of Racine county, by Edwin Andrews, survivor, &c. vs. John Kearney: The plaintiff obtained- judgment for $100 damages and $6.15 costs, and Kearney attempted to appeal. The recognizance was in the sum of $200, and in the usual form, and the principal question raised was upon the sufficiency of the affidavit for appeal, which was as follows: “ State of Wisconsin, Racine county, ss.

This was an action of trespass commenced by warrant, June 18, 1855, on the affidavit of Eoyal Brown, tbe plaintiff below, against Nathan Harrison, defendant below, before O. L. Oat-.man, a justice of the peace of Walworth county. The warrant was served and returned forthwith, by arresting the defendant.

This was an action of trespass on tbe case, brought by the plaintiff in error against tbe defendants in error, to recover damages for injuries done to bis dwelling-bonse, lots and improvements bj cutting down Sycamore street in tbe Eourtb Ward in tbe city of Milwaukee.

This was an action of trespass for breaking down a lamp post of the defendant in error, in the city of Milwaukee. The plea was the general issue with notice of several matters of justification. The action was brought before a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, who appealed to the County Court, where a trial was had at the April term, 1856.

The appeal in this case was from the following order: “ It appearing to the court that the aboye entitled cause is at issue by replication filed, it is therefore, on motion of J. Downer, complainant’s solicitor, ordered by the court, that either party may take testimony before the court commissioner of Milwaukee county, or in any other way provided by law, on due notice to the other party, at any time within three months from this date, and that at the expiration of that…

This was an action of assumpsit for 360 bbls. of salt, sold bj ¡¡be plaintiffs to the defendant in November, 1861, and shipped at Buffalo, N. Y., on the schooner Juniatta Patton, to him at Milwaukee. Declaration, common counts, with bill of particulars. Plea, general issue.

This was a bill filed bj tbe appellant to foreclose a mortgage executed by the appellee to tbe appellant. The mortgage and note which it was given to secure, were dated the 20th December, 1852, payable two years after date, with interest at the rate of twelve per cent., payable semi-annually. In the mortgage was a covenant, that in case of foreclosure by reason of the default of the mortgagor, he would pay the sum of fifty dollars solicitor’s fees.

This purported to be an appeal from a final decree of tbe Circuit Court of Marquette county, dismissing tbe complainant’s bill of complaint. The cause was submitted by tbe appellant on printed case and brief, made upon the supposition that such final decree bad been made and filed, but upon examination of tbe record, none could be found. Tbe appeal was therefore dismissed. The orders of tbe court below, referring to tbe case, are stated in tbe opinion.

The bill in this case was filed by Mary Ooulson and others claiming to be heirs at law of one George Ooulson deceased, to set aside a sale of land made by the administrator of the estate of the said George, to the said John Ooulson.

<p>On appeal from a final decree in a cause heard on the pleadings and proofs, the printed case must contain the evidence, or a fair abstract thereof} or the appeal will he dismissed.</p>

This was an. action of replevin, commenced and tried in the La Crosse Circuit Court, for a quantity of lumber of tbe value of $500.

This was an action commenced under the statute providing for the collection of demands against boats and vesssels navigating the waters of this state, as provided by chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes.

The facts of this case, made apparent from the pleadings and testimony taken and had in the cause, are as follows: On the 22d of February, 1845, Silas and Theresa Walsworth were married. On the 14th day of December, 1846, the lands in controversy were entered in the land office at Green Bay, in the joint names of the husband and wife, with money the separate property and estate .of. the wife.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, commenced by service of declaration and rule to plead. The declaration was filed October 9, 1851.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by filing a declaration, entering a rule to plead, &e. The declaration was upon a promissory note, and was duly served with the usual rule to plead. Plea, general issue.

<p>This was a proceeding under tbe mill dam act of 1840. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Action of assumpsit commenced before a justice of tbe peace, by tbe plaintiff in error against tbe defendant in error. Tbe plaintiff filed a written declaration containing two special counts, tbe first concluding witb an ad damnum to tbe amount of one hundred dollars, and tbe second, also, witb an ad damnum to tbe amount of seventy-fire dollars.

Bill to redeem. The bill alleges that the complainant Brayton, is administrator on the estate of George Sawin, deceased, late of Watertown, in said county of Jefferson.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a certain contract for the delivery of wheat.

ACTION of assumpsit, commenced by tbe defendant in error against tbe plaintiffs in error, by service of declaration and rule, under tbe statute. Tbe declaration was in the common counts, against tbe maker and indorser of tbe note, with a copy of tbe note and indorsement thereon, and served with tbe declaration.

At the annual session of the board of supervisors of Jefferson county, state of Wisconsin, held in November, A. D. 1853, the following account was presented to said board by Walter PL Besley, the defendant in error, for their allowance, to wit: County of Jefferson, to Walter H. Besley, Dr. 1853. November 18th.

JUDGMENT was entered in vacation, upon a promissory note and warrant of attorney.

This was an action of assumpsit tried before a justice of the peace where judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, the present plaintiff in error, for costs; whereupon the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, where, on motion, the action was dismissed for alleged irregularity in taking the appeal. The opinion of the court contains a full statement of the facts in the case.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced by tbe defendant in error against tbe plaintiff in error by tbe service of declaration and rule. Tbe declaration was for work and labor, and tbe money counts. Plea, general issue, witb notice of special matter. Tbe cause was tried at tbe November term, á.. D. 1855, by tbe court, a jury baying been waived, by tbe parties.

ON tbe lltb day of June, A. D. 1855, tbe appellants, Henry Williams, James Bonnell, Edward H. Goodrich, Samuel L. Strong, Caleb B. Orapo and George C. Russell, filed tbeir bill of complaint in tbe Circuit Court of Dane county, to foreclose a certain mortgage executed by Frederick A. J. Starr and wife, to them, as security for tbe payment of certain promissory notes which they held against Starr.

Action of trespass de bonis, brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in errror, before A. B. Brayley, Esq., a justice of the peace of said county, for taking and driving away a cow. The justice found McPyncheon not guilty, and rendered a judgment against Bremer for forty dollars and costs of suit. Bre-mer took an appeal to the Circuit Court.

DemubbeR to a bill of complaint on tbe ground that the bill was illegible. The demurrer was sustained, the bill dismissed, and the complainant appealed.

ON tbe 31st day of August, A. D. 1854, Pergamus G. Ames filed his bill of foreclosure against the defendants, Ira L. Ames and wife, setting forth that on the 6th day of March, 1849, Ira L. Ames, of the town of Oregon, in the county of Dane, made his promissory note to Nathaniel Ames, of said county, and thereby, for value received, promised to pay said Nathaniel Ames, or order, $130.75, in four installments, one quarter at the end of one year, and one quarter to be paid at…

Bill of foreclosure of a mortgage given. by tlie defendants to Nathaniel Ames to secure the payment of a promissory note for $184.94, on or before the 3d day of March, 1856, with lawful interest annually, dated March 3, 1851. The bill was filed August 31st, 1854, and alleged that the mortgage had been duly assigned to the complainant, and that the whole sum, $184.94, was due and unpaid, and prayed a decree of the amount due, and sale of the mortgaged premises.

Bill of foreclosure filed by the Madison, Watertown and Milwaukee Plank Road Company against the Watertown and Portland Plank Road Company, of a certain mortgage given by the defendants to the complainants to secure the payment of certain evidences of debt given by the former to the latter. The case Aras heard upon the bill and plea covering the whole ease made by the bill.

This was a motion to vacate an order made herein by Justice Smith, at chambers, staying the final hearing of said cause until the appeal taken by the defendants, from an order of the Circuit Court denying a motion for a feigned issue, should be heard'and determined in the Supreme Court. At the August term, 1856, the defendants moved the court below for a feigned issue, which was denied. Erom the order denying this motion the defendants appealed.

ACTION of assumpsit by tbe defendants in error against tbe plaintiff in error. Declaration in tbe common counts for goods sold, work and labor, &c., with bill of particulars, amounting to $108.01. Plea, general issue.. Tbe cause was tried at tbe May term, 1856, by a jury, wbo found a verdict for tbe plaintiffs below.

This was a common law certiorari issued to a justice of tbe peace of Dane county. Tbe opinion of the court discloses sufficiently tbe case.

This is an appeal in equity from a decree of tbe Circuit Court of Columbia county. The bill was filed by Spear, tbe complainant, to- foreclose a mortgage given by tbe -defendants to tbe complainant on tbe 18th day of October, A. D. 1852, to secure tbe payment of $700, upon certain lands in tbe bill described,'together with interest at tbe rate of twelve per cent, per annum. The bill was in tbe usual form, and was filed tbe 16th day of August, 1854.

<p>ERROR TO DANE CIRCUIT COURT.</p> <p>A default cannot be entered against two defendants after-one of them has pleaded. A default so entered is irregular against the defendant pleading.</p> <p>If a party plead before default entered, though out of time, or without leave, if the plea he good in substance and form, his default cannot be entered while the plea stands. The proper practice in such case is, to move to strike the plea from the files.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by declaration, by tbe plaintiff in error, against tbe defendant in error, in tbe Dane county Circuit Court, to recover two thousand dollars for services rendered by the plaintiff for tbe defendant.

= This was a bill brought for tbe specific performance of a contract for tbe sale of real estate, by tbe vendees against tbe vendors.

This was an action of replevin brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, in the Brown county Circuit Court for the recovery of a stock of goods, taken by said Graves as sheriff of Brown county, and, upon change of venue, tried in the county of Pond du Lac.

On the 19th of January, 1854, in a certain cause then pending in and before the Supreme Court, between Herman C. Geisse et al., complainants, and Samuel W. Beall et als., defendants, a decree was rendered by said court, finding and decreeing, among other things, that the said “ Samuel W. Beall, the trustee named in the deed of assignment set forth in the complainant’s bill, had been guilty of improvident management, and fraudulent appropriation of the trust property and…

This was an appeal taken in the preceding case, and from tbe same order therein set forth, by John C. Truesdell, one of the defendants.

The appellees, complainants, filed tbeir bill in tbe court below for tbe foreclosure of a certain mortgage made by tbe appellant to tbe said Charles H. Silkman, as committee and guardian of Uriah H. Person, a lunatic; exhibiting with said bill, tbe bond which said mortgage was given to secure, which was for the sum of eleven thousand and fifty dollars, the same being for purchase money of the mortgaged premises, which had been sold by said Silkman, guardian, &c., to said…

The bill in this case was filed March 11, 1852, in the Wal* worth Circuit Court, to foreclose a mortgage executed to the complainant by Pbilo Clarke, one of the defendants, on certain lands in Walworth county. The appellant Stone was made defendant in the bill, but was not served with process, being a nonresident of the state.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced in tbe Rock Circuit Court, by tbe plaintiff in error against tbe defendants'in error, upon a promissory note, executed by tbe latter, and payable to Hannab M. Wooster, tbe wife of the plaintiff in error, or bearer.

<p>ERROR TO ROOK CIRCUIT COURT</p> <p>"WTiefe suit is commenced by filing a declaration- and service of s a copy, the service . -'of the copy and notice to plead, is regarded as the process to bring the defendant into court.</p> <p>Error or mistake in process or a copy thereof; is not cause of demurrer.</p> <p>When suit is commenced by filing declaration and service of copy and' notice of rule to plead; the declaration, being upon promissory note, a copy.of which was an- -• .nexed, but in the copy served the date of the note was omitted, and the defend- . ant appeared and demurred; Held, that as the declaration and copy of note filed were correct, and showed a good cause of action, the demurrer should be overruled.</p> <p>The demurrer in such case is to the declaration on file, not to the copy served.</p> <p>■ Demurrer does not lie to process.</p>

Bill for specific performance, commenced in tbe Rock Circuit Court by tbe appellant against tbe appellee, to compel tbe specific performance of a contract for tbe sale and conveyance of land situated in tbe county of Rock, in tbis state.. ■ Tbe defendant, appellee, at tbe time tbe suit was commenced, resided in Brown county, in tbis state.

ACTION of assumpsit brought by tbe plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser for certain lands of the defendant in the city of Milwaukee. The declaration was in the common counts, with a bill of particulars, stating the plaintiff’s demand as three per cent, upon the amount of the purchase money. Plea, non assumpsit. The trial was by the court, a jury having been waived by the parties.

Bill of foreclosure. Tbe original bill was amended, and the amended bill filed on the 10th day of May, 1855, to foreclose a mortgage for default in payment of interest secured thereby.

This was a motion made by tbe complainant, to reverse tbe decree rendered in bis favor in tbe court below, and from wbi'cb tbe defendant bad appealed. It is sufficient to say, in tbe statement of tbe case, that tbe interest of tbe plaintiff in tbe subject matter of tbe suit, bad, as was supposed, been transferred or assigned, and tbe assignee bad prosecuted tbe matter in tbe name of tbe assignor, for bis use, in tbe same manner as in cases at law.

This was assumpsit for rent, for the use of certain premises described in the declaration. The declaration contained many counts, founded upon' a contract by which the defendant was charged to have agreed to pay twelve shillings per week rent for said premises.

This was an indictment for nuisance in keeping up and maintaining a mill dam in the county of Rock, in which it is charged that, by means of said dam, the waters of Rock River were set back and caused to flow upon the lands around Koshkonong Lake, in the county of Jefferson, causing sickness and overflowing highways. The indictment was found in the county of Jefferson, and was tried, upon change of venue, in Waukesha county.

This was an. information in the nature of a quo warranto, charging that the said Elderkin, without any legal warrant, grant or right… Held: used, exercised and enjoyed the office of district attor ney, and still held, used, exercised and enjoyed the same : and charging usurpation, intrusion, &c.: that a general election was held in the several towns of said county of Walworth, for the election, among other .officers, of district attorney of said county, on the Tuesday…

ON tbe 14th day of May, 1856, James H. Knowlton, the relator, in propria persona, filed in this court a motion for an alternative mandamus directed to John K. Williams, the respondent, commanding him to hold his office of clerk of the Circuit Court, in and for the county of La Payette, at the village of Shulls-Teurg, in said county, the county seat thereof, “ or show cause why he doth not do so,” on a day to be designated by the court; which motion was supported by the…

. This suit was commenced in tbe Waukesba Circuit Court, in the name of the state of-Wisconsin, against the defendant in error, by summons in a plea of debt. .--.The declaration, was .by William S. Hawkins, attorney and agent, against the defendant, that he, render unto the state of Wisconsin, the:sum of five hundred dollars, lawful money, &c., which he owes to, and unjustly .detains from-the school funds, of ■the state of-Wisconsin. . .

At the September term, 1855, of the Milwaukee Circuit Court, the defendaht, with one Mathias Stein, was indicted for the murder of John L. Prevo, to which they severally pleaded not guilty, and were put upon their trial; whereupon Stein was convicted of murder in the second degree, and Schumaker of manslaughter in the first degree.

This was an indictment for selling spirituous liquors found and presented in tbe circuit of Walworth county.

This was a motion for a peremptory mandamus to be directed to tbe judge of tbe ninth judicial circuit, or ratber to tbe Circuit Court of Columbia county, commanding said 'court to make an order, to be directed to tbe proper officer, for tbe issuing of a certificate of purchase of certain lands therein described.

The relation in this case set forth, that the relator, Charles George Mayers was a resident of Madison, in Dane county, in this state, and alleged, that by the laws of the state he was entitled to a patent for a certain tract of land (describing specifically the same), situate, lying and being in the county of La Crosse, and being part of the 500,000 acre tract, reference being had to the certificate of the commissioners, issued to the relator, which certificate was in words…

The appellee and complainant below, filed a bill of foreclosure in tbe Circuit Court of Milwaukee county, on a note given, by defendants, Ebenezer B. Nelson and William Nelson, and on a mortgage executed by tbe Nelsons, on tbe thirteenth day of June, 1855,' and- a- subpoena was1 issued- returnable on - the twenty-seventh day of June, 1855.

This was a motion to restore the record to the condition in which it was prior to an amendment thereof made by the clerk. The facts and circumstances are'fully detailed in the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin brought by tbe plaintiff in error, as late sheriff of Racine county, against the defendants in error. The writ was issued on the 23d day of February, and made returnable the third Monday-of March, 1855. On the 29th day of February, James 0.

This was a bill in equity brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county,-upon the following stated facts, viz: The defendant Genung, was possessed of a farm in said coun-1y, which he was in the habit of renting on shares, and so proposed to complainant to reffl-it to him, reserving the right to sell, the premises in the meantime. And a yerbal letting took place, under which complainant went into possession of all of said farm, except one field, then in winter wheat.

The defendant in error brought an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, for work done upon certain sections of the La Crosse and Milwaukee- Railroad, then being in the course of construction. The amended declaration of the plaintiff below appears to have contained two special counts and also the usual common counts. The second count of the declaration was demurred to by defendants, and the demurrer sustained by the court below.

This case was an action of covenant against incumbrances, originally brought before a justice of tbe peace, by tbe plaintiff in error against tbe defendant in error, and appealed to tbe Circuit Court. At tbe October term, A. D. 1855, tbe plaintiff obtained judgment, wbicb was reversed on error at tbe last June term of tbis court, and tbe cause was remanded for further proceedings.

This was an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court, denying the motion of the defendants for a feigned issue for the trial of facts.

The bill in this case set forth, that some time in the summer and autumn of 1850, the complainant and defendant agreed to form a partnership in the lumbering business on the bank of Wolf Eiver in this state; that the defendant was to furnish a certain amount of supplies, and the complainant was to furnish his own labor and an ox team, and were to share gain and loss in proportion to the value of labor and supplies each put into the business; and alleges that the amount of…

This was a bill in equity filed in tbe Circuit Court of Winnebago connty, for tbe purpose of setting aside a deed alleged to bave been fraudulently procured, and to redeem certain land from an equitable lien for tbe purchase money, and for other relief. Tbe allegations of tbe bill and answer are fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.. Tbe complainant waived answer under oath.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff in error against tbe defendants in error for the taking and carrying away from tbe possession of tbe plaintiff a stock of dry goods and groceries, to bis damage $20,000.

This was an appeal from tlie decision of the board of super visors of Washington county, disallowing an account of the plaintiff, taken to the Circuit Court.

<p>EBBOB TO WASHnrSTOBr OXEOUIT 00ÜRT.</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Marquette county.

This was a petition for divorce from the bond of matrimony. The pleadings, evidence, and the decree of the court below, are succinctly stated in the opinion of the court: made the following points: 1. “ Upon application for divorce, where both parties are found guilty of any of the enumerated offences for which a decree may be granted, the court should dismiss the bill.” Nagle vs. Nagle, 12 Missouri B. 53. “ In a suit brought by a husband against his wife for divorce on the…

The plaintiff below filed Ms complaint under the provisions of chapter 116, Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, commonly known as the “boat and vessel act,” setting forth among other things, that on or about the 10th of October, 1853, the plaintiff, shipped on the steamboat Sultana, then in Buffalo, in the state of New York, certain goods therein described; that-the steamboat was then and there used and occupied in the business of common carriers to and from the city of Buffalo,…

This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, in the Circuit Court of Rock county.

These two cases were of the same nature ; the plaintiffs being sons of the defendant, and severally suing to recover for services rendered their father, after arriving at the age of majority, and while continuing to reside with him. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

•The plaintiff in error-brought ejectment against the defendant in error, for a part of the southeast fractional quarter of fractional section-.35, town L north, of range 12 east, particularly described in the declaration. Issue was joined, which was tried by a jury,- with-a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brought error.

The bill was filed originally against Frederick-Diener, jr.; sole defendant, to procure tbe release from bim of certain claims of title… Held: and it was concluded the best way would be to get some one to go there and alter it; this conclusion was communicated to complainant, and he appeared to be satisfied; after we got home a conversation was held between Mr. Bade, complainant, Captain George and Mr. Cole, of Burlington, in relation to Cole’s going to Elkhorn and making…

This -was an. appeal from a final decree, based upon tbe finding of tbe jury as returned to tbe court, in tbe preceding case, and was in conformity witb tbe prayer of tbe bill, and as tbe statement of facts is tbe same as in tbe preceding case, it is unnecessary to repeat them bere.

The defendant was indicted at tbe April term, A. D. 1851, of tbe Dane Circuit Court.

The complainants filed in the court below, on the 11th June, 1855, against the said defendants, their bill, for the foreclosure of a mortgage alleged to have been executed by the said Starr and wife to said complainants, bearing date on the 9 th day of April, 1855, securing four certain promissory notes, in said bill described as payable one day after date, and executed by the said defendant, E. J. A. Starr, to ' said complainants, the' -mortgaged premises containing about…

The importance of tbe questions involved in this case justifies a fall statement of tbe pleadings and evidence therein.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OZAUKEE COUNTY.</p> <p>An indictment may be" found and sustained, against a sheriff or constable for wil-fully and-corruptly making a false return to process which it was his duty to execute.</p> <p>In an indictment against an executive officer for making a false return to process which it became his duty to serve and return, it is not sufficient to aver that he falsely returned, etc., but it must be alleged wherein the return was false.</p> <p>In an indictment of a ministerial officer for making a false return to process which it became his duty to serve, it is necessary to set out the return actually made, and to aver directly, affirmatively and positively the facts which negative the return.</p> <p>It is indispensable in an indictment of a ministerial officer for a false return to process, not only to aver that the return was false, but wherein it was false, and the return must be negatived by direct allegations of the truth and the fact, traversing the false return charged.</p>

. The complainant entered into a -written contract with the defendant for the sale of a certain tract of land. A part of the purchase money was paid down, the remainder to be paid in installments, and when fully paid, a conveyance of the title in fee simple to be made.

This was an action of covenant commenced in tbe County Court of Milwaukee county, to recover damages for breaches of covenants contained in a certain indenture of lease, bearing date the 23d day of January, A. D. 1846, made and executed by Ira Couch, of the first part, and Dexter Taft and William H. Spurr, of the second part, as modified by a certain supplemental agreement, made by the same parties, and bearing date the 17th day of February, A. D. 1846.

The Mil in this case was filed July 29th, 1853, to foreclose a mortgage executed the 30th day of September, A. D. 1845, by Reuben M. Doty and Harriet his wife, to Robert H. Rowen, which mortgage was subsequently assigned to the complainant. On the 6th day of February, A. D. 1851, the said Doty and wife mortgaged the said premises to William Nelson, one of the above named defendants. All o&the other defendants are subsequent, incumbrancers to Nelson.

Almira Ellsworth, late of tbe county of Milwaukee, wife of Orlando Ellsworth, died on the fifteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, intestate, leaving about $650 in bonds and mortgages, which were invested in her own name. Her husband, Orlando Ellsworth, applied for and obtained letters of administration on her estate. The facts as proved and admitted, were as follows: Orlando and Almira Ellsworth were married on the 2d day of November, 1841.